Thanks you further proved my point that men and women are different and perceived as different. How this playsout in the work place is a side issue.
But as I pointed out the consequesnces are not the same, women are commended for raising children, men are condemed (in the workplace), this allows women far more choice in their life then men ever have.
Again in theory it sounds good, but reality is quite different, men have NOT given themselves a pass but follow the only option open to them - WORK WORK WORK (or you will never work again), the female is the one w/ the option.
Much easier to take extended time off for child raising and reentering the work force then a man has (also in general collects social security longer then men do due to longer lifespan).
NO it is not a bad thing, it is a VERY good thing, a very very good thing. It is benificial to humanity IMHO that men and women are different - we solve more problems with differing POV’s.
No even willing to consider it, well that seems just a bit closed minded.
Problem is I never said that, you did, all I said is that the boss might notice some variable behaviour.
Well I think you would know this by now but the bleading part is not always the worst time for females, sometimes ovulation is.
Again most of my post is for the general perception of females and males, there may be (and are) exceptions, but that does not stop the mind from drawing ‘sterotypes’ and as long as biologigy is what is it those will be reinforced.
Like I love this Patriarchy BS, I said it sarcasticly.
Have you researched this thoroughly? How many of these countries have legislation or major party policies giving mandatory placements to women? How many have introduced female biased (often using the euphemism “family friendly”) policies for legislative or party duties? I know that these policies are in place in one form or another in the EU parliament, Scotland, the Netherlands and Australia. Given the general political leanings of Northern Europe I suspect that the same policies are at work there.
As such you can’t use any sample including such countries as evidence that the US hasn’t hit a natural limit. Some countries have imposed unnatural rules that discriminate against men by placing women regardless of merit or making it easier for women, and as a result have higher female participation. That does not mean that there isn’t a natural limit in the US where no such discrimination is in place.
Blake, it’s your claim that family-friendly rules are biased. I’m not going to argue that issue. I will just say that many other people will say that not having family-friendly rules is an evidence of bias.
If a woman is not promoted because of fear that child-raising will make her less productive, how is this more of a choice?
Tons of women have a hard time re-entering the workforce after raising children.
I’d like a cite for men (and just men) being unable to find jobs after take time off to raise a family.
Again, cite?
Then why are you proposing these differences as reasons why women are not promoted to the same extent as men? If different POVs are good, then it seems to me that having the top eschelons dominated by one POV (the male one) is not a good thing.
If you have a cite, maybe I will. What I won’t consider is a “hunch” based on well-entrenched stereotypes. To me, there isn’t much of a line separating “Her behavior changes dramatically based on her menstrual cycle” and “She’s freakin’ hysterical”.
And I would find “variable behavior” a poor excuse for not promoting someone. Especially if the boss was attributing the variable behavior to something as wacky as menstrual cycles.
Wonders never cease. A man is telling a women when the worst time of the month is. I’m not going to tell you when it is, but I will say this: ovulation, it is not.
I think all of us are familiar with the perceptions. The perceptions are so engrained in our society we cannot even separate truth from reality. I think feminism is about bucking the perceptions about gender and getting us to rethink what’s natural and what’s socially constructed.
:dubious: So a rule written specifically to favour one group is not biased. And an absence of rules written expressly to favour one group is evidnece of bias? That appears to make no sense at all.
Women politicians are unable or unwilling to sit through 72 hours sessions, we’ll cut back the session times to accomodate the. But this isn’t bias. They can’t or won’t make it to all sittings, we’ll reduce the mandatory number of sittings, and so forth. Yet it isn’t bias.
It’s is so obviously an attempt to bias the system towards women and what they are unable or unwilling to do that I can’t really see how anyone could claim otherwise. But if we do accept such bizarre logic then of course the system is biased against women. Most rules and laws are applied equally to men and women rather than being written to favour either. If the simple fact that they don’t favour any group is evidence of bias agsint women then of course there is a bais against women. But it is such an obvious true Scotsman that it hardly bears consideration.
And you have totally failed to address my question regardong which countires have political parties or laws that require minimum numbers of women as candidates, minimum numbers in safe electorates and so forth. Unless of course you are claiming that this is also not a bias.
Again you speak for all women? Let me assure you you DON’T, while not universal, there are some women who experence more pain and moodyness during ovulation then their period, not all, not most but some.
I posted above:
You can continue to beleive that a worker who’s output varies on a monthly cycle is just as valuable as an employee who works consistantly throughout the month are equal and should be paid equally and promoted (as long as the average work output is the same), but this is just denying reality.
A lot of your post seems to dismiss out of hand any difference between men and women, basically comming from the premise that they are the same, but if they are in fact different how will we ever understand the issuses and fight ignorance?
