Weird socially accepted idea...

<p>Jason, I just don’t understand how you’ve become so hypersensitive to women’s issues. What’s the deal? </p>

<p>There is sooo much more said regarding race and sexuality with the political correctness thing. Shoot, even religion is a much more frequent topic of discussion.</p>

<p>Also, regarding some of your past posts, when posing the question of which sex has it harder I’m sure the majority of people will say that they believe their sex does. Why? Because that’s what they know. I know all about the things I have to deal with that guys don’t…but I probably only really know half of the things that really affect guys in their everyday lives. Same thing for the reversed statement, I’m sure.</p>

<p>This argument and ones like it are dumb as hell. I am going to explain why women get paid less, and it doesn’t have jack to do with whether you’ve got a dick or a ****.</p>

<p>Anybody with half a damn brain cell knows the economy governs itself 99.9% of the time in search for balance…well guess what? business looks for that same equilibrium. When business sees that an employee is putting in more hours and thus being more productive (and don’t even think about that moronic “women are more efficient” crap), business pays that person more in an effort to motivate him/her to keep up the work because the more that employee works, the more money he makes the company. If the person does really good work then it gets promoted, again, as a reward for productivity (or whatever a field’s equivalent to “productivity” is). </p>

<p>What business doesn’t do (and why it survives by the way)? Sit around looking for reasons to pay X employee more money than X employee worked for (you know, because X just had that terrible time…boohoo). This is a capitalistic economy, and businesses aren’t out there to cater to every employee X’s excuse for not being able to work as much as employee Y. Business doesn’t care about its employees any more than it has to to keep them productive. Businesses are out there to make PROFIT. You don’t work as much. You don’t get paid as much. That’s that. It doesn’t matter what the hell you have downstairs.</p>

<p>Women complain about this like its “just those dirty chauvinists” (I love hearing people use that word because they just sound stupid…spewing thoughtless rhetoric) trying to keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen while stomping their free womanhood. Men don’t control squat. There isn’t some damn giant set of testicals overseeing American big business; Greed (whether you like it or not) is what drives companies…trying to reduce expenditures and maximize profit through every link in the chain. It is simply a law of business that those who are more productive are motivated (paid) to keep up that productivity because it generates more wealth for business. In the arena of office work men just happen to work more and that’s why they get “motivated” (paid) more; there’s no massive conspiracy to keep women down and the logic that there is is entirely circular. If men ruled business and didn’t want women in it, then women WOULDN’T be in it. But since we know that women are out in the work force, we can then conclude that men are NOT in control of it. If men are not in control of it and women are not in control of it…THEN NOBODY’S IN CONTROL OF IT. It balances itself WITHOUT BIAS. If one is PAID less in business then its because one EARNED less. Get over it.</p>

<p>That is an idiotic hypothetical. It’s like saying (hypothetically) “if there is gold at the end of every rainbow then why DON’T we go and look for it?” and expecting a legitimate, realworld answer to combat it. With your hypothetical you have invented this perfect fairy-tale argument for your cause, except the problem is it isn’t realistic. The fact is there isn’t gold at the end of every rainbow and women don’t work more efficiently in the workplace than do men.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually…efficiency isn’t such a horrible argument. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/resources/management/leadership_training/do_women_make_better_managers.mspx[/url]”>http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/resources/management/leadership_training/do_women_make_better_managers.mspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is just one article, I know, but it’s something to sort of back up the idea that jadex has.</p>

<p>::edit::</p>

<p>…please pay close attention to the ‘sort of’ part of this post before jumping on how the article is about management styles and not specifically productivity.</p>

<p>“Turns out, girls can do it better.”</p>

<p>That’s the sort of unbiased conclusion I would like to see at the end of any proofless feminist-authored article.</p>

<p>And she is a self-proclaimed feminist…look her up</p>

<p>Oh my god! She’s a self-proclaimed feminist? How DARE she think women and men should have legal and social equality.</p>

<p>I’ve heard the argument that women are more efficient than men and I believe it had something to do with the fact that many women are trying to get things done because they want to get home since it’s still common for working women to have families. Women may or may not be inherently more efficient, it’s mostly social factors that make it this way. Perhaps it’s the fact that women start out having to prove themselves, it also probably has something to do with the fact that many of them have families.</p>

<p>There’s quite a lot of evidence that women are a) better at multitasking than men and b) less likely likely to toot their own horn, being under the impression that their merit will be recognized. </p>

