You’ve come a long way…
and there’s a ways yet to go.
I learned too late from Amanda at AstroPixie that Sunday was International Women’s Day. I wish I had known in time to write something for then, but I guess that’s OK. The point of the day is to raise awareness, and it made me think about a couple of issues. So let me talk to you about them.
Women in science is a tough issue. They are still underrepresented, and I don’t think it’s clear why. Sexism, certainly, plays a role. In fact, it plays both ends of the age game: when young girls want to go into science, they can be discouraged by their teachers, and when they are older trying to get a job in science they can be discouraged by their peers. I’ve heard way too many stories about that, and read too many studies as well.
 |
I wonder about sexism in a broader sense, too. Our society in the US is not the most encouraging for women. Just look at the screwed up body image advertising and such gives women; Jessica Simpson has gained some weight recently and a lot of rags online have been calling her fat. Really? She looks like she has a healthy and normal body to me. This whole advertising trend of using women with the bodies of 12-year-old boys baffles me.
Still, there are worse places for women. Allow me a slight digression.
Now, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is batguano insane (about a billion examples are to be found on the web, left as an exercise for the reader). Her viewpoints are so bizarre and skewed that her biography would have to be written on a Moebius strip.
Perhaps in a blog post about women’s rights, poking fun at Bachmann is ironic. Maybe so, but the point I want to make is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. In an interview from 2008, tucked in with a vast number of ravings that are actually difficult to map against reality in any way, Bachmann said this:
"Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal."
This may shock people, but in this one small case I agree with this lunatic. She’s absolutely right. All cultures are not equal. A simple example: a large fraction of our own culture in the United States used to accept slavery. Moral equivalency be damned; slavery is wrong.
While I would hesitate to accept anything as a moral absolute, there are some things that are clearly wrong. Murder. Slavery. Institutional torture. Genocide. Racism. Sexism.
And that last one brings us to the point. There are countries in this world where women are treated essentially as slaves, or, perhaps worse, as things. Girls get acid thrown on their face for daring to get an education (and while this was done by a small band of militants, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan for years, forbad girls from going to school). A woman was beheaded, possibly as an honor killing because she wanted to divorce her husband. A google search yields so much more, a horrifying list of atrocities aimed against women. A woman set afire because she was accused of being a witch. Thankfully there are groups taking action.
I am something of a moral relativist; I know that cultures differ, and what is art in one place would be a grave insult in another. That’s OK, because people are different.
But if you take half your population and relegate it to second class, forbid them from learning, don’t let them participate fully in society, then there is no relativism in my book. You’re wrong, and you’re stupid.
 |
Buzz Aldrin with Carolyn Porco, whom he called "the Secretary General of United Nations of the Solar System". |
I know some brilliant women astronomers. Absolutely brilliant at what they do, whether it’s research, observing, public outreach, writing. Where would our science be without them? Carolyn Porco leads the Cassini imaging team which has brought us such beauty from the deep solar system. Could a man have done that? Sure, but that’s not the point: a woman could do it, and did do it. Vera Rubin helped clinch the existence of dark matter. Andrea Ghez has measured the mass of a black hole 25 quadrillion kilometers away, in the center of the Milky Way. Debra Fischer finds planets orbiting other stars. Pamela Gay educates tens of thousands of people on Astronomy Cast. Carolyn Collins Petersen does the same by writing planetarium shows.
I could go on and on, of course. These women — and many more — are friends, colleagues, scientists. Where we would be now if we relegated them to wearing burkas, to walking behind men, to staying at home and kept in the dark about the Universe around them?
Relativism be damned. Our culture in the US has a long way to go, certainly, but if you look behind us you’ll see the long winding road we’ve already labored upon. I’m glad my daughter is starting with such a head start down that road, and I hope that she forges ahead even further. That road goes a long way in both directions, and we’re right in the middle of it.
Good article (I saw one of the JS-nagging rags at the grocery store and amused the cashier by going on tirade about how bad pants do not make one obese).
