Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Discrimination against women in the workforce

Ithacus
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 4:24:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Recently, I defended women's right to hold offices of power ... despite PMS (http://www.debate.org...). I'm a guy, and I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't actually done a lot of research on workplace discrimination, largely because I never realized it was an issue. I consider women to be equal, all the men and women I associate with consider men and women equal (except for a few oddballs who consider them "separate but equal") but after this debate I have become worried that fewer of my countrymen think that way than I previously assumed.

My opponent is only one person among millions in the Western world, but as I was doing research to defend my position I began to uncover statistics indicating that women are only very, very recently becoming really equal in education opportunities, and that they are still far from equally represented in the workforce.

I turn it over to the more informed, intelligent and educated minds on Debate.org -- is discrimination against women in the workforce in the Western world still a substantial problem? Have we put that issue behind us yet?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 7:25:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 4:24:01 PM, Ithacus wrote:
Recently, I defended women's right to hold offices of power ... despite PMS (http://www.debate.org...). I'm a guy, and I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't actually done a lot of research on workplace discrimination, largely because I never realized it was an issue. I consider women to be equal, all the men and women I associate with consider men and women equal (except for a few oddballs who consider them "separate but equal") but after this debate I have become worried that fewer of my countrymen think that way than I previously assumed.

My opponent is only one person among millions in the Western world, but as I was doing research to defend my position I began to uncover statistics indicating that women are only very, very recently becoming really equal in education opportunities, and that they are still far from equally represented in the workforce.

I turn it over to the more informed, intelligent and educated minds on Debate.org -- is discrimination against women in the workforce in the Western world still a substantial problem? Have we put that issue behind us yet?

It goes both ways. There are many sectors that women are under-represented and many that men are under-represented.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Granted, this is just for the UK, but it does show that woman will gravitate away from certain sectors and towards others. Some of it is preference and some is sexism. Only 6.5% of engineers are women, but 82.1% of therapists are women.

I work for a knife manufacturing company and 80% of the people in warranty customer service are women, and 100% of our sales customer service are women.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 7:27:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Simply pointing at a discrepancy from the 50/50 ratio does not show sexism. You have to look at how many people are applying vs getting the jobs.

If a company has 100 jobs to fill and it gets 500 applications, and only 150 of those applications are women (30%), then it would be reasonable to see about 30% women being hired.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 2:03:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What's wrong with separate but equal?

o_o

Aren't women good at things that men aren't good at?
Isn't the inverse true as well?

I don't think it's silly.

Have you ever thought that perhaps more men are hired for a certain job because they are more naturally inclined to that profession?

Likewise, have you ever thought that more women were hired for a certain job because they are more naturally inclined to that profession?

=D I'm not saying people should discriminate, I'm just saying that sometimes a certain sex is more commonly found in a certain place than another for a reason. That's all.
Ithacus
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 4:36:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What's wrong with separate but equal?

You ever read the majority opinion on Brown v. Board of Education?

Aren't women good at things that men aren't good at?
Isn't the inverse true as well?

On average, perhaps, but every individual is unique. There's no one thing where exclusively one gender is "better". Thus, if one gender were kept out of an area where the other is on average worse, several individuals would be excluded who would be extremely successful in that area.

Have you ever thought that perhaps more men are hired for a certain job because they are more naturally inclined to that profession?

Likewise, have you ever thought that more women were hired for a certain job because they are more naturally inclined to that profession?

No, because that's evo psych bull, excuse my French. Evolutionary psychology is a perfectly valid and interesting field, but it's caused many unscientific claims surrounding human attributes which are "hardwired" or inevitably predetermined by evolution or genes. There's no "natural inclination" that applies exclusively to a whole *gender*, individuals may be naturally inclined to things regardless of what gender or ethnic group they belong to. What you're saying is no less silly than claiming that Asians or black people are "more naturally inclined" to certain professions. It just sounds racist because it's based on generalized prejudices.

=D I'm not saying people should discriminate, I'm just saying that sometimes a certain sex is more commonly found in a certain place than another for a reason. That's all.

No, you're saying this reason is innate. You're saying that there aren't as many women, say, engineers, because women are naturally bad at being engineers. This is no less sexist than claiming that less men are psychologists because all men are naturally bad at psychology.

It is true that culture has a huge influence on how different social groups -- social class, ethnicity, gender etc. -- pursue certain fields. Even the toys you receive as a child in crucial developmental stages has a great influence on your adult skillset, interests and learning strategies.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 4:24:01 PM, Ithacus wrote:
Recently, I defended women's right to hold offices of power ... despite PMS (http://www.debate.org...). I'm a guy, and I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't actually done a lot of research on workplace discrimination, largely because I never realized it was an issue. I consider women to be equal, all the men and women I associate with consider men and women equal (except for a few oddballs who consider them "separate but equal") but after this debate I have become worried that fewer of my countrymen think that way than I previously assumed.

My opponent is only one person among millions in the Western world, but as I was doing research to defend my position I began to uncover statistics indicating that women are only very, very recently becoming really equal in education opportunities, and that they are still far from equally represented in the workforce.

I turn it over to the more informed, intelligent and educated minds on Debate.org -- is discrimination against women in the workforce in the Western world still a substantial problem? Have we put that issue behind us yet?

