If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

That is super interesting--thanks.

Add to that in my experience most women who enter these jobs seem to often be non-white with short-term but higher financial gain goals. For example we get many Maori women on work visas spending a few years on work sites or in the mining industry working their asses off, saving every cent and then using the money to buy a house and then go back to work in something more conducive to female preferences/child rearing.

It's quite common.

See, this is actually what I'm talking about. Women want to work hard, just like men do. And I think that most women also acknowledge the demand to balance work and personal life, and that starting a family is something to consider.

My argument is that before they even get in the door, women are perceived as potential baby-makers, and this contributes to the bar they have to pass in order to get hired. This perception gives rise to a sense that women are less employable and less productive than men. I do believe that if a woman does get pregnant while on the job that companies should try and work with them; but in most cases, I think that women are trying to avoid this as much as their employers might want them to. They just don't want the possibility of future familial obligation to threaten their chances. They want to be seen as rational individuals who can make intelligent choices.

I realize it might seem like it's obvious to treat women this way, but when it comes to employment the filter is thicker.

 

[rms]

I'll do a formal reply later since I'm on my phone but women should be discriminated against for the possibility of being pregnant unless they decide to sign their rights away for that option.

And there is no difference between the personal interests of men and women which is why it's null. But there is a a detrimental personal interest that women can opt for, pregnancy, which is why they are not on a level playing field.

 

[Dak]

There's so much special pleading in recent posts Pat, but first, this needs addressing:

"Perceived" as potential baby makers. There's no "perceived" about it. Using perceived in the place of an incontrovertible is is a common tactic that needs to be called out every time it's used. They are potential baby makers Pat. When they are out for pregnancy/family times (whether in an ideal world they wouldn't have to miss significant work time or not), that's a major inconvenience, to say the least, for the employer. This is a reality employers must deal with.

Now, special pleading: You can't claim "women want to work hard" in blanket fashion but separately note they only want the jobs typically described as cushy and well paying. Color me surprised; wouldn't we all. So women want "equal" access to only the well paying, air conditioned office jobs with the freedom to jump out randomly for indeterminate amount of time with no career penalties. That translates into a massive inequality that has a negative impact on male workers, stay at home mothers and their children, the businesses that employ such women, etc., that far exceeds the inconvenience of the status quo to any particular woman who makes the value decision to step away to start a family.

You're throwing out some seriously unsubstantiated, impractical shoulds, and won't bother to address the is' whenever they don't in some way have something to do with women having their cake and eating it too, which apparently is the definition of equality.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll do a formal reply later since I'm on my phone but women should be discriminated against for the possibility of being pregnant unless they decide to sign their rights away for that option.

Being asked to sign away their rights to start a family so that they can be viewed as complete human beings by potential employers is a form of discrimination. You're just putting it in writing.

You can respond if you want, but I don't think this will go anywhere. I'm not trying to say biology doesn't matter, but if you genuinely think that women shouldn't have the same social opportunities because they can get pregnant, then I really don't think it's worth continuing this.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's so much special pleading in recent posts Pat, but first, this needs addressing:

"Perceived" as potential baby makers. There's no "perceived" about it. Using perceived in the place of an incontrovertible is is a common tactic that needs to be called out every time it's used. They are potential baby makers Pat. When they are out for pregnancy/family times (whether in an ideal world they wouldn't have to miss significant work time or not), that's a major inconvenience, to say the least, for the employer. This is a reality employers must deal with.

Reproduction is context specific. Women are capable of having children biologically, but that doesn't mean that reproduction is part of their professional or even personal goals.

You do this often: exercise a form of biological reductionism that allows you to promote ostensible "facts" about the world, when what you're really doing is making value-judgments based on particular perspectives. You're actually denying women agency by claiming that they don't have the power to make decisions about their own bodies. Color me surprised...

