Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Secretary Still Top Job For Women

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 10:32:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://money.cnn.com...

"The rise of the secretary began with the Industrial Revolution, which created an enormous amount of paperwork. In the early 20th century, it became a female job as companies realized they could pay women lower wages to do the work."

---

"Increasingly women in the 1970s were demanding the opportunity to be treated as equals," Weikal said. "All of a sudden you have fewer secretaries and more executive assistants."

---

"In the category of administrative assistants, women outnumber men more than 20 to 1, but still earn less than their male counterparts -- about 87 cents to the dollar."

---

"The good news is over the past 40 years, there are very few jobs in which women have not broken through," Cameron said. "The glass ceiling is cracking in all different directions, but the bad news is, there is still a sticky floor. Most women still work in traditionally female jobs, like administrative support."


---

My thesis on wage equality has been that females have a very long upward battle to climb to achieve jobs that pay well, what I've labeled "power and primacy" jobs like CEOs. It takes a very long time to climb the corporate ladder. Upon achieving such jobs in significant numbers, the wage gap would disappear.

However, this article seems to suggest that wage equality STILL faces intrinsic hurdles where women working in similar jobs to men are simply paid less, i.e. discrimination.

Also notice that the opening graphic in the article suggests that women in the workforce STILL work the same type of jobs that they did 60 years ago.

So, my questions are

1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?

Depends on the position of power. Some positions of power I'm against anyone holding (i.e., Presidency, slave-owner, etc.). On any other non-objectionable position, who cares? Looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?

Depends on the position of power. Some positions of power I'm against anyone holding (i.e., Presidency, slave-owner, etc.). On any other non-objectionable position, who cares? Looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb.

Why not the Presidency? What makes the POTUS "objectionable"? How about a corporate CEO? It's funny you say that "looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb," then say that you object to the gender of a female POTUS.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:28:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
Of State?

I like Hillary.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:34:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)
I'm going to say that you are right.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 4:00:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?

Depends on the position of power. Some positions of power I'm against anyone holding (i.e., Presidency, slave-owner, etc.). On any other non-objectionable position, who cares? Looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb.

Why not the Presidency? What makes the POTUS "objectionable"? How about a corporate CEO? It's funny you say that "looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb," then say that you object to the gender of a female POTUS.
He doesn't, he says he objects to there being such a thing as a POTUS.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 5:24:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

Because they have no right to govern the lives of others. You can have your opinions, but you have no right to implement them.
2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?

Depends on the position of power. Some positions of power I'm against anyone holding (i.e., Presidency, slave-owner, etc.). On any other non-objectionable position, who cares? Looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb.

Why not the Presidency? What makes the POTUS "objectionable"? How about a corporate CEO? It's funny you say that "looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb," then say that you object to the gender of a female POTUS.

That's not what he said. He said he doesn't like the idea of a Presidency at all. Noumena is an Anarchist.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 5:27:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Yes, but higher up jobs require 60-80 hour+ workweeks. At what point do the children get neglected?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 5:49:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 5:27:54 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Yes, but higher up jobs require 60-80 hour+ workweeks. At what point do the children get neglected?

Why is it the female's responsibility to care for the children? Why isn't the male supposed to contribute? If the kids are getting neglected, obviously the male isn't a good father.

There's no reason to bar females from entering a higher job if she wants to and is qualified. It's her choice.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 5:54:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, that's what daycare centers are for . . . It's not a big deal to hire a sitter or go to a daycare center. Plus, kids should be expected to have some amount of responsibility. What does "neglect" even mean? Not going to sports games? Not going to concerts? It's honestly not a big deal, lol. My parents never went to any of my events (not because they couldn't-there were several they could have come to), and I wouldn't have wanted them to anyways. I'm ok.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:08:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

Basically. Well men (and women not affected- i.e., women not planning on changing careers) can have opinions sure but in the end it all comes down to choices by women. It's not our choice so asking me what I think women should do doesn't make sense.

2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?

Depends on the position of power. Some positions of power I'm against anyone holding (i.e., Presidency, slave-owner, etc.). On any other non-objectionable position, who cares? Looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb.

Why not the Presidency? What makes the POTUS "objectionable"?

Don't wanna get into this atm as it's off topic. My point is that there are some things NO ONE should do. But everything else I don't really care.

How about a corporate CEO?

Don't care, do whatcha want.

It's funny you say that "looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb," then say that you object to the gender of a female POTUS.

I object to the POTUS itself broskeet.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:09:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 5:27:54 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Yes, but higher up jobs require 60-80 hour+ workweeks. At what point do the children get neglected?

Fvcking. Daycare.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:39:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What Spinko and Royal said.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:06:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 4:00:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?

Depends on the position of power. Some positions of power I'm against anyone holding (i.e., Presidency, slave-owner, etc.). On any other non-objectionable position, who cares? Looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb.

Why not the Presidency? What makes the POTUS "objectionable"? How about a corporate CEO? It's funny you say that "looking at things through a gender-centric lense is dumb," then say that you object to the gender of a female POTUS.
He doesn't, he says he objects to there being such a thing as a POTUS.