From what I've heard, the problem is quite dependent on where you try and look for a job. Some jobs just tend to be more discriminatory than others.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:40:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 2:03:18 AM, CanWeKnow wrote:
What's wrong with separate but equal?

Nothing really, I totally agree with it, since it has statistical backing.

o_o

Aren't women good at things that men aren't good at?
Isn't the inverse true as well?

Most of this is theoretical (it's not B.S., it's just possible causation due to the way the brain is wired). For example, a women's brain is wired much more redundantly than a males, which theoretically allows women to deal with head trauma much better (less brain injury), whereas males, who have less redundantly wired brains get the advantage of theoretically being better at a given mathematical task.

There is some evidence to support the males side (perhaps there is for females, but I am not aware of this), as males tend to fall either at the low end or the high end of intelligence tests, whereas women fall in the middle on average.

After that, there are the obvious physical differences that make males superior in physical strength.

To balance that out, women are better at care giving.

I don't think it's silly.

Have you ever thought that perhaps more men are hired for a certain job because they are more naturally inclined to that profession?

Likewise, have you ever thought that more women were hired for a certain job because they are more naturally inclined to that profession?

=D I'm not saying people should discriminate, I'm just saying that sometimes a certain sex is more commonly found in a certain place than another for a reason. That's all.

See, and on that last point of discrimination, I disagree, but if I were to explain my position, I would get into another endless debate on this, whereby every girl calls me sexist, because I dare defend the idea that boys and girls are different.

Which by the way, you should be careful about bringing up gender differences on this site, as people on this site (mainly the women) get quite annoyed at it, since they don't really believe in the science behind it.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 9:37:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 7:27:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Simply pointing at a discrepancy from the 50/50 ratio does not show sexism. You have to look at how many people are applying vs getting the jobs.

If a company has 100 jobs to fill and it gets 500 applications, and only 150 of those applications are women (30%), then it would be reasonable to see about 30% women being hired.

Yeah, but you'd also have to ask why fewer are applying. Which itself could be due to sexism.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 10:58:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 9:37:04 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/21/2013 7:27:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Simply pointing at a discrepancy from the 50/50 ratio does not show sexism. You have to look at how many people are applying vs getting the .

If a company has 100 jobs to fill and it gets 500 applications, and only 150 of those applications are women (30%), then it would be reasonable to see about 30% women being hired.

Yeah, but you'd also have to ask why fewer are applying. Which itself could be due to sexism.

Or fewer women care to do the job. I doubt there would be an equal 50/50 split in applications for something like construction workers, or any other manual labor job.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 11:40:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 10:58:40 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/22/2013 9:37:04 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/21/2013 7:27:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Simply pointing at a discrepancy from the 50/50 ratio does not show sexism. You have to look at how many people are applying vs getting the .

If a company has 100 jobs to fill and it gets 500 applications, and only 150 of those applications are women (30%), then it would be reasonable to see about 30% women being hired.

Yeah, but you'd also have to ask why fewer are applying. Which itself could be due to sexism.

Or fewer women care to do the job. I doubt there would be an equal 50/50 split in applications for something like construction workers, or any other manual labor job.

Why, exactly, would fewer women want to do the job? Ingrained cultural gender roles that discourage people from seeking jobs they otherwise would is sexism.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 11:44:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 11:40:42 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/22/2013 10:58:40 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/22/2013 9:37:04 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/21/2013 7:27:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Simply pointing at a discrepancy from the 50/50 ratio does not show sexism. You have to look at how many people are applying vs getting the .

If a company has 100 jobs to fill and it gets 500 applications, and only 150 of those applications are women (30%), then it would be reasonable to see about 30% women being hired.

Yeah, but you'd also have to ask why fewer are applying. Which itself could be due to sexism.

Or fewer women care to do the job. I doubt there would be an equal 50/50 split in applications for something like construction workers, or any other manual labor job.

Why, exactly, would fewer women want to do the job? Ingrained cultural gender roles that discourage people from seeking jobs they otherwise would is sexism.

Or because women tend to be much less physically built than men, which puts them at a disadvantage in such a field. That's a biological gender role, not a culturally-based "sexist" one.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 12:33:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 4:24:01 PM, Ithacus wrote:
Recently, I defended women's right to hold offices of power ... despite PMS (http://www.debate.org...). I'm a guy, and I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't actually done a lot of research on workplace discrimination, largely because I never realized it was an issue. I consider women to be equal, all the men and women I associate with consider men and women equal (except for a few oddballs who consider them "separate but equal") but after this debate I have become worried that fewer of my countrymen think that way than I previously assumed.

My opponent is only one person among millions in the Western world, but as I was doing research to defend my position I began to uncover statistics indicating that women are only very, very recently becoming really equal in education opportunities, and that they are still far from equally represented in the workforce.

I turn it over to the more informed, intelligent and educated minds on Debate.org -- is discrimination against women in the workforce in the Western world still a substantial problem? Have we put that issue behind us yet?

It really depends on what you call discrimination and how it is measured.
The fact that men succeed in business more often, IMO, is not based in sexism, but in a difference between the sexes. Men generally have more drive, are more competitive, and are willing to sacrifice more family time than women. Alternatively, women are often left to fend for children alone (how often do you hear of single fathers?), so they often have limited availability, which hinders their ability to be promoted (see: Wal-mart's employee demographics).