<p>As anyone who has had a professional job knows, raises and promotions come at least as much from networking/playing politics as they do from merit. And if the organization is run by an old boys club, then the young old boys are the ones who are going up the ladder, even when they’re less qualified than the women.</p>

<p>Yes. I think we can all agree that the “old boys’ club” is on its way out.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>magicmonkey, obviously you <em>can’t</em> read closely - and there’s no use combating what a person can’t see. I did NOT say that it is a fact that <em>all</em> women work more efficently than men; what I DID say was that IF a woman works just as OR more efficently than a man (which <em>does</em> happen in cases) - if she is just as productive and gets just as many things done and contributes just as much {in less work-hours} as a man, all things equal - why should she be paid less (unless the job is a set hourly rate), or not be considered for a raise? </p>

<p>What is an “idiotic hypothetical”? Hypotheses are only guesses as to expected conclusions based on observations and past knowledge - hypotheses in and of themselves are <em>neither</em> right nor wrong. That particular point that I have made is neither idiotic nor entirely unreasonable. </p>

<p>I am not being idealistic - from the way you have jumped to (wrong) conclusions, you assume I don’t live in the “real world”. I’m human, and I do live on this planet. But just because something is the way it is doesn’t make it right or reasonable.</p>

<p>I didn’t mean for this to turn into yet another debate about the wage gap. I was only using an example. </p>

<p>I don’t think women are perpetually ****ed off, but I think society tries to make sure they never are…and that, in my opinion, gives women a lot of leeway to complain and fuss about everything, no matter how minor it may be, that bothers them. </p>

<p>It might sound like I’m full of crap here, and maybe I am. What I’m trying to say is hard to pinpoint. But I know that we tolerate a lot from women that we wouldn’t dream of tolerating from men. There is so much that is accepted female behavior than what is accepted male behavior.</p>

<p>Who/what is “society”</p>

<p>What do we tolerate “from women”?</p>

<p>Stop the vagueness!</p>

<p>“gives women a lot of leeway to complain and fuss about everything, no matter how minor it may be, that bothers them.”</p>

<p>Uh, maybe because women have a lot more legitimate things to compain about? If you were paid 77 cents for every dollar a man made, you would be ****ed off too. This is for doing the SAME JOB with the SAME AMOUNT OF HOURS. So same amount of productivity, but less pay, and you say women shouldn’t complain about it?</p>

<p>There’s other things women cain legitimately complain about as well but that one is the most important (to me).</p>

<p>“Who/what is ‘society’”</p>

<p>Ugh, please stop with these questions. This isn’t some college comp. class. He’s talking about what he reads in the news, what he experiences everyday - people. </p>

<p>Good topic. One has to love the battle of the sexes…</p>

<p>There are some general differences in the way females handle issues compared to males…I can agree with that. Just as an outsider looking in, women tend to be far more catty and prone to hold grudges while guys usually duke it out and get over it or just push that person out of their life to eliminate the annoyance.</p>

<p>But…in private, I really don’t think guys complain much less than girls.</p>

<p>“But…in private, I really don’t think guys complain much less than girls.”</p>

<p>I agree completely. Most of my friends are guys and I’ll tell you one thing, they complain just as much if not more than girls. They’re also just as catty and two faced as girls.</p>

<p>Here’s an article on the NY Times dealing with women and computer science field. What I don’t get is why people feel the need for there to be a status quo for everything. Not everything has to be spread out evenly between people of different backgrounds, genders, beliefs, etc.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17comp.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=education&pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17comp.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=education&pagewanted=print&lt;/a&gt;

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18262058/?GT1=9246[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18262058/?GT1=9246&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow…</p>

<p>and there’s still people like Jason claiming that men get the short end of the stick.</p>

<p>I’m all for gender equality (and racial equality, and equality on the basis of sexual orientation, disability, etc etc). However, equality should be just that, EQUALITY, not reverse discrimination. That is, unfortunately, what the real problem with the current “politically correct” system is and what I think the OP was trying to allude to. What I mean is, in our current system, it’s OK to punish men for a particularly transgression, but punishing women for a particular transgression is shied away from for fear of being labeled sexist. Now, true sexism is a terrible and ugly thing and should be done away with. However, and I’m sorry, but if a transgression is a transgression, then it is a transgression no matter who commits it, whether that person has no **<strong><em>, one *</em></strong><em>, or 40 *</em>***es and halos on each one. I submit that our current “equality” is not true equality but a system of double standards. To illustrate my point using an example from my personal experience (names have been slightly altered to protect the moronic):</p>