I think one of the greatest things holding young women back from science is what they perceive to be the cost. I know I’m not the only one holding off pregnancy until after tenure, but many women don’t to or are afraid to wait that long. One of my friends recently told me about a conversation she had with an undergrad, when she was told “I don’t want to be like you. I want a family.” (Guess how many times a young man has said that?) If girls and young women perceive science vs. family as a binary choice, guess what most of them will pick? It’s not just a matter of available child care ect., but of making sure women know that’s not necessarily a choice they have to make. It’s so ingrained in our culture that when I got engaged my dad asked me if I was going to quit my PhD program (?!?). It’s a holdover notion from the last century that has to quashed if we want to raise the numbers of women in science.
LovleAnjel – My parents freaked out when I announced my plans to get married. They both assumed that marrying would mean dropping out of university to start having kids (again, a binary assumption – does having kids necessitate dropping out? Even if I had wanted to at that time).
As to the body-image in the media thing, I’ve recently been visiting with a Russian family and, therefore, watching some Russian TV. The difference is incredible. Even the women playing “sex-bombs” in the Russian shows looked like women I could meet in my daily life. They looked normal. They were thin, but not skeletal or perfectly toned. Some were even just a little pudgy (what our media would consider pudgy, anyway).
I felt the difference immediately. Immersed in that kind of media, I just didn’t think about my body. As soon as I got home, however, I went back to my routine of staring into the mirror and thinking about how terrible I look. That’s when I noticed the effects of my “vacation” from North American media.
We’re used to it, so we underestimate the effect all these images have on us. Not only does it make us more critical of ourselves, it makes us more critical of other women as well – perpetuating the problem.
Honestly, I think women are their own worst enemy. I know there are many very brilliant women, but what about the users? We can all name a half dozen women we have known who will play the ‘sexism’ card at the drop of a hat. We can name a dozen more who will manipulate anyone around them. Act a bit flirty, and even the most hardened guy turns to jelly and bends to their will. It’s why I agree, in many cases, with feminists who are still sure that there is a global conspiracy against women, and that all men are sexist pigs. Not in their views, of course, but in their assertions that the measure of work needs to be tallied based on work. Subjective measures should be ignored, while concrete measures should be expanded. Given a game of politics where men and women are on equal playing fields, women come out on top every time.
Women have so many social “cards” to play. 10 years ago, after a divorce, the woman was almost guaranteed custody of minors, regardless of other factors. Thankfully, that has changed, and custody is now awarded to the most fit.
Most of us “pigs” are willing to give women the benefit of the doubt, perhaps even when they shouldn’t. From my reading of a few of the “women are still second class in the west” papers, I agree with the “solutions”. Measuring work based on work, for one. Empower anyone to do what they want (not just empower women to work in science, but men to work in education, etc). But all of the reasons women get paid less, as a whole, are not conspiracies. They’re not sexist agendas. They are individual choices. Such as women working less hours, taking time off for children. Or, of course, the choice women make to pick a more fulfilling job then a higher paying one. And honestly, I get paid less then my classmates because of this. I enjoy my job, which is more important then getting a large paycheque.
Choices one makes should not be considered in the whole “men v. women” debate. You should NOT get paid, and should NOT get your job back if you leave for a year to have a baby, I hate that law here in canada. I deliberately take the “Women with strollers” stall at walmart. Its your choice, you live with it. I would never take a handicapped stall though, nor would I deliberately make anyones life more difficult (man or woman). And that has nothing to do with the legalities of it.
Of course, this doesn’t speak for the BS that happens in countries that actually DO oppress women.
In this area, there are a couple of new educational and neuroscience fads that should be of immediate concern to skeptic activists. (One pip is the federal and state funding of Brain Gym, i.e. acupressure for the brain.)
Another problem is that *poor quality research* on gender learning differences is being used to segregate classrooms by gender. This is bad for boys and girls, and fills their heads with pseudoscientific nonsense. Such segregated schools are in high demand. Parents are demanding them. Check out what the ACLU Women’s Rights Project has to say about this problem:
http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/edu/30129res20070614.html
…For example, advocates of sex-segregated schools tell teachers that:
1. Boys need a competitive and confrontational learning environment, while girls can only succeed if they work cooperatively and are not placed under stress;
2. When establishing authority, teachers should not smile at boys because boys are biologically programmed to read this as a sign of weakness;
3. Girls should not have time limits on tests because, unlike boys, girls’ brains cannot function well under these conditions; and
4. Boys are better than girls in math because boys’ bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, whereas girls don’t understand mathematical theory very well except for a few days a month when their estrogen is surging.