Now, special pleading: You can't claim "women want to work hard" in blanket fashion but separately note they only want the jobs typically described as cushy and well paying. Color me surprised; wouldn't we all. So women want "equal" access to only the well paying, air conditioned office jobs with the freedom to jump out randomly for indeterminate amount of time with no career penalties. That translates into a massive inequality that has a negative impact on male workers, stay at home mothers and their children, the businesses that employee such women, etc. that far exceeds the inconvenience to any particular woman who makes the value decision to step away to start a family.

I didn't say that.

I'm saying that women who want to start families may very well be attracted to jobs that offer them the flexibility and leisure of doing so. As CIG stated, there are women who go into work for which pregnancy is not ideal, only to save money in order to then have families (during which they step back from work).

All I've been trying to say is that pregnancy doesn't constitute some limitation on a woman's ability to make a choice. That's not a "should," that's an "is."

 

[Dak]

Reproduction is context specific. Women are capable of having children biologically, but that doesn't mean that reproduction is part of their professional or even personal goals.

You do this often: exercise a form of biological reductionism that allows you to promote ostensible "facts" about the world, when what you're really doing is making value-judgments based on particular perspectives. You're actually denying women agency by claiming that they don't have the power to make decisions about their own bodies. Color me surprised...

No, that is not what is going on here. I didn't say "all women will have babies" or "all women must have babies". I said they all (excluding the small percentage with medical reasons why they can't) are potential baby makers. As in, they could get pregnant and carry to term. What any individual woman's professional or personal goals are doesn't in anyway eliminate that potentiality. In the same way, all men are potentially able to impregnate women. Any individual man's goals doesn't eliminate this potentiality. It's just that it so happens that impregnating a woman doesn't have the same effect on a man's ability to work as getting pregnant does for a woman.

All I've been trying to say is that pregnancy doesn't constitute some limitation on a woman's ability to make a choice. That's not a "should," that's an "is."

It doesn't? I thought the whole argument was that businesses and/or society should rearrange itself so that pregnancy doesn't place limitations on women's work choices, because currently it does.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, that is not what is going on here. I didn't say "all women will have babies" or "all women must have babies". I said they all (excluding the small percentage with medical reasons why they can't) are potential baby makers. As in, they could get pregnant and carry to term. What any individual woman's professional or personal goals are doesn't in anyway eliminate that potentiality. In the same way, all men are potentially able to impregnate women. Any individual man's goals doesn't eliminate this potentiality. It's just that it so happens that impregnating a woman doesn't have the same effect on a man's ability to work as getting pregnant does for a woman.

An individual's professional or personal goals also don't eliminate the possibility that they might walk into the street and get hit by a car on their first day; but that doesn't mean the potential factors into the hiring decision.

That's an extreme example, but it's to prove a point, which is that perception and context matter as much as potential in this scenario. Adjusting the lens through which employers view women has an effect on how much value they place on potential pregnancy.

It doesn't? I thought the whole argument was that businesses and/or society should rearrange itself so that pregnancy doesn't place limitations on women's work choices, because currently it does.

I've been pretty explicit about what my argument is:

My argument is that before they even get in the door, women are perceived as potential baby-makers, and this contributes to the bar they have to pass in order to get hired. This perception gives rise to a sense that women are less employable and less productive than men. I do believe that if a woman does get pregnant while on the job that companies should try and work with them; but in most cases, I think that women are trying to avoid this as much as their employers might want them to. They just don't want the possibility of future familial obligation to threaten their chances. They want to be seen as rational individuals who can make intelligent choices.

Boiling this down, my argument is that the issue of reproduction and family is used to justify discrimination toward women while the reasons behind this are exaggerated. Women have the capacity to choose when to start a family, just like men do; and just because they happen to be the bearers of children doesn't make them inherently less productive than men. The conflation of women and reproduction makes an absolute out of a contingency; but the truth is that women are able to plan around pregnancy and generally aren't looking to take advantage of their employer by getting pregnant while employed. Women want to work, and they realize the danger that comes with getting pregnant. They simply don't want their capacity to have children interfere with their merits as an employee.