I largely think the issue is over-hyped, and more importantly, misrepresented.
For example, the women earn 77% of men statistic compares the average American income period, not income across the same company or industry, or, heaven forbid, a direct comparison using specific criteria (like starting pay of 5+ experience for cashiers at Targets in New York City).
Personally, I have never known a woman to make less than a man for the same work.
My work here is, finally, done.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 2:40:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, you're saying this reason is innate. You're saying that there aren't as many women, say, engineers, because women are naturally bad at being engineers. This is no less sexist than claiming that less men are psychologists because all men are naturally bad at psychology.

From my direct experience, physical attribute do really play role in gender inequality in working environment.

In many cases, it's true that female body had far more hormone issue than the male counter part. This often result in emotion instability, periodic depression, and progressively worsen with age. I found every single female bosses or partners I've worked with to be very mush unpleasant and that's all due to one single reason, they forgot to take their hormonal pill before work and got crazy. If you do need a medicinal treatment in order to do your job right that's a first evident that you are not physically fit for a job.

Of course, in the end, individual performance will prevail over any other criteria, that doesn't mean that I can be too mindful when dealing with female personnel. They might do their job just fine in a first few years then became a liability when they get older, or they may work in my office for a while and after a few years getting married and retired or take an extremely long maternity leave.

This doesn't mean I am objecting in hiring female personnel. But I don't see why there should be any attempt to increases proportion of female workforce in the office. For me it isn't relevant at all, if they are better they will be accept, that's all, women or men.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 7:04:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
No, you're saying this reason is innate. You're saying that there aren't as many women, say, engineers, because women are naturally bad at being engineers. This is no less sexist than claiming that less men are psychologists because all men are naturally bad at psychology.

From my direct experience, physical attribute do really play role in gender inequality in working environment.

In many cases, it's true that female body had far more hormone issue than the male counter part. This often result in emotion instability, periodic depression, and progressively worsen with age. I found every single female bosses or partners I've worked with to be very mush unpleasant and that's all due to one single reason, they forgot to take their hormonal pill before work and got crazy. If you do need a medicinal treatment in order to do your job right that's a first evident that you are not physically fit for a job.

lol, this is about as politically incorrect as you can get. This is one reason why east, south, and southeast Asia have some of the worst problems with gender discrimination. It's IMHO purely psychological and has little to no basis in reality, other than "perception is reality".

I've met plenty of women in leadership positions that are calmer and less prone to rash decision-making than men, enough to convince me that it's nothing other than conditioning, and that with such, women can perform any mental task, like management, as well as any man.

I've met the opposite as well, the stereotypical, emotional wet-rag. Again, IMHO it's all conditioning and upbringing.

Of course, in the end, individual performance will prevail over any other criteria, that doesn't mean that I can be too mindful when dealing with female personnel. They might do their job just fine in a first few years then became a liability when they get older, or they may work in my office for a while and after a few years getting married and retired or take an extremely long maternity leave.

Men also become a liability when they get older for similar reasons - their bodies fall apart, they have regrets for what they could have done had they not worked the same job for 30 years, they have mid-life crises that just happen to correspond with the onset of menopause in women that would suggest a similar hormonal imbalance in men, etc. However, men AND women who work at a job for a very long time have enormous reservoirs of experience and wisdom that is irreplaceable.

I did a debate about this as well...my opponent attempted to try something novel with "absolute" discrimination against women:
http://www.debate.org...

This doesn't mean I am objecting in hiring female personnel. But I don't see why there should be any attempt to increases proportion of female workforce in the office. For me it isn't relevant at all, if they are better they will be accept, that's all, women or men.

This statement is the most important takeaway.
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?
jopo
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 11:38:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
No, you're saying this reason is innate. You're saying that there aren't as many women, say, engineers, because women are naturally bad at being engineers. This is no less sexist than claiming that less men are psychologists because all men are naturally bad at psychology.

From my direct experience, physical attribute do really play role in gender inequality in working environment.

In many cases, it's true that female body had far more hormone issue than the male counter part. This often result in emotion instability, periodic depression, and progressively worsen with age. I found every single female bosses or partners I've worked with to be very mush unpleasant and that's all due to one single reason, they forgot to take their hormonal pill before work and got crazy. If you do need a medicinal treatment in order to do your job right that's a first evident that you are not physically fit for a job.

I feel like this is a bit of a harsh generalization. I myself am a female and I know hormones can suck at times, but I also think they tend to get over-used as a crutch. I do think society often sees women as pickier/moodier/etc (=less desirable) and this is reflected in a recent gallup poll that found that the majority of respondents preferred having a male boss (http://www.cnn.com...). However, I feel like a lot of times this may also be perception error. I've seen a short video from upworthy that's been "trending" lately that seems to sum up how females are perceived in the work field (http://www.upworthy.com...). All of this to say, I think there are clear perceptions that women are less preferable as a boss, however, I feel like this is an issue of how we see women as a society and may not really be due to us needing to take a hormone pill to conquer those crazy things that make us.... crazy?
Of course, in the end, individual performance will prevail over any other criteria, that doesn't mean that I can be too mindful when dealing with female personnel. They might do their job just fine in a first few years then became a liability when they get older, or they may work in my office for a while and after a few years getting married and retired or take an extremely long maternity leave.