Although these ideas are hyped as “new discoveries” about brain differences, they are, in fact, only dressed up versions of old stereotypes…
Brian – I’ll be the first to admit that sexism in Canada is a lot more subtle than it used to (and than it still is in many other countries). It some ways, this is good. It means that people no longer feel that overt sexism is acceptable. The downside is that people such as yourself think that sexism is gone, a non-issue, and just a bunch of women “users” who use the sexism card to get stuff they want (we won’t, of course, go into the fact that this sort of statement is often made against minorities as well when they start getting “uppity”).
By the way, the way I understand the one year maternity leave is like this: Women get a little paid time off as maternity leave. This is usually taken at the end of pregnancy and then into new-parenthood a little. It’s a health thing. Men aren’t eligible because men don’t get pregnant and don’t have to go through labour. Beyond that, both men and women are eligible for paid PARENTAL leave (which stacks with maternity leave). I think both parents get a certain number of weeks and they can divide that up as they please, effectively making it paid leave for the primary caregiver (not necessarily just the mother). It is non-gender-specific). Once this paid leave runs out, that’s it. Your job is no longer protected. For a woman to take off a full year, she has to stack both maternity and parental leave.
Remember that this wasn’t done to give women an advantage in the workplace or anything like that. This was done because research has shown that babies adjust better when they get to spend the first year of life with their parents (you may disagree, and there are some studies floating around out there that contradict those findings, but this is the research Canada has decided to listen to).
And finally, you say that wage and representation discrepancies are due to the choices women make. My first question is: why do you think women make those choices? Could it be because starting a family is a much greater investment for her? That she is expected to spend some time home with kids while men can simply continue their careers? Have you considered that maybe the one year off thing was instituted, in part, so that women don’t have to choose between having a family and having a career (a choice men don’t have to make)?
Secondly, I would like to remind you that your words have been said again and again throughout history. “Women choose to stay at home because they are natural care-givers.” As if women lived in a vacuum of biology. The fact is that, as society changes and makes it more acceptable for women to enter the workplace, more and more women choose work rather than kids (or both). Don’t you think it’s possible that, even in some cases where choice really is involved, that those choices might not be heavily influenced by the cultural pressures around them?
Grimalkin – I will start by asking you to not put words in my mouth. We all enjoy strawmen keeping birds out of the crops, but not in a civilized debate. :)
I am not against calling out sexism where it is, but you cannot deny that there are a number of women who do it just to get attention. The claim should not be taken at face value, and should be investigated properly. Not to get off topic, but there have been cases where someone has be called a child molestor, either by accident (children are susceptible to being led into saying things accidentally, and that is getting fixed), or by someone malicious. After they have been cleared, their name is so tarnished that they cannot get a job. Newspapers don’t post retractions of the claim. The claims just need to get properly investigated. For those who never use the sexism card (or rather, never use it unjustly) I have the utmost respect.
As for the canadian law, I am not 100% sure about it, but I was under the impression it just held the job; no paid leave aside from the short term around birth. And, I am still completely against it, but even moreso if its full paid leave. Granted, to my knowledge, it exempts small businesses, but it is still a problem. And its not a problem of sex. It is a problem of choice. For example, I am a rather, lets say “portly” gentleman. If I decide I want to take a year off to lose some weight for health reasons, should I get a paid leave? It is also for health reasons, and would affect the rest of my life. How about if I were to leave early for the next few years? Should I get paid as if I hadn’t left early to work out to keep in shape? How about if I do that every 2 years for the next 3 to 6 years? It is a choice I am making, and while everyone should have that choice, I don’t think a choice that is a detriment to others should be rewarded. I do agree that it probably does help the childs development, but that should not be an excuse for special pleading.
As for the choices being chosen by women, I would say a resounding “yes”. Otherwise that is not a choice. And I do understand the desire to have a family, and be with them. But thats not the balance. While I am not good with examples off the top of my head, would choosing to affect yourself in a way that would be detrimental to your job deserve special treatment? I vote no. If you want a family, then you cannot expect others to bend to you because you made that choice yourself. As I eluded to previously, I take a lower paycheck for a more enjoyable job. I have realized the benefits of sacrificing money for enjoyment. But when one says you should get both, for no logical reason, thats where I have a problem.