But taking this in another direction, we do see a very different distrubution in AD/HD traits. Males seem to have the hyperactive aspect of AD/HD while females seem to have a higher proportion of the inattentive type. Also it appears that males have AD/HD at a higher percentage then females, but inattentive type is harder to reconize, so the numbers of undiagnosed ADD-(inattentive) can be expected to be higher then undiagnosed ADHD.
Leaders of industry, and nations tend to have a higher percentage of ADHD people (see Thom Hartmans book ‘The Edison Gene’), and ADHD tends to be a male trait, so it would make sense that more males would be in positions of power. ADD-I does not seem to lead to positions of great power, but can lead people with such a trait to exploring their mind, meditation and spirtuality.
As for why males tend towards the hyperactive part and females the inattentive type, I don’t know. It may be hard wired or pressures for gender roles in society. I do beleive that hyperactivity and inattentivness are differing methods of dealing with the SAME underlying issue (ADD).
No you are infering that. I am saying that someone who works more consistantly is more valuable and would deserve more pay, faster promotions in general.
Now if the variability can be channeled to work load (applying more effort when needed and slacking off when things get slow) now that would be worth more, but if someone’s work patterns are not related to work loads, but on something outside the control of the employer, this would be in general a less valuable employee and get promoted less often and get less pay.
I have never heard of moodiness during ovulation. Pain, yes, but not moodiness. From my experiences as a woman and talking to women about this issue, we are more likely to experience “difficult times” during the week before menustruation and the week of. Ovulation is generally considered the “high point” of the cycle. And this makes sense biologically.
Regardless, I think you missed my original point. Everyone around me thought they “knew” the cause of my coworker’s bitchiness, and they were all wrong. Why can’t a woman be a hard-ass or a jerk without it being a “menstrual thing”? Wouldn’t it annoy the hell out of you if, every time you raised your voice, someone assumed you were on the rag (and let’s be honest…most men do not split hairs between PMS, periods, ovulation, etc.)?
Yes, I believe it because you haven’t provided any FACTS that prove otherwise. Nor have you explained why variability is a bad thing compared to consistency. As long as a woman stays competent throughout the month, why should anyone care what’s going on in her body? You seem to think variable behavior is concomitant with bad behavior, but what if a woman actually has a heightened level of positive attributes (creativity, flexibility, assertiveness, energy, etc.) during some times while maintaining a normal level during other times? Would this still be a bad thing?
Find me a cite that women’s levels of competency waver with her cycle, and maybe my mind won’t be so closed.
Heh. If you read my original post in this thread, you will see that I explicitly said that we are not the same. But that doesn’t mean that we have to be treated differently. I don’t believe my job performance changes based on the phase of my uternine lining. I don’t take days off when I’m bleeding, I don’t go on tirades when my estrogen levels take a plunge, and I don’t get moody when my ova explode. Physically, I may not be at my best when I’m on my period, but then again no one is at their best all the time. So it would be UNFAIR for my boss to not promote me because of an irrational fear of my menstrual cycle. Unless I’ve made it an issue in the past, my menstrual cycle is no one’s business. Don’t promote me if you think I’m a flake, but don’t assume I will be one just because you think women “change” more than a man does.
It seems to me (and maybe it’s just me), that I wouldn’t want to necessarily hire someone who’s hyperactive. They are impulsive, hard to control, sometimes frustrating to be around with, and can be a source of chaos. Knowing that men have a greater tendency (if we are to believe your cite) towards hyperactivity, would this be a good reason not to hire and promote men? Sure, this trait may be associated with leaders, but so are a lot of “bad” traits like aggressiveness, questionable ethics, and bossiness. Do we want to select for these traits as well as a hyperactivity?
Perhaps hyperactivity in males is “allowed” more than it is in women because males have more of an opportunity to blow off that excess energy. Little boys are expected to rip and run around the house and neighborhood, while little girls are expected to be a little bit more staid. Maybe in women, the hyperactivity is manifested as an attention issue simply because it IS less noticeable and therefore less of a target for correction.
What’s your point? Businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of gender because women have PMS? That women, by their nature, and inferior workers than men?
I hear what you are saying here, but my answer is because it will be reinforced biologically. It does happen, people notice patterns and will apply patterns to like situations. Also I have know at lease 1 woman who would use PMS as an excuse when it was not the reason, and in general women getting time off for ‘female issues’.
Read my above post
Yes it would be unfair, then again life is unfair. I don’t think the term irrational fear is apporpiate, I was talking about actually seeing a variable work pattern.
When a ‘ADDult’ enters the workforce, they have hopefully learned to channel this ‘trait’ which can be very advantagious in the work place. Salespeople in general is a ADHD friendly job, they sell more, this is the reason. ADHD ADDults are also more likely to start their own busnesses, which would put them at the top.
Yes that is what I mean by pressures for gender roles, I agree that this could be the reason.
My point in general is a consistant worker is more valuable then a inconsistant worker (unless the inconsistanty can flow with work cycles).