Now I'm not sure if with this you're trying to state that women will most likely have large performance drop as they age, but I do think that this is common thought. While women do have issues, like having to take maternity leave if they start a family, I think it's wrong to look at this as the future where a female will end up when evaluating if she should be hired, or promoted, etc (again not sure if this was your exact point, but if not I do believe it is still a mentality that exists in the business field). As wrichcirw points out in the prior post men also face issues as they age.
This doesn't mean I am objecting in hiring female personnel. But I don't see why there should be any attempt to increases proportion of female workforce in the office. For me it isn't relevant at all, if they are better they will be accept, that's all, women or men.
I think one issue you touched on briefly (with women stopping to work after getting married and starting a family) speaks to why women actually need help in the work force. In the past few decades we have seen a huge societal revolution - we broke away from the 1950's stereotypes where the husband was always the breadwinner and the women was the family tender. Now women have many new societal freedoms, but there is a tug-of-war that goes on between work and family life -- women now feel pulled to both be out and active in the world in some way (i.e. part-time work, full-time work, volunteering, etc.) and to still be active in their home life with their kids. I think what we should see is an increase in helping women learn how to navigate this and where the best balance lies for them.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:42:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
lol, this is about as politically incorrect as you can get. This is one reason why east, south, and southeast Asia have some of the worst problems with gender discrimination. It's IMHO purely psychological and has little to no basis in reality, other than "perception is reality".

I've met plenty of women in leadership positions that are calmer and less prone to rash decision-making than men, enough to convince me that it's nothing other than conditioning, and that with such, women can perform any mental task, like management, as well as any man.

True, many women did indeed overcame their physical limit and in such case I see no reason why shouldn't be put in management position.

However it is also true that their body is liability, in a lot of way than male body did. My point is that it is natural that there would be more male/female proportion in certain professional career. While many males only need to solve their problems at hands, women need to solve both their personal problem and work problem. Those who survived it are certainly worthy of respect, but I think it is absolutely natural that many of them fails.

I've met the opposite as well, the stereotypical, emotional wet-rag. Again, IMHO it's all conditioning and upbringing.

Of course, in the end, individual performance will prevail over any other criteria, that doesn't mean that I can be too mindful when dealing with female personnel. They might do their job just fine in a first few years then became a liability when they get older, or they may work in my office for a while and after a few years getting married and retired or take an extremely long maternity leave.

Men also become a liability when they get older for similar reasons - their bodies fall apart, they have regrets for what they could have done had they not worked the same job for 30 years, they have mid-life crises that just happen to correspond with the onset of menopause in women that would suggest a similar hormonal imbalance in men, etc. However, men AND women who work at a job for a very long time have enormous reservoirs of experience and wisdom that is irreplaceable.

Indeed but male body deterioration will only result in decrease human energy, while women also lost control without medical administration.

As you've point out, social factors play a role. I don't deny it, female equality in workforce here in SEA is an issue but it doesn't stem from work place, it came from the family of those female employees, and themselves.

Not many of our female employees are ambitious and most of them seem to enjoy the status they currently have (office work, away from the field and burden of leadership) so those who have what it take became very exceptional and is always a welcome sign in business. You will surprise of how many female engineers and construction worker I've work with in this past few years.

However, a female member of a middle class family have almost always face opposition from their parent from taking a command position, especially from industry such as construction, logistic, etc.

They do have good reasons though, the minimum wages policy of the populist faction in the government had resulted in physical labor jobs being shifted more toward illegal immigrant from Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. In the past they are very infamous for criminal record and unpredictable behavior. Today the situation is mush improve but their criminal image still stuck in the head of the older generation people and became obstacle for today young women who would like to pursuit career in this field.

This doesn't mean I am objecting in hiring female personnel. But I don't see why there should be any attempt to increases proportion of female workforce in the office. For me it isn't relevant at all, if they are better they will be accept, that's all, women or men.

This statement is the most important takeaway.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:59:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I feel like this is a bit of a harsh generalization. I myself am a female and I know hormones can suck at times, but I also think they tend to get over-used as a crutch. I do think society often sees women as pickier/moodier/etc (=less desirable) and this is reflected in a recent gallup poll that found that the majority of respondents preferred having a male boss (http://www.cnn.com...). However, I feel like a lot of times this may also be perception error. I've seen a short video from upworthy that's been "trending" lately that seems to sum up how females are perceived in the work field (http://www.upworthy.com...). All of this to say, I think there are clear perceptions that women are less preferable as a boss, however, I feel like this is an issue of how we see women as a society and may not really be due to us needing to take a hormone pill to conquer those crazy things that make us.... crazy?

You will feel the effect more closely when you're aged. Hormonal treatment can be a blessing to both you and your working environment.

I saw a mature women who are perfectly normal turn extremely depress I was so afraid that she would jump out of the building. It seem to happen almost exclusively to female with 50+ age, which is kind of scary.

In any cases, my point is that I think since women will face more physical difficulty in performing jobs than men, it is natural that there will be more men in some professional career than women (and vise versa in professions that emotional sensitivity would be an advantage).

Women who can overcome their limited is certainly worthy of respect, but I don't see any reason why they should be given special privilege in job they fail to compete. That's the whole idea.