In response to your comment about women having to stay home while men continue their careers, I ask you, why is it the womans job to stay home? Why cant the man stay home and the woman continue her career? That would be an individual relationship issue to me.
I don’t think it is the “womans place” to stay at home. I know of at least 2 cases in my own life where the father figure in the family is a far superior care giver then the mother. I still don’t believe he should be given special privileges because of the choice he made to be a father.
And, yes, I do believe that many of those choices have nothing to do with culture. They are individual choices. If they were merely byproducts of women always staying home at the expense of a career, while men get to have a steady job, then I would easily support any resolution saying women should get time off, especially if the choice is made by others around them for them to have a child. But when it is their choice all around (to have the child, and be the primary caregiver), then I do not believe anyone (male or female) should be given any special privileges.
If you get hit by a bus and it rips your arm off, you shouldn’t have to pay to get it reattached as it is not your choice (unless you are playing in traffic). But if you cut your own arm off with a bandsaw, the costs of reattaching your arm are your costs, and your costs alone.
I am continually surprised to hear that these disparities exist. I have always worked alongside women and/or for female managers, supervisors, directors, etc. And although I don’t know their exact salaries, the women who are my peers are on the same pay scale so their exact pay can’t be too far off from mine. I currently work for HP. My supervisor is female, her manager is female. I’m fairly certain that they make more than I do. Maybe I’m insulated but for the last 35 years, across multiple jobs, it’s been that way. I have a wife and two daughters. I will always support fair play and fair pay for females, and I’m sure as hell glad I don’t live in a place like Saudia Arabia. I just haven’t seen the disparity in the American workplace that everyone says is so rampant.
Eat well, stay fit, die anyway.
http://www.wral.com/news/technology/story/4707650/?goback=%2Ehom
MIT’s Barbara Liskov is the second woman to win the Turing Award.
Brian– I don’t think you can separate anyone’s choices from their culture. For centuries women have been told that they should be caregivers, they should stay home, they’re the best for the job. That’s so deeply ingrained that most people can’t think around what their “gut” tells them. The most insidious part is that this is presented to women as an either-or choice, which is why women opt out so often. If we as a society and culture both acknowledged the actual spectrum of possibilities open to women and gave equal social and emotional weight to those possibilities, you would be right. It’s all just their choice.
And I would be so HAPPY if that day came.
The effect of culture:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/4876/data-dont-support-perceived-gender-gap-in-math-researchers-say
“When the research team studied if there were gender discrepancies at the highest levels of mathematical performance, they got different results depending on if the kids were white or Asian American. In Minnesota, 11-grader white boys hit the 99th percentile more than twice more than white girls in the same grade. But for Asian American students, the pattern got reversed.”
Phil Plait cited a UK survey that found that 14% of teenage girls want to be scientists, while 31% want to be models.
Ok, and how many boys would rather be professional athletes than scientists?
For that matter, how many teenagers want to be sys admins, if they even know what it means? Imagine if people always got the job they wanted as a kid. We’d have nothing but models, racecar drivers, astronauts, and presidents, and no janitors or sys admins. It would be a nightmare!
Brian, I think you’re confusing with what the reality of society that we are in is and what you believe to be ideal and true. Things you said are very true especially on career choice or having a family. Of course, a man may leave his job and take care of the baby or parents may figure something out to keep their jobs and raise a family, but that is not an option given to all couples. It is not really a legal manner or anything, it’s just societal value that has been instituted and ingrained in our minds. If you think logically then it shouldn’t be always mother who has to choose either career or family, but the reality is that that’s the choice a mother has. Stereotypically when a couple has a baby, who is financially responsible and who is emotionally (as in caring of baby) responsible? Former is father and latter is mother. This is how society defined who father should be and who mother should be. Yes there is exception. Yes there is individual case. Yes it seems to be that this is just stereotype. However this stereotype is ingrained in everyone’s mind and even if not everyone follows such stereotype, it’s called stereotype because majority of people perceive it as true and this perception affects decision people make. It’s likely mother without even logically thinking about it, would abandon her career and raise her child. It’s unlikely father would think logically and talk to his wife about what they should do practically. It is a very subtle pressure on men and women alike.