Honestly, making their employment into an issue of potential pregnancy hinges on an assumption that all women will have babies, at some point or another--like it's an automatic function. And maybe some women will; but that possibility in the future does not compromise their current employment, legitimize discrimination against hiring them, and it doesn't mean that women are looking to be treated like princesses.

 

[rms]

I really don't understand this comment.

if the answer to equality for women is remote location working then it opens the door for any eligible employee to apply for said position. If we're thinking rationally, of course

I'm trying to explain that the pure potentiality of pregnancy has created an impression and expectation about women in the workplace that in turn influences how they see and conduct themselves.

like Dak has mentioned, your word choice suggests you think an extremely small minority of women get pregnant.

Being asked to sign away their rights to start a family so that they can be viewed as complete human beings by potential employers is a form of discrimination. You're just putting it in writing.

Already said I would make my choice on a female employee based on their pregnancy interests. don't need to act like you're "busting" me. discriminate suggests I would never hire one, but their answer factors into their decision for me.

I'm not trying to say biology doesn't matter

you are, though. you act as if men and women offer the same problematic scenario for employers

that women shouldn't have the same social opportunities because they can get pregnant

they have the same opportunity in my eyes, it's just a female employee who is actively interested in getting pregnant would be rated lower than one who did not.

 

[Einherjar86]

if the answer to equality for women is remote location working then it opens the door for any eligible employee to apply for said position. If we're thinking rationally, of course

Yes, but I don't understand why that would give men an edge.

like Dak has mentioned, your word choice suggests you think an extremely small minority of women get pregnant.

I don't, I just think that women have the personal agency to treat their job with the same level of respect that they do their bodies.

Already said I would make my choice on a female employee based on their pregnancy interests. don't need to act like you're "busting" me. discriminate suggests I would never hire one, but their answer factors into their decision for me.

they have the same opportunity in my eyes, it's just a female employee who is actively interested in getting pregnant would be rated lower than one who did not.

And I already said that businesses can afford to treat women as rational agents who can balance personal and professional interests.

I don't think forcing them to sign some agreement pertaining to their plans to start a family is a defensible position. Or if we're going to force women to do so, then there's no logic that absolves men from having to sign such an agreement as well, seeing as there's nothing preventing fathers from choosing to stay at home and look after the children.

you are, though. you act as if men and women offer the same problematic scenario for employers

I'm really not, though. You're not treating my words fairly.

 

[rms]

Yes, but I don't understand why that would give men an edge.

who goes to business school more, men or women? West and non-West? This shouldn't be controversial.

I don't, I just think that women have the personal agency to treat their job with the same level of respect that they do their bodies.

jesus christ. comments like this make me think you never actually talk to people. a vast majority of people don't treat their bodies well, that's why we have problems at a macro level.

And I already said that businesses can afford to treat women as rational agents who can balance personal and professional interests.

Afford is now the standard? At least with this word change you're admitting women are a more expensive and risky employee than a men.

I don't think forcing them to sign some agreement pertaining to their plans to start a family is a defensible position. Or if we're going to force women to do so, then there's no logic that absolves men from having to sign such an agreement as well, seeing as there's nothing preventing fathers from choosing to stay at home and look after the children.

agreed, both sexes can sign it. even though the scenarios are not the same, it is a valid request in my eyes from a serious employer. (non-entry etc).

I'm really not, though. You're not treating my words fairly.

your word choice is disingenuous and has been called out several times now.

 

[Einherjar86]

who goes to business school more, men or women? West and non-West? This shouldn't be controversial.

It's not that more women than men are turned away from business school though, just that fewer women apply. You don't think that women who want the kind of jobs we're talking about will go to business school?

jesus christ. comments like this make me think you never actually talk to people. a vast majority of people don't treat their bodies well, that's why we have problems at a macro level.