Now I'm not sure if with this you're trying to state that women will most likely have large performance drop as they age, but I do think that this is common thought. While women do have issues, like having to take maternity leave if they start a family, I think it's wrong to look at this as the future where a female will end up when evaluating if she should be hired, or promoted, etc (again not sure if this was your exact point, but if not I do believe it is still a mentality that exists in the business field). As wrichcirw points out in the prior post men also face issues as they age.
This doesn't mean I am objecting in hiring female personnel. But I don't see why there should be any attempt to increases proportion of female workforce in the office. For me it isn't relevant at all, if they are better they will be accept, that's all, women or men.
I think one issue you touched on briefly (with women stopping to work after getting married and starting a family) speaks to why women actually need help in the work force. In the past few decades we have seen a huge societal revolution - we broke away from the 1950's stereotypes where the husband was always the breadwinner and the women was the family tender. Now women have many new societal freedoms, but there is a tug-of-war that goes on between work and family life -- women now feel pulled to both be out and active in the world in some way (i.e. part-time work, full-time work, volunteering, etc.) and to still be active in their home life with their kids. I think what we should see is an increase in helping women learn how to navigate this and where the best balance lies for them.

That's exactly the issue, you have to struggle to work and having family at the same time. You're representing a risk to a company that decided to hire you, what if you failed to cope up with both your work and family life? What if in the end you decided to quit and spend more time with your kids?

To be honest I had hired a women who work and had family before, sometime they are very responsible take care of their personal issue very well, but sometime they also increase a burden on my part to even help manage their own personal affair (they even brought their baby to the office and ask my other employee to take care of them instead of doing work!).

I work in a small business and hiring new people is not easy, so firing became ver unrealistic option. So if they are not very exceptional, I am skeptical about hiring female worker to an important position in the future.
jopo
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:15:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:59:01 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

You will feel the effect more closely when you're aged. Hormonal treatment can be a blessing to both you and your working environment.

I saw a mature women who are perfectly normal turn extremely depress I was so afraid that she would jump out of the building. It seem to happen almost exclusively to female with 50+ age, which is kind of scary.

I have seen women go through this time period and I don't doubt that in that instance she could have had those emotions - however, is it really fair to chalk that up exclusively to hormones? There are just elements of this being a phase of life issue to. However, in men depression often is harder to see/diagnosis (http://www.webmd.com... - "the lingering image of depression as a female condition may keep men who are clinically depressed from recognizing the symptoms of depression and seeking treatment") The following link to the mayo clinic includes an article specifically targeting male depression and actually has a heading on how depression in males is often undiagnosed (http://www.mayoclinic.com...). The reason you may attribute depression at this stage of life more to females is because depression looks incredibly different among the sexes, as highlighted in a chart on the following website (http://www.helpguide.org...). All I'm saying here is that it is pretty clear that depression isn't solely a female issue, so while it's nice to say women can be unruly at this time because of their phase of life, and, dare I say it, menopause, this is an issue men are facing too, they just experience it differently and actually achieve less help for it.

That's exactly the issue, you have to struggle to work and having family at the same time. You're representing a risk to a company that decided to hire you, what if you failed to cope up with both your work and family life? What if in the end you decided to quit and spend more time with your kids?

To be honest I had hired a women who work and had family before, sometime they are very responsible take care of their personal issue very well, but sometime they also increase a burden on my part to even help manage their own personal affair (they even brought their baby to the office and ask my other employee to take care of them instead of doing work!).

I work in a small business and hiring new people is not easy, so firing became ver unrealistic option. So if they are not very exceptional, I am skeptical about hiring female worker to an important position in the future.:

I agree this is a hard time for women, however I think your personal experience highlights the negative effects it has on women. My position with this is that women need more help highlighting their own goals/desires and finding realistic ways to achieve their personal balance between work and family. With how things currently are, employers may be scared that hiring a women is just too risky because of what they have seen in the past - which results in a version of discrimination. We can't just leave things how they are - if we can help women understand their goals and help shape a society that understands this conflict then women and employers could work together and have more realistic conversations. You talked about a women bringing a baby to work and she had a co-worker help her take care of her child - while that was inappropriate for the situation she needs other options. I simply take the stance that these burdens are hard and confusing - both for the women to face and employers to weigh - so I think it's important to bring this out into public places (like discussion boards on debate.org) and start dialogue about the issues, rather than just adopting the "that's life, good luck" policy.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 9:48:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have seen women go through this time period and I don't doubt that in that instance she could have had those emotions - however, is it really fair to chalk that up exclusively to hormones? There are just elements of this being a phase of life issue to. However, in men depression often is harder to see/diagnosis (http://www.webmd.com... - "the lingering image of depression as a female condition may keep men who are clinically depressed from recognizing the symptoms of depression and seeking treatment") The following link to the mayo clinic includes an article specifically targeting male depression and actually has a heading on how depression in males is often undiagnosed (http://www.mayoclinic.com...). The reason you may attribute depression at this stage of life more to females is because depression looks incredibly different among the sexes, as highlighted in a chart on the following website (http://www.helpguide.org...). All I'm saying here is that it is pretty clear that depression isn't solely a female issue, so while it's nice to say women can be unruly at this time because of their phase of life, and, dare I say it, menopause, this is an issue men are facing too, they just experience it differently and actually achieve less help for it.