Like LovleAnjel said sexism is not outright discrimination but it is a underlying tradition and institutionalized method. We don’t even realize how it affects individual until we really see the truth and think about it.
This plays in work places too. You think that women are paranoid about not being equal in work places. You think that our society is equal and these women are just crazy. If you look at it from outside and look at just statistics that just confirms what people want to see then you’ll never notice subtle discrimination against women. Let’s make an example in field of science. First you’re discouraged to study science when you’re little if you’re female. Even if you do better than boys you’re still not recognized because you’re a girl. You go into college and you see most of girls are not studying science because of how they were discouraged from studying science when they were growing up. Professors don’t take you seriously or they treat you like a flower that is something of beauty but not practical (this may be exaggeration but I can imagine this happening). You persevere and earn your Ph.D. While doing so you were asked numerous times if you’re gonna have a family or do you plan to marry as if earning Ph.D. in field of science is bad thing and as if like mentioned by others, you forfeited family to study science. you brush these accusations off and with your hard earned degree you start a research project of your own. If you’re trying to get fund, male researchers who’s doing similar research gets fund first because he is man and because people who give out research fund are chaired by men. If you’re trying have a position in research organization then you get paid less or don’t even be recognized as possible employee because the organization is also chaired by male and more than 70% of employees are male. Somehow you got a job and your research was successful and you publish the study to the public. Unless it is super amazing that outdo every study out there about the subject you don’t get recognition. Men have only to better other men but women have to beat other women first and then they have to beat men too to be recognized of her work. This is the hardship women have to go through to be successful “career women.” You can deny all you like how all your female peers are paid equal how they are treated equally in workplace, but you do not recognize what they had to do throughout their lives to get to that place, that place where they get same salary where they are recognized as important as men.
Those women whose names are mentioned in the post are famous because they have bested everyone else. Men can be great and be recognized but women have to be unbelievably awesome in their work to be earn same reputation as men. This is reality of our society and if we males keep on denying this existence of sexism, sexism will always present.
Although…I have to say some of militant feminists and extreme feminists have some strange view on how society should be. I mean feminism is great but if you take it to extreme it just doesn’t make sense.
In response to your comment about women having to stay home while men continue their careers, I ask you, why is it the woman’s job to stay home? Why cant the man stay home and the woman continue her career? That would be an individual relationship issue to me.
No, it is a societal issue regarding gender expectation(s).
A male who takes time to stay at home is labeled a bum, loser, slacker, what have you, and will find himself borderline unsuitable for employment.
Gender roles are socially proscribed, and escaping that, isn’t done by means of jargon and biased social policy.
I’m pretty sure that human nature has something to do with gender roles, but it’s another area where political correctness makes objective research impossible.
In any case, the fact that men concentrate more on their careers doesn’t explain why women are overrepresented in some careers and underrepresented in others, including science.
I think a big problem in this area is that women are now free to take on roles that have been historically masculine, but it is less common for men to take on traditionally feminine roles (although this is changing to a certain degree). While it is socially acceptable for a woman to become a doctor lawyer, or scientist, it less acceptable for men to do “women’s work” such as cooking, cleaning, and childcare. Even though most men contribute to household chores, it is uncommon for it to be split 50/50. My mom, who has always held a full-time job while raising a family, thinks it’s amazing when my brother cooks breakfast for his family, changes his own kid’s diapers, or takes her to day-care. As Mastriani pointed out above, it is viewed differently when a father takes care of his kids than when a mother does it. In families where the woman has to take on most of the burden of housework and childcare, is it really a surprise that she “chooses” to work less on her career? This situation is called a double burden or second shift.
Also, just for fun:
http://xkcd.com/385/
(Sorry, I don’t know enough about HTML to make it a hyperlink)
I’m pretty sure that human nature has something to do with gender roles, but it’s another area where political correctness makes objective research impossible.
I wouldn’t argue that point, if you are coming from the perspective of “human nature from genetic impetus”.
I’m not certain on the PC issue. It was 2004, (don’t quote me, that might be wrong), when UD of Ohio and Texas A&M released the results of a joint study concerning the effects of the PC culture as regards campus racism.
What they both found was that the PC culture didn’t change anything. The race groups studied were white/black/hispanic/asian. What they found was that in mixed race groups, under the PC pressures, racism was completely hidden; but when the students were among “like kind”, that all the groups equally showed racist dialog and behaviors.