First of all, "a vast majority" is overselling it. Obesity, smoking, alcoholism, all these are around the 15-30% marker.

Second, women and men who work in office environments, especially urban offices, tend to be on the healthier side.

Third, I guess I just only hang out with healthy people.

Afford is now the standard? At least with this word change you're admitting women are a more expensive and risky employee than a men.

They're not absolutely more expensive, no; but I'm not denying that businesses have to make sacrifices in the cases of pregnant employees. Again, I've never denied that. But it's also true that working women make personal sacrifices for the sake of their professional careers, and for the businesses that employ them. You make it sounds like every working woman is out to exploit her employers.

agreed, both sexes can sign it. even though the scenarios are not the same, it is a valid request in my eyes from a serious employer. (non-entry etc).

This feels pretty Brave New World-ish.

your word choice is disingenuous and has been called out several times now.

"Disingenuous" seems to be the go-to criticism when really people just don't bother to think about my comments.

 

[rms]

It's not that more women than men are turned away from business school though, just that fewer women apply. You don't think that women who want the kind of jobs we're talking about will go to business school?

it doesn't really matter, as to why or why not. The simple fact is there are more men in any field not named nursing or pre k teacher. Opening the labor market up to non-home-country applicants, which is what remote employment does, makes it harder for women. Especially non-Western women.

First of all, "a vast majority" is overselling it. Obesity, smoking, alcoholism, all these are around the 15-30% marker.

40% of adults are JUST obese. To say that only 10% that aren't included in the 40% smoke and/or drink or over caffeinate or partake in illegal drugs shouldn't be that far fetched. I think it's clearly 60-70% for all 3 categories but if not your original statement is still whack.

Second, women and men who work in office environments, especially urban offices, tend to be on the healthier side.

so the fat employers are the ones doing the physically demanding work? I would have to see stats that suggest this.

Third, I guess I just only hang out with healthy people.

goofily skinny white liberals is a pretty common stereotype tbh

They're not absolutely more expensive, no

jesus christ. even if the man becomes the mom-dad or whatever the term is, the woman is still out of work just for basic medical reasons. The man will NEVER be out for medical reasons because of pregnancy. What is going on right now. Women are easily a more expensively employee in at least this scenario!

You make it sounds like every working woman is out to exploit her employers.

It's a two way street, something I would attribute to human nature. It was very confusing to me why so many people were confused/surprised when an NFL owner compared his players/employees to that of prison workers. it's fundamental to my understanding of the business sector and beat into me as soon as I got into the army. "The army will take any and everything it can out of you, might as well do the same to them."

Women aren't any different than men in that they aren't going to be overly nice to their employer just because. I really cannot fathom why women are so special, moral and rational to you. It's really so baffling.

"Disingenuous" seems to be the go-to criticism when really people just don't bother to think about my comments.

yes, this perspective is sooooooooo complex I could never understand it.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not that I think you can't, it's that I think you're not trying to.

Anyway, it's too much time and effort to keep going back and forth. I feel like I've said my piece.

 

[rms]

you're literally spewing bullshit at almost every turn. at least admit that you hold a ridiculous perspective of women and just move on, CF did it years ago

 

[Dak]

An individual's professional or personal goals also don't eliminate the possibility that they might walk into the street and get hit by a car on their first day; but that doesn't mean the potential factors into the hiring decision.

That's an extreme example, but it's to prove a point, which is that perception and context matter as much as potential in this scenario. Adjusting the lens through which employers view women has an effect on how much value they place on potential pregnancy.

Pregnancy is far, far more likely than getting hit by a car the first day.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/childlessness/
Only 15% of US women by age 44 are childless. With that statistic, eliminate the word potentially and say overwhelmingly likely.