Agree, many men are prone to depression too. For a reason I don't understand, it doesn't seem to affect our external performance mush, more like we felt sad but not angry for most of the time.

I hate to admit this but this fact making hiring male employee a better option. They don't ask for help, which is a huge relieve on management position (which aside from greater burden, also affect by this depression too).

But yes, as we've agree, it's highly personal. Some man can be as emotional sensitive as women and are quite difficult handle.

I agree this is a hard time for women, however I think your personal experience highlights the negative effects it has on women. My position with this is that women need more help highlighting their own goals/desires and finding realistic ways to achieve their personal balance between work and family. With how things currently are, employers may be scared that hiring a women is just too risky because of what they have seen in the past - which results in a version of discrimination. We can't just leave things how they are - if we can help women understand their goals and help shape a society that understands this conflict then women and employers could work together and have more realistic conversations. You talked about a women bringing a baby to work and she had a co-worker help her take care of her child - while that was inappropriate for the situation she needs other options. I simply take the stance that these burdens are hard and confusing - both for the women to face and employers to weigh - so I think it's important to bring this out into public places (like discussion boards on debate.org) and start dialogue about the issues, rather than just adopting the "that's life, good luck" policy.

I am sympathized with your idea, that doesn't mean it will be practical to apply though. I hire men because I need help, I didn't do it so that they would cause even more problem on my end.

While true that in the end an issue need to be talked and solved but if it can be avoid at the first place by choosing a male or women who already had a growth up children and stable family. People need to solve their own personal problem, it's highly inappropriate for someone to expect their employer or society to became their personal helper (although I did help them in the end anyway).

You are selling your product that is labor to the society, it's highly unethical to sell it with defect you already well aware off and expect that the consumer will pay and help solve that out somehow.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 12:08:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:42:01 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
lol, this is about as politically incorrect as you can get. This is one reason why east, south, and southeast Asia have some of the worst problems with gender discrimination. It's IMHO purely psychological and has little to no basis in reality, other than "perception is reality".

I've met plenty of women in leadership positions that are calmer and less prone to rash decision-making than men, enough to convince me that it's nothing other than conditioning, and that with such, women can perform any mental task, like management, as well as any man.

True, many women did indeed overcame their physical limit and in such case I see no reason why shouldn't be put in management position.

However it is also true that their body is liability, in a lot of way than male body did. My point is that it is natural that there would be more male/female proportion in certain professional career. While many males only need to solve their problems at hands, women need to solve both their personal problem and work problem. Those who survived it are certainly worthy of respect, but I think it is absolutely natural that many of them fails.

1) Again, males also have personal problems they have to solve with age and what not. There is no discernible difference between men and women in this regard.

2) What exactly do you mean by the underlined?

I've met the opposite as well, the stereotypical, emotional wet-rag. Again, IMHO it's all conditioning and upbringing.

Of course, in the end, individual performance will prevail over any other criteria, that doesn't mean that I can be too mindful when dealing with female personnel. They might do their job just fine in a first few years then became a liability when they get older, or they may work in my office for a while and after a few years getting married and retired or take an extremely long maternity leave.

Men also become a liability when they get older for similar reasons - their bodies fall apart, they have regrets for what they could have done had they not worked the same job for 30 years, they have mid-life crises that just happen to correspond with the onset of menopause in women that would suggest a similar hormonal imbalance in men, etc. However, men AND women who work at a job for a very long time have enormous reservoirs of experience and wisdom that is irreplaceable.

Indeed but male body deterioration will only result in decrease human energy, while women also lost control without medical administration.

Please describe this "lost control", and how it is only specific to women and not men. When you, a man, suffer from "decrease human energy" you obviously have less control over your body than you did before. This is not a gender issue.

As you've point out, social factors play a role. I don't deny it, female equality in workforce here in SEA is an issue but it doesn't stem from work place, it came from the family of those female employees, and themselves.

Not many of our female employees are ambitious and most of them seem to enjoy the status they currently have (office work, away from the field and burden of leadership) so those who have what it take became very exceptional and is always a welcome sign in business. You will surprise of how many female engineers and construction worker I've work with in this past few years.

However, a female member of a middle class family have almost always face opposition from their parent from taking a command position, especially from industry such as construction, logistic, etc.

They do have good reasons though, the minimum wages policy of the populist faction in the government had resulted in physical labor jobs being shifted more toward illegal immigrant from Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. In the past they are very infamous for criminal record and unpredictable behavior. Today the situation is mush improve but their criminal image still stuck in the head of the older generation people and became obstacle for today young women who would like to pursuit career in this field.

This doesn't mean I am objecting in hiring female personnel. But I don't see why there should be any attempt to increases proportion of female workforce in the office. For me it isn't relevant at all, if they are better they will be accept, that's all, women or men.