It would be likely that the gender/sexism issue would be patently similar, if as you pointed out, the bias could be controlled to get an objective study.
It is likely you are correct, it would be rather arduous.
Nice to see I spurred on such a lively debate here.
But, alas, you are still stawmaning me. Don’t worry, its such an easy trap to fall in to.
If you read my previous posts, you will see me agreeing that women should be encouraged to do whatever they want to do, and men to do whatever they want to do (even if its seen as feminin). Notice how you are all saying that men don’t want to do womens work? Why do you think I pointed out men doing tasks they want instead of what they are pressured to? But we don’t need to reward people for the choices they make. I encourage you to pop that bubble and come outside. Its nice out here.
For some reason, raising children has become some “special” area, where men shouldn’t do it, and women should, and therefor we should reward everyone for that. Fix the problem, don’t toss a bandaid on it.
Ultimately, the arguement presented by many above is that stereotyping is OK, and it should be rewarded. That, because its “womens work”, we should then be providing hand outs. How about “mens work”? What if I wanted to go cut down some trees for a year. I should get paid for that. And I should get my job back. Thats a stereotypical “mans work”, and because its “mans work” women wont do it, and therefor, it should get special treatment.
No individual choices should ever be rewarded. Think about the people who don’t make that choice, or cannot make that choice to have children. How exactly is that non-discriminatory to them to provide handouts to those who make the choice?
How about, if I was a “black male”. The stereotype is that they always steal and live off of welfare. Because stealing is a stereotype that white women won’t do, does that mean that going to jail should be paid for by their employer?
Its a choice issue, not a gender issue. You are attempting to wrap a choice issue in a gender wrapping. While I am not well versed in logical fallacies, I know there is one here somewhere. At the very least, I can see special pleading.
You argue that these “time off” laws are not because its “womens work” since they are generic to men and women. Then someone else argues that they are there because of social pressures on _WOMEN_. Which is it? Is it the parents that can have the time off (male OR female), and if so, what makes that choice special? Or is it that its for women only because of pressure, where I can ask, why are you not fixing the problem, but making it worse? What gives anyone the right to say the stereotype is OK, on either side?
Why isn’t having a baby v. having a career a choice? Answer me that. Why can one have a child, and a career as illustrious as those who don’t have a baby, but other choices that are at the detriment of the person making that choice not worthy of special circumstances? If you answer only one thing, answer that. What makes the choice of having a baby special above other choices?
And as for Jimmy – I have never seen a case where women are just ignored because they are a woman. It is all perception. Men have to fight against the women just as much. I would argue in the other direction, that men have to fight against this perception you are talking about. That women get promoted first, against a fear of being labeled sexist. Do I honestly believe that? No. People’s work speaks for itself. Especially in school, when its all about grades. When your papers or exams are marked, they’re with a number, not with your name. I can see it in work places, but in the extreme minority. From your wording of “seeing the truth”, I can tell that you have some “special knowledge”. Perhaps you would share it with me instead of posturing.
Instead of fixing the problem by making it worse, we could remove those barriers, then the women who are driven to have a career will have to sacrifice being a housewife for a year, and the stereotype will disappear over generations, or even over a few decades. Remove the stereotype of the man staying home, and I suspect you will see it move much quicker. The worst of the two, in my opinion, is the stereotype of the man being a bum when he stays home. Fix that, and you will fix the problem.
Socially effeminising males is not a solution.
This type of subject matter always falls down into the appeasement syndrome; the weak, abject and unfit calling for equivocation under the guise of equalisation.
There is a reason for the disparities; men and women are not equal, and genetically, can never be. If individuals would look at the phenomenological world as it is, it becomes apparent; male and female are distinctly different and possessed of traits that are at once mutually exclusive and mutually beneficial.
Because humans are in a state of believing their superiority to all of nature, false assumptions become prevalent.
The scales never quite tipped, neither are they ever perfectly level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
“Generally, the Act ensures that all workers are able to take extended leaves of absence from work to handle their own or an immediate family member’s serious health condition without fear of being terminated from their jobs by their employers or being forced into a lower job upon their return.”
Brian, do you think society would be better off without these protections?