<p>Let’s say we have a hypothetical fraternity that we’ll call Z Pitchfork. Now, 5 years ago Z Pitchfork got in trouble because an individual wrote an article in a satirical, in-house (it was not intended to be nor was it in fact circulated publicly) newsletter demeaning a particular woman. Now this was certainly a very bad and inexcusable thing to do. It wasn’t particularly funny, it was very disrespectful to the woman in question, and it can be considered a form of sexual harassment. Certainly some sort of punishment would have been absolutely, 100% justified. However, the punishment meted out by the dean of residential life did not fit the crime. The punishment was permanent de-recognition - the house must close, no member would be allowed to live there, and the fraternity would never receive an opportunity to attempt to return to campus. Now, as you can imagine the brothers of Z Pitchfork didn’t particular appreciate this. They appealed the decision, which, in a highly democratic manner, was heard by the same dean who issued it in the first place (the appeal was rejected). The brothers of Z Pitchfork decided to basically ignore the decision and continue running and living in the house, throwing parties (no longer bound by the rules of the college, by the way, as it was no longer a part of the college), and recruiting new members. To make a long story short, in 2006, the aforementioned dean, pressured by a large amount of angry (and very conservative) alumni whom I must admit I don’t particularly like either, threw in the towel and agreed to re-recognize Z Pitchfork. Now, the original infraction occured in 2001 - meaning that the youngest members of the fraternity were in the Class of '04. Now, in the fall of 2006, the OLDEST members of the fraternity were the Class of '07. Everybody who had been involved in the original incident was long gone from the house. Nevertheless, the dean insisted on a two year dark period to flush out all the current members of the house. Basically, the house would be closed, shut down, “dark” until fall of 2009 - coincidentally, the year after the youngest members of the house, the '09s, will have graduated.</p>

<p>Now, in the fall of 2006 something else happened. A particular sorority was involved in an unpleasant incident. We’ll call this sorority Kappa Kappa G. No, wait, that’s too obvious - how about K K Gamma. Anyway, this sorority held a pledge event at a bowling alley where they served a bit too much alcohol, and several sisters and pledges ended up in the hospital getting their stomachs pumped. A couple of interesting things to keep in mind. This hypothetical college at which all of this happened has a “no-alcohol-at-pledge-events” policy. Furthermore, being a national sorority, K K Gamma is supposed to be completely dry. Furthermore, this apparently violated state hazing laws. Furthermore, K K Gamma was already on probation for previous alcohol violations. The same dean who ruled on Z Pitchfork presided over K K Gamma’s hearing. You would expect someone who ruled as harshly as he did about what was essentially a bad joke to really drop the hammer on a social organization that violated numerous alcohol and hazing policies. The dean’s decision was to give K K Gamma MORE PROBATION. That’s right - the punishment for an on-probation Greek house that isn’t supposed to have alcohol or throw parties is that they get put on probation, can’t have alcohol, or throw parties. This is the punishment for alcohol violations at a school which has spent the better part of the past decade trying to live down its Animal House rep and prove to the world and prospective applicants that it is all about eliminating excessive alcohol consumption from the campus. Brilliant!</p>

<p>Now as you may have guessed this was unfortunately not just a hypothetical situation. I was legitimately curious as to why the aforementioned dean came down so hard on Z Pitchfork and relatively lightly for what I personally would consider a worse violation (feel free to disagree with me). The responses I got were basically, “Dude, it’s a sorority. The college is already in trouble because there are less sororities on campus than fraternities. There’s no way they could give them a serious punishment.”</p>

<p>Conclusion: The perpetrators of both incidents were equally dumb. In both cases they did extremely stupid and extremely harmful things. So why the discrepancy in punishment? It seems that the only reason is that in the first case it was a group of guys and in the second case it was a group of girls. The college, of course, isn’t interested in upholding TRUE equality or an objective standard that applies to everyone, whether they are a guy or a girl, white, black, turquoise or green with orange polka dots, from Arizona or Jupiter. The only things they seem to be interested in upholding is their PR and their bottom line. Now as I said at the beginning, I am 100% behind equal rights, equal treatment for everyone. I am a religious minority (and was born a different religious minority) and also originally an immigrant to this country, so I probably know a little something about this and am not just talking out of my ass. I personally think that the greatest right you can give someone is to treat them the same as you would if they were in the “majority,” without somehow “separating” them because they are different in some way. Equal treatment is not the same as special treatment, and I’m sorry if you think otherwise. So you tell me, is this equality or a farce?</p>

<p>Hmm…</p>

<p>apparently we are all in kindergarten and the word for the male reproductive organ is censored (but “ass” isn’t).</p>