This statement is the most important takeaway.
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?
jopo
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 12:39:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 9:48:18 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I have seen women go through this time period and I don't doubt that in that instance she could have had those emotions - however, is it really fair to chalk that up exclusively to hormones? There are just elements of this being a phase of life issue to. However, in men depression often is harder to see/diagnosis (http://www.webmd.com... - "the lingering image of depression as a female condition may keep men who are clinically depressed from recognizing the symptoms of depression and seeking treatment") The following link to the mayo clinic includes an article specifically targeting male depression and actually has a heading on how depression in males is often undiagnosed (http://www.mayoclinic.com...). The reason you may attribute depression at this stage of life more to females is because depression looks incredibly different among the sexes, as highlighted in a chart on the following website (http://www.helpguide.org...). All I'm saying here is that it is pretty clear that depression isn't solely a female issue, so while it's nice to say women can be unruly at this time because of their phase of life, and, dare I say it, menopause, this is an issue men are facing too, they just experience it differently and actually achieve less help for it.

Agree, many men are prone to depression too. For a reason I don't understand, it doesn't seem to affect our external performance mush, more like we felt sad but not angry for most of the time.

I hate to admit this but this fact making hiring male employee a better option. They don't ask for help, which is a huge relieve on management position (which aside from greater burden, also affect by this depression too).

But yes, as we've agree, it's highly personal. Some man can be as emotional sensitive as women and are quite difficult handle.

You talked earlier about seeing women who were so depressed you were afraid they would jump out of a building. Now we seem to agree that depression can affect both sexes, but need to clarify how it affects guys. While you don't see it the same in both sexes ("it doesn't seem to affect our external performance mush, more like we felt sad but not angry for most of the time"), it is important to see the dire consequences it has. According to one of my sources from my last post, "The CDC reports that men in the U.S. are about four times more likely than women to commit suicide. A staggering 75% to 80% of all people who commit suicide in the U.S. are men." (http://www.webmd.com...) Now I'm not trying to say that this means men shouldn't be hired, or anything like that; however, you talk about how the hormonal issues women go through put them in a uniquely complicated position, and I'm just trying to illustrate how men go through comparably difficult struggles.

I agree this is a hard time for women, however I think your personal experience highlights the negative effects it has on women. My position with this is that women need more help highlighting their own goals/desires and finding realistic ways to achieve their personal balance between work and family. With how things currently are, employers may be scared that hiring a women is just too risky because of what they have seen in the past - which results in a version of discrimination. We can't just leave things how they are - if we can help women understand their goals and help shape a society that understands this conflict then women and employers could work together and have more realistic conversations. You talked about a women bringing a baby to work and she had a co-worker help her take care of her child - while that was inappropriate for the situation she needs other options. I simply take the stance that these burdens are hard and confusing - both for the women to face and employers to weigh - so I think it's important to bring this out into public places (like discussion boards on debate.org) and start dialogue about the issues, rather than just adopting the "that's life, good luck" policy.

I am sympathized with your idea, that doesn't mean it will be practical to apply though. I hire men because I need help, I didn't do it so that they would cause even more problem on my end.

While true that in the end an issue need to be talked and solved but if it can be avoid at the first place by choosing a male or women who already had a growth up children and stable family. People need to solve their own personal problem, it's highly inappropriate for someone to expect their employer or society to became their personal helper (although I did help them in the end anyway).

You are selling your product that is labor to the society, it's highly unethical to sell it with defect you already well aware off and expect that the consumer will pay and help solve that out somehow.:

This is actually a major principle, I think, in American society. When we see a large spread of discrepancy or issue facing a group of people, we create programs to help them get their needed support. I'm curious if under this logic you are opposed to ideas like providing welfare, supporting those with disabilities, supporting veterans, offering food stamps and the many other ways we reach out to those who are in need. If you're not opposed to these, what in your mind separates women's current battle between home and work? Again this is a relatively new issue that we're still trying to adjust to, and one that actually harms both the women and businesses (as they may feel their hiring pool is smaller; they may be less willing to take a risk on hiring someone; or they may end up in a place like you did where they hired someone they felt they couldn't fire, but due to this issue that person's work performance had dropped considerably).
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:47:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1) Again, males also have personal problems they have to solve with age and what not. There is no discernible difference between men and women in this regard.

2) What exactly do you mean by the underlined?

I mostly talk about the issue of hormone imbalance, and social position of a women with strong tendency toward having family and children.

As I mention earlier, it's my personal experience with female worker who are having a kid or aged that lead me to believe that female with hormonal issue is less effective in workplace environment (and yes, it is my personal believe, that is why I don't claim it to be universally applied).

I also found that women, even the most competent one tend to be insecure and enact an over aggressive personality to hide their insecurity. Perhaps this is a social issue as well, in the past workplace discrimination against women was serious and truly need more attention. I think many of them had carried this image even in to the modern age where work place is mush more open. So many of them still fear a possible discrimination and bias from their male associates in the male dominate industry. Thus they tend to be overreacting, and make themselves less fit to their position (and caused many of them to be less competitive compare to male)

I've met the opposite as well, the stereotypical, emotional wet-rag. Again, IMHO it's all conditioning and upbringing.

Of course, in the end, individual performance will prevail over any other criteria, that doesn't mean that I can be too mindful when dealing with female personnel. They might do their job just fine in a first few years then became a liability when they get older, or they may work in my office for a while and after a few years getting married and retired or take an extremely long maternity leave.

Men also become a liability when they get older for similar reasons - their bodies fall apart, they have regrets for what they could have done had they not worked the same job for 30 years, they have mid-life crises that just happen to correspond with the onset of menopause in women that would suggest a similar hormonal imbalance in men, etc. However, men AND women who work at a job for a very long time have enormous reservoirs of experience and wisdom that is irreplaceable.