According to Wikipedia, only five countries, including the US and Australia, don’t provide paid maternity leave. In the US, it’s a benefit, like paid tuition and health insurance.
Mastriani – It probably is unfeasible, yes. But, effectively what you are saying is that men are better, women are worse, and women should only aspire to being a man, otherwise being a woman is unequal.
Which, of course, I disagree with. I think if you got some better data, you would find equality given all of the same constraints. The studies I have seen on this matter all use an overarching set of data. They don’t get specific at all, and pose some ideas, but can’t really prove anything. As others who have posted in this thread have said, pay in larger companies is set, and cannot be changed regardless of how sexist a manager may be. In smaller companies, where pay is negotiable, I still doubt any form of sexism. I would say the scales are flat. You can always find the oddball case, but for every one of those, you can find 100 more on the side of it being even.
And that still doesn’t answer my question of why does having children get special privileges that other choices do not?
Max – Yes.
To be more specific, sickness benefits, or those you have no choice over, should be covered. Those make perfect sense, and I have no problem with them. But this is a choice you make, and that is what sets maternaty/paternaty leave aside from illness leave.
I’m on the fence about a family member being sick though. I can see some leeway being a good thing, but it shouldn’t be mandated. If you must take care of the family member, as in, the only caregiver, then I can be on side with that. But if its because they are in the hospital, and you are only there as moral support, then I would disagree with mandating it.
Choice is not the same as illness.
Brian – Mastriani – It probably is unfeasible, yes. But, effectively what you are saying is that men are better, women are worse, and women should only aspire to being a man, otherwise being a woman is unequal.
Ummm, how bad is your reading comprehension? That is not at all what I stated. Trying reading the post and not assuming into it whatever you like, for starters.
I never stated “men better, women worse”. Further, talk about Strawman fallacy, for fuck’s sake, have someone read the post to you.
Genetically, male and female are separated. Perhaps you never heard of biochemistry or genetics, but from the most essential level of “living being”, male and female are separate and different. Plain fact.
As a male of 6′ 0″ and roughly 200 lbs, I’ve not met but one female with like dimensions. Even then, she lacked my bone mass and muscle mass. She was still human, I am on occasion.
Female bears children, male can never. Female has built in biochemistry and functional structures for nuturing a neonatal, male doesn’t. Female has a much higher oxytocin dump; around birth, two to three times the amount a male ever produces.
It’s rather simple really, different functions within the species, making certain traits exclusive by sex, but also, traits that create the need to overlap socially for the optimum outcome of the species.
That aside, this has nothing to do with anything but the attempt at leveling expressions of power. Social contract makes a very poor guise for any agenda.
Mastriani – I have no problem saying women and men are genetically different. But that has nothing to do with the male v. female ability to care for children. Not all women are good at caring for children. Not all men are horrible at caring for children.
You basically said that men should serve a different purpose then women.
Effectively, your argument has devolved into “women are better at caring for children then men are, but men are better at nothing then women”. Which, is false on the first count. Probably correct (aside from being athletes) on the second count.
If women really are better at caring for children then men, then why do these “lets celebrate a choice” laws include men? Sounds like a pretty sexist comment to me.
I guess one sex is just more equal then the other, right?
If you cannot answer my one question, asking why this choice deserves special treatment, then we are done here.
Effectively, your argument has devolved into “women are better at caring for children then men are, but men are better at nothing then women”. Which, is false on the first count. Probably correct (aside from being athletes) on the second count.
Effectively, reading comprehension is a skill never to be apprehended by you. Different does not apply an abject or negative connotation, that is done by the mind lacking in perceptive capability and/or critical thinking.
Different applies as “cannot be the same” … and considering the depth to which all animals are unwitting slaves of their own biochemistry, they can never be the same. Society attempts to yoke outcome to falsifiable perception; but that will never make any outcome factual.
I guess one sex is just more equal then the other, right?
Ah, yes, this is the beginning of the end; reductio ad absurdum. Thank you for that clarification.
If you cannot answer my one question, asking why this choice deserves special treatment, then we are done here.
That you are not comprised of the intellectual acuity to understand this “why”, says enough.
“Life is a flame that is always burning itself out, but it catches fire again every time a child is born”
There is nothing further that needs be said.