Boiling this down, my argument is that the issue of reproduction and family is used to justify discrimination toward women while the reasons behind this are exaggerated. Women have the capacity to choose when to start a family, just like men do; and just because they happen to be the bearers of children doesn't make them inherently less productive than men. The conflation of women and reproduction makes an absolute out of a contingency; but the truth is that women are able to plan around pregnancy and generally aren't looking to take advantage of their employer by getting pregnant while employed. Women want to work, and they realize the danger that comes with getting pregnant. They simply don't want their capacity to have children interfere with their merits as an employee.

Honestly, making their employment into an issue of potential pregnancy hinges on an assumption that all women will have babies, at some point or another--like it's an automatic function. And maybe some women will; but that possibility in the future does not compromise their current employment, legitimize discrimination against hiring them, and it doesn't mean that women are looking to be treated like princesses.

A lot of different claims in here, all of which are unsubstantiated (not saying they all couldn't be substantiated, but you haven't substantiated them). My link above delegitimizes related claims about "contextualism" etc. 85% may not be an absolute, but policy is based on a horseshoes and hand grenades approach, not splitting hairs. Of course women can plan around pregnancy, the fucking employers can't. The best way to plan around a problem is to avoid the overwhelming likelihood of it. But amazingly enough, women are hired with greater frequency than men in many industries, so it's not necessarily affecting hiring. What it does affect, in some cases or areas, are promotions/positions, and pay. Which it should. Equal pay for equal work. Promotion should be based on ability, and the greatest ability is availability.

You have a laugher in the assertion about "women not looking to take advantage of their employer", when you already noted women are looking for jobs that will give them the most benefits for not being at work. I do agree with the latter claim; they most certainly do. The military is probably the most generous employer for female employees. If the military collected and/or released statistics on female servicemember pregnancy, particularly when deployments and/or other extreme duty assignments arise, you'd be forced to back off this or experience extreme cognitive dissonance. Anecdotally, I can tell you it's quite a thing. Moreso among the enlisted than officer types, but still quite a thing.

 

[Einherjar86]

As I said to rms, I cannot keep responding to all this. It's not worth it. But this demands addressing:

You have a laugher in the assertion about "women not looking to take advantage of their employer", when you already noted women are looking for jobs that will give them the most benefits for not being at work.

Key example of not really understanding what I'm saying. Working somewhere that admits flexibility and makes it part of their attractiveness to candidates during the application process isn't taking advantage of your employer.

 

[Dak]

Key example of not really understanding what I'm saying. Working somewhere that admits flexibility and makes it part of their attractiveness to candidates during the application process isn't taking advantage of your employer.

"Being payed for not working for extended amounts of time" = "flexibility". You're just playing word games and complaining people are misunderstanding your arguments. Women already are allowed to take unpaid time off for pregnancy by law, which is actual equality in flexibility. So don't pretend you are advocating for either equality or flexibility.

https://www.workplacefairness.org/pregnancy-discrimination

Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace occurs when an employer discriminates on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions. Pregnancy discrimination may include denial of time off or reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, firing or demoting a pregnant employee, forced time off or restrictions on work, and any other negative employment action taken because of an employee's pregnancy or related medical condition. Pregnancy discrimination is prohibited underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC). To learn more about pregnancy discrimination, read below:

 

[rms]

i agree with Ein on the last one, if your employer offers extra time off for pregnancy it's not exploitation. I would maybe consider it exploitation if it occurred at a problematic time without warning or something, as then your employer would be hamstrung by said federal law above ^^

 

[Dak]

i agree with Ein on the last one, if your employer offers extra time off for pregnancy it's not exploitation. I would maybe consider it exploitation if it occurred at a problematic time without warning or something, as then your employer would be hamstrung by said federal law above ^^

Well there's using and exploiting. There's also seeking out positions purely for exploiting.

 

[rms]

don't think your example demonstrates exploitation. nothing unfair about becoming pregnant considering no lies on behalf of the woman at some sort of agreement