I see.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:12:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 5:24:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

Because they have no right to govern the lives of others. You can have your opinions, but you have no right to implement them.

I think abortion is a woman's choice. If my local congressperson does not agree with me, I will not vote them into office.

I have a daughter. I want my daughter to have the same opportunities that men have. I raise my daughter to respect the sciences so that she will be able to earn a better living. If she doesn't become an engineer, so be it, but my opinion is certainly important in the matter.

How is this any different?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:14:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Then you believe the statistics cited in the study are non-sensical. Seriously, please at least TRY to think here...I know it's hard for you sometimes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:15:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:12:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:24:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

Because they have no right to govern the lives of others. You can have your opinions, but you have no right to implement them.

I think abortion is a woman's choice. If my local congressperson does not agree with me, I will not vote them into office.

I have a daughter. I want my daughter to have the same opportunities that men have. I raise my daughter to respect the sciences so that she will be able to earn a better living. If she doesn't become an engineer, so be it, but my opinion is certainly important in the matter.

How is this any different?

If you voted for a Congressperson who wanted to take away the right to abortion, you would be morally culpable for her actions just as you would be if you hired an assassin to kill me. If you vote for someone who pledges not take away this right, you are protecting the right to autonomy. You are not forcing anything on anybody in this scenario.

In the second scenario, you are not forcing your daughter to do anything. You are not discriminating against her, and you are not harming her in any way. The decision is ultimately up to her.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:20:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:14:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Then you believe the statistics cited in the study are non-sensical. Seriously, please at least TRY to think here...I know it's hard for you sometimes.

Are you back to your old trolling habits (since you said that insults automatically are trolling)? I'm going to make a thread for you soon in the DDO forums.

No, I don't believe in blind, random statistics. I refuse to believe any statistics until I understand how they were obtained, what data was removed, what the confidence intervals are, etc.

You made the assertion that it's not feasible for women to have high pressure jobs if they are working. I offered a counterexample. It's clear to me that it is feasible. My mother is doing it right now. My grandmother did it too. Someday, I'll be doing the same thing (although my marriage will have to be more egalitarian than the other ones in my family were. I'm not afraid to dump someone and leave if they won't cooperate).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:20:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 7:08:24 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

Basically. Well men (and women not affected- i.e., women not planning on changing careers) can have opinions sure but in the end it all comes down to choices by women. It's not our choice so asking me what I think women should do doesn't make sense.

There is no question that your opinion will influence the opinions of women, and thus the choices they make. I didn't ask you to choose FOR women, I asked you about your opinion on the matter.

2) Is it desirable for women to achieve positions of "power and primacy"? If not, why not?


How about a corporate CEO?

Don't care, do whatcha want.

What makes a corporate CEO different from the POTUS?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:20:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:20:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:14:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Then you believe the statistics cited in the study are non-sensical. Seriously, please at least TRY to think here...I know it's hard for you sometimes.

Are you back to your old trolling habits (since you said that insults automatically are trolling)? I'm going to make a thread for you soon in the DDO forums.

No, I don't believe in blind, random statistics. I refuse to believe any statistics until I understand how they were obtained, what data was removed, what the confidence intervals are, etc.

You made the assertion that it's not feasible for women to have high pressure jobs if they are doing chores/housework. I offered a counterexample. It's clear to me that it is feasible. My mother is doing it right now. My grandmother did it too. Someday, I'll be doing the same thing (although my marriage will have to be more egalitarian than the other ones in my family were. I'm not afraid to dump someone and leave if they won't cooperate).

Fixed
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:22:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Socialpinko's opinion isn't going to affect anybody's decision. I'm going to do what I want to do, and if a guy doesn't like it, good for him.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:36:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:20:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:14:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Then you believe the statistics cited in the study are non-sensical. Seriously, please at least TRY to think here...I know it's hard for you sometimes.

Are you back to your old trolling habits (since you said that insults automatically are trolling)? I'm going to make a thread for you soon in the DDO forums.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the archetype of how insults indeed turn you into a troll. You obviously have no qualms with the practice, so you obviously think trolling advances a discussion. If you have qualms about it, I demand an apology from you in calling me a liar without substantiation - if anything, you cannot discern my intent which is key to lying - one can merely be misinformed with the intent of honestly conveying what one thinks is factually correct (which was not the case there, you were the one that was misinformed, and I did not call you a liar). You have no right to demand an end to what you consider "trolling behavior" otherwise, unless hypocrisy confers such rights. I certainly do consider you a hypocrite, and I will call you out on it whenever you engage me in a discussion.

You made the assertion that it's not feasible for women to have high pressure jobs if they are working. I offered a counterexample. It's clear to me that it is feasible. My mother is doing it right now. My grandmother did it too. Someday, I'll be doing the same thing (although my marriage will have to be more egalitarian than the other ones in my family were. I'm not afraid to dump someone and leave if they won't cooperate).

