5 ms·

"Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be produc

"Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive. In this situation companies have no particular opinion about women - they only want employees who will remain productive. Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias. Could you explain what definition you are using for "sexism" in your comment?

fleitz 12y ago
Taking a year off is not a big deal. Also, I've quit places which leaves them without my services for a lot a lot longer with significantly shorter notice. No one ever questions my ability to get the job done despite having kids. I also find my children quite a lot more important than work. I have my children for life, I might have a job for 5 years tops. If you don't have kids why would you even give a shit about climbing the corporate ladder? There's a lot more entertaining shit in the world to do than sit in a chair with a desk looking at a screen.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  You are responding to the tone/mood affiliation of what I wrote, not the actual content.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Actually I'm not. Sexism isn't a weird term to use when women are discriminated against for having kids, when men are not. I have heard from a former bosses mouth that women are less productive having kids, despite myself and my former boss having had kids and being quite able to deal with having kids and getting shit done. There certainly are women who can't set appropriate boundaries just like there are men who always need to rush off to save their children from some emergency. At one job we joked about starting to coach sports so we could take Friday afternoon off because most Fridays one guy was always gone 'coaching basketball'.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      According to the premises of myhf (the guy I asked the question to), women are discriminated against for being riskier and less productive employees than men. This is because women have special legal privileges that men don't have and will exercise them in order to work less. The phenomenon you are describing is an entirely different one. The phenomenon of viewing a woman who leaves her kids at home more negatively than a man who does the same would in fact fit the definition of sexism I described. It is also completely unrelated to maternity/paternity leave and the rest of this discussion.
pron 12y ago
That is not what sexism means, but what many people, on HN and elsewhere, think it means. Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100% provably biologically justified. The (correct) assumption being that many biases, especially towards women, are so culturally ingrained that people aren't conscious of them. Many if not most cases of sexism lack any conscious malicious intent, and are often even socially acceptable (because most cultures are sexist) .
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The premise of the post by myhf (the one I'm replying to) is that the law and women's choices (not biology) that make women less valuable than men. According to your definition, if this premise is completely correct, it's still sexism. Am I correctly interpreting your views? This idea of "100% provable" is also odd (and an impossible standard of proof, even in pure mathematics).
  - pron 12y ago
    That is correct. The law is sexist, and women's choices often are, too, as they try to meet the biased demands placed on them by a male dominated society. And that's not my view, but the accepted definition of sexism. You should look it up - it's a fascinating topic. As to the standard of proof, that was me trying to simplify things. It's generally safe to assume that any discrimination against a non-dominant group is sexist/racist until proven otherwise. Speaking about choices is also often a cover for racism, as some groups are often nudged - gently or less so - towards making certain choices. Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way, you stop taking certain things for granted, and start examining society in a very interesting way.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      ...should look it [a definition] up - it's a fascinating topic...Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way This is the sign of a rhetorical sleight of hand. Previously, I (and as you noted, "many people, on HN and elsewhere") was using the word "sexism" to refer to a particular object. Now you say you are using the label of "sexism" to refer to a totally different object. There is no reason my opinion of an object should change simply because you've altered the word you use to describe it. The only thing that should change is how we interpret myhf's comment, assuming he defines sexism the same way. Specifically, if he uses "sexism" to refer to the same innocuous object you do, we should conclude that his comment is mostly unfounded. Similarly, if I redefine "murder" to mean "puppy", that shouldn't change your views on criminology. All it should do is cause you to come running, petting hand ready, in the event I scream "murder".

fleitz 12y ago

Taking a year off is not a big deal. Also, I've quit places which leaves them without my services for a lot a lot longer with significantly shorter notice. No one ever questions my ability to get the job done despite having kids. I also find my children quite a lot more important than work. I have my children for life, I might have a job for 5 years tops. If you don't have kids why would you even give a shit about climbing the corporate ladder? There's a lot more entertaining shit in the world to do than sit in a chair with a desk looking at a screen.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
You are responding to the tone/mood affiliation of what I wrote, not the actual content.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Actually I'm not. Sexism isn't a weird term to use when women are discriminated against for having kids, when men are not. I have heard from a former bosses mouth that women are less productive having kids, despite myself and my former boss having had kids and being quite able to deal with having kids and getting shit done. There certainly are women who can't set appropriate boundaries just like there are men who always need to rush off to save their children from some emergency. At one job we joked about starting to coach sports so we could take Friday afternoon off because most Fridays one guy was always gone 'coaching basketball'.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    According to the premises of myhf (the guy I asked the question to), women are discriminated against for being riskier and less productive employees than men. This is because women have special legal privileges that men don't have and will exercise them in order to work less. The phenomenon you are describing is an entirely different one. The phenomenon of viewing a woman who leaves her kids at home more negatively than a man who does the same would in fact fit the definition of sexism I described. It is also completely unrelated to maternity/paternity leave and the rest of this discussion.

pron 12y ago

That is not what sexism means, but what many people, on HN and elsewhere, think it means. Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100% provably biologically justified. The (correct) assumption being that many biases, especially towards women, are so culturally ingrained that people aren't conscious of them. Many if not most cases of sexism lack any conscious malicious intent, and are often even socially acceptable (because most cultures are sexist) .

yummyfajitas 12y ago
The premise of the post by myhf (the one I'm replying to) is that the law and women's choices (not biology) that make women less valuable than men. According to your definition, if this premise is completely correct, it's still sexism. Am I correctly interpreting your views? This idea of "100% provable" is also odd (and an impossible standard of proof, even in pure mathematics).
- pron 12y ago
  That is correct. The law is sexist, and women's choices often are, too, as they try to meet the biased demands placed on them by a male dominated society. And that's not my view, but the accepted definition of sexism. You should look it up - it's a fascinating topic. As to the standard of proof, that was me trying to simplify things. It's generally safe to assume that any discrimination against a non-dominant group is sexist/racist until proven otherwise. Speaking about choices is also often a cover for racism, as some groups are often nudged - gently or less so - towards making certain choices. Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way, you stop taking certain things for granted, and start examining society in a very interesting way.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    ...should look it [a definition] up - it's a fascinating topic...Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way This is the sign of a rhetorical sleight of hand. Previously, I (and as you noted, "many people, on HN and elsewhere") was using the word "sexism" to refer to a particular object. Now you say you are using the label of "sexism" to refer to a totally different object. There is no reason my opinion of an object should change simply because you've altered the word you use to describe it. The only thing that should change is how we interpret myhf's comment, assuming he defines sexism the same way. Specifically, if he uses "sexism" to refer to the same innocuous object you do, we should conclude that his comment is mostly unfounded. Similarly, if I redefine "murder" to mean "puppy", that shouldn't change your views on criminology. All it should do is cause you to come running, petting hand ready, in the event I scream "murder".