Indeed but male body deterioration will only result in decrease human energy, while women also lost control without medical administration.

Please describe this "lost control", and how it is only specific to women and not men. When you, a man, suffer from "decrease human energy" you obviously have less control over your body than you did before. This is not a gender issue.


Again, this only my personal experience, I found the "lost control" nature in male and female to be quite different.

1. When male lost human energy with increasing age they tend to grow weaker, they speak less, work less, and tired easily.

2. When female lost control with increasing age they tend to grow weaker as well, but usually not as mush as how men do, instead of just turn inactive they tend to demand more help and annoyed easily when thing do not turn their way.

For this reason I found aged female worker to be more difficult to handle than male.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 4:01:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You talked earlier about seeing women who were so depressed you were afraid they would jump out of a building. Now we seem to agree that depression can affect both sexes, but need to clarify how it affects guys. While you don't see it the same in both sexes ("it doesn't seem to affect our external performance mush, more like we felt sad but not angry for most of the time"), it is important to see the dire consequences it has. According to one of my sources from my last post, "The CDC reports that men in the U.S. are about four times more likely than women to commit suicide. A staggering 75% to 80% of all people who commit suicide in the U.S. are men." (http://www.webmd.com...) Now I'm not trying to say that this means men shouldn't be hired, or anything like that; however, you talk about how the hormonal issues women go through put them in a uniquely complicated position, and I'm just trying to illustrate how men go through comparably difficult struggles.

All right, that's I agree. Still many men employees can step through that obstacle and achieved success despite the problem they faced. I do not see why we should help them, or the the women now when it is proven in the past that can overcome it without help.

This is actually a major principle, I think, in American society. When we see a large spread of discrepancy or issue facing a group of people, we create programs to help them get their needed support. I'm curious if under this logic you are opposed to ideas like providing welfare, supporting those with disabilities, supporting veterans, offering food stamps and the many other ways we reach out to those who are in need. If you're not opposed to these, what in your mind separates women's current battle between home and work? Again this is a relatively new issue that we're still trying to adjust to, and one that actually harms both the women and businesses (as they may feel their hiring pool is smaller; they may be less willing to take a risk on hiring someone; or they may end up in a place like you did where they hired someone they felt they couldn't fire, but due to this issue that person's work performance had dropped considerably).

I don't like socialism so I would probably hate it when you used my tax money to help the disabilities, and welfare but I think I will gladly pay it in the form of donation.

Veteran support is another story. I paid my government with an intention to have them effectively governed and protect the security of myself and the nation, thus veteran support which provide incentive for a stronger army is welcomed for my income tax.

That's probably the issue I have with your model. Tax is to be used with state affair, an individual problem need and individual solution and if you can't generate one ask someone you know for the advice. That's the least of the burden that all of us should have carried, ask for it, in our own name and not an organization or the state. There will be someone out there that's able and willing to help. At least I will, if somebody did have the courage of asking me for assistant.
jopo
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:39:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 4:01:15 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

This is actually a major principle, I think, in American society. When we see a large spread of discrepancy or issue facing a group of people, we create programs to help them get their needed support. I'm curious if under this logic you are opposed to ideas like providing welfare, supporting those with disabilities, supporting veterans, offering food stamps and the many other ways we reach out to those who are in need. If you're not opposed to these, what in your mind separates women's current battle between home and work? Again this is a relatively new issue that we're still trying to adjust to, and one that actually harms both the women and businesses (as they may feel their hiring pool is smaller; they may be less willing to take a risk on hiring someone; or they may end up in a place like you did where they hired someone they felt they couldn't fire, but due to this issue that person's work performance had dropped considerably).

I don't like socialism so I would probably hate it when you used my tax money to help the disabilities, and welfare but I think I will gladly pay it in the form of donation.

Veteran support is another story. I paid my government with an intention to have them effectively governed and protect the security of myself and the nation, thus veteran support which provide incentive for a stronger army is welcomed for my income tax.

That's probably the issue I have with your model. Tax is to be used with state affair, an individual problem need and individual solution and if you can't generate one ask someone you know for the advice. That's the least of the burden that all of us should have carried, ask for it, in our own name and not an organization or the state. There will be someone out there that's able and willing to help. At least I will, if somebody did have the courage of asking me for assistant. :

Since I don't want this to turn into a huge political argument (since I am still trying to identify my own political beliefs) I want to focus on what we seem to agree on. I like your idea of turning to ideas like donations and think now we're reaching more of the same view, given that we both acknowledge the struggles women face, their harms and we seem to be acknowledging the potential benefit of offering help, even if it is on an organizational or individual level. Ultimately this is all I feel for sure - I don't know that the government ought to provide the support, but I do believe in the need for societal awareness of the issue so that we can address it. So I guess ultimately the way I see it is that women shouldn't be shunned/discriminated based on their potential to become family-oriented and loosing career drive. Rather, I think if there could be more out reach to these women, more understanding of their plight (both by themselves and others) society as a whole would benefit in being able to better utilize a work force. Also, I feel like until something like this occurs there will be discrimination because employers, possibly do to past experience, do have worries about loosing employees (as you also asserted).