I did not say it wasn't feasible. Your issue is an issue of whether or not ONE WOMAN CAN work in a high pressure job. My issue 1) has nothing to do with "high pressure work" and everything to do with "power and primacy", which typically confers much higher pay irregardless of the demands of the job, and 2) whether or not women as a group can feasibly attain similar percentages and numbers as men, and thus close the wage gap.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:41:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:15:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:12:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:24:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:31:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:35:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
1) Should women look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?

Depends on whether they want to.

So your opinion doesn't matter at all? Men SHOULD have no opinion on this matter? Why not?

Because they have no right to govern the lives of others. You can have your opinions, but you have no right to implement them.

I think abortion is a woman's choice. If my local congressperson does not agree with me, I will not vote them into office.

I have a daughter. I want my daughter to have the same opportunities that men have. I raise my daughter to respect the sciences so that she will be able to earn a better living. If she doesn't become an engineer, so be it, but my opinion is certainly important in the matter.

How is this any different?

If you voted for a Congressperson who wanted to take away the right to abortion, you would be morally culpable for her actions just as you would be if you hired an assassin to kill me. If you vote for someone who pledges not take away this right, you are protecting the right to autonomy. You are not forcing anything on anybody in this scenario.

In the second scenario, you are not forcing your daughter to do anything. You are not discriminating against her, and you are not harming her in any way. The decision is ultimately up to her.

1) I laughed pretty hard at the bolded. You're certainly free to express your own ridiculous sense of morality.

2) How is abortion not a man's choice? How is it justifiable to take this choice away from men and give it to women?

3) I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I am merely asking their opinion as to whether or not women should "look for other jobs instead of the secretary/nurse/teacher archetype, and if so, in how large a number?"
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 2:53:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
2) How is abortion not a man's choice?
No dude's ever managed to be pregnant. It's simple biology that a man can't have an abortion.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 10:05:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:53:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
2) How is abortion not a man's choice?
No dude's ever managed to be pregnant. It's simple biology that a man can't have an abortion.

So does the fetus belong to the woman? If so, why is a man financially responsible once this fetus becomes a newborn?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 10:22:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:36:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:20:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:14:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2013 5:26:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:32:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:11 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
1) If they can do the job as well or better than a man, then I don't see a reason why they should not pursue other careers.
2)I think it is desirable for women to achieve these positions, but I don't think it is feasible in the us because women typically get stuck with more child care responsibilities and housework.

I'm going to go out here on a gigantic limb and say this isn't unique to the US. :)

Fairly nonsensical, considering that a lot of women work in excellent jobs and also take care of their children. My mother is a doctor who was in that position, and she turned out fine.

Then you believe the statistics cited in the study are non-sensical. Seriously, please at least TRY to think here...I know it's hard for you sometimes.

Are you back to your old trolling habits (since you said that insults automatically are trolling)? I'm going to make a thread for you soon in the DDO forums.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the archetype of how insults indeed turn you into a troll. You obviously have no qualms with the practice, so you obviously think trolling advances a discussion. If you have qualms about it, I demand an apology from you in calling me a liar without substantiation - if anything, you cannot discern my intent which is key to lying - one can merely be misinformed with the intent of honestly conveying what one thinks is factually correct (which was not the case there, you were the one that was misinformed, and I did not call you a liar). You have no right to demand an end to what you consider "trolling behavior" otherwise, unless hypocrisy confers such rights. I certainly do consider you a hypocrite, and I will call you out on it whenever you engage me in a discussion.

No, you were completely wrong. You started the hostilities with charles, and I proved this to you. You ended up changing the justification for insulting him to "he called himself a troll", which was another lie because he was responding to people who were calling him a troll. You chose to interfere in the conversation.

I don't care if you think I'm a hypocrite. You think anybody whom you dislike is a troll. That's why you classified Chaos Heart as a troll, and she's definitely not a troll whereas you are a votebomber by the community's definition and a troll by your own definition.

I'm ok with apologizing though because I'm a bigger person than you are. I apologize. I don't expect that you'll change your behavior though. You'll continue to troll, insult me, and be condescending.
You made the assertion that it's not feasible for women to have high pressure jobs if they are working. I offered a counterexample. It's clear to me that it is feasible. My mother is doing it right now. My grandmother did it too. Someday, I'll be doing the same thing (although my marriage will have to be more egalitarian than the other ones in my family were. I'm not afraid to dump someone and leave if they won't cooperate).

I did not say it wasn't feasible. Your issue is an issue of whether or not ONE WOMAN CAN work in a high pressure job. My issue 1) has nothing to do with "high pressure work" and everything to do with "power and primacy", which typically confers much higher pay irregardless of the demands of the job, and 2) whether or not women as a group can feasibly attain similar percentages and numbers as men, and thus close the wage gap.

1. What is a job with "power and primacy"? Female CEOs with families already exist. My Spanish teacher's wife was a CEO. There are many famous female CEOs. The CEO of the company that owns the website you are trolling right now is a female.

2. What does "irregardless" mean? Last time I checked, that word was not in the dictionary.

3. I can't answer the last question. Sexism still exists, so probably not. There would have to be laws that mandate equal pay for equal quality work.