Another thing which may play a factor is tall people get promoted more often then short. I don’t know if this has been studied across gender lines, but with the assumption that it does apply, females are typically shorter then men, not fair - yes, but it does happen for some reason.
My father used to teach musical expression to his band students, for example, when two notes of the same size are tied together, the second one is played slightly softer and slightly shorter than the first. There are many such rules, and he taught us to exaggerate these rules to learn their effects.
He also taught that once the rules are learned, then they can be brought back within the usual paramaters of musical taste.
I see bra-burners in the same light; once their message was heard, it could be brought back within the paramaters of societal taste.
About PMS, I don’t believe it ever caused me any problems, although several of my friends and relatives habitually use the phrase “I’m PMSing.”
Whether or not this affects most women does not necessarily mean that it prevents them from functioning at their jobs or in every day life.
I hold doors open for anyone who needs assistance. I would hope that whether someone is male or female does not imply one gender needs more assistance than the other, except maybe when women are dressed up and wearing those pointy-toed, high-heeled shoes.
I have a suggestion for modern feminists:
burn pointy-toed, high-heeled shoes instead of bras.
So you blame the “world” rather than the shoddiness of the hypothesis. Nice.
Eighty percent of women experience some PMS symptoms during the course of their lifetime, yes. But most of these symptoms will be subtle and do not necessarily impinge on job performance. For me, my symptoms are often so subtle that it’s only when my period starts that I realize that the “quirks” I experienced the days before (like crying at stupid movies or eating up all the cheese in the refrigerator) were most likely PMS symptoms. (The other day, I cried at the end of the movie “Holes” and was actually relieved when I realized it was not the hormones talking. That’s essentially what the “time of the month” does to me, making me weepy. Big rubber deal.)
And they make ibuprofen for a reason. I keep a bottle in my drawer at work, and lemme tell you: I’m not the only one who pops one every now and then. Those macho guys I work with are always complaining about headaches, and I’m always happy to oblige them.
No they don’t. You imply that they do, but you haven’t shown anything.
If I have diarrhea, I go to the toliet and alleviate the problem within minutes. If I’m irritable, I turn up the classical music, make a cup of tea, and take ten deep breaths. Fatigue? If it’s too bad I can take the day off and make it up on a weekend, when I’m feeling better. If it isn’t, I pace myself during the day and make sure I get a good night’s sleep at night. Headache? Pop a Midol and suck down a bottle of water. And if all that fails, stay at home. Do that too many times and I won’t be promoted, you’re right, but don’t assume I will stay home.
Maybe it’s the field I’ve chosen (science), but rarely have I seen women making excuses for themselves by citing PMS. I know that when I feel the onset of PMS, I work harder, not less, in an effort to compensate.
How widespread are these symptoms? I have never experience nauseousness, concentration problems, or forgetfulness during PMS, and when I do feel irritable, I generally keep it to myself (Why are they talking so damn loud across the hall? Don’t they see I’m trying to work here?). Fatigue is something I have had to deal with (usually the first day of my period), but I have never taken a day off because of it. Nor is it something that I have let hurt my job performance (and I have a very very physically demanding job).
Maybe these things can’t help one’s work situation, but that doesn’t mean they have to hurt it either. What worries me is that you think it’s alright to assume that a woman will experience PMS, so let’s not promote her. Unless she’s shown herself to be a raving lunatic, what does it matter that she might be bloated or have to make urgent “runs” to the toliet every now and again? As long as her reports are turned in on time and she’s a pleasant person to work with, her personal business should stay personal.
I’m with you, lady. My performance at work is not affected by my monthly cycles, nor has it ever been. There are also medications, mostly birth control, which can completely stop a woman’s monthly cycles. The notion that I might be considered an inferior employee because I might be affected by them is, frankly, insulting. My work this week has been affected more by a mild head cold this week than it ever has been by menstruation!
I’m another unabashed feminist. I’m a computer jock by profession and I’ve got the work and the code to prove I’m as logical and as skilled as any man out there. I can haul cpus and monitors around as well as anyone, and I actually fit better under desks hooking things up than most men simply because I am shorter. The only time I’ve gotten upset when someone has or hasn’t opened a door for me is one time when I was hauling a CPU, keyboard, and various and sundry peripherals up to a second floor office and the fellow I let go past me on the steps let a door close in my face. Even then, it wasn’t because I was a woman, but because I had my hands full of somewhat heavy equipment. On the other hand, I think it’s charming when male friends open doors for me and, in general, treat me like a lady. I wear skirts to work because I like the way they look. I do not wear pointy-toed, high-heeled shoes to work because they’re uncomfortable, difficult to move around in, and don’t go well in some environments I’ve worked in where you have to wear steel-toed shoes to enter some areas. I’m not even that comfortable wearing them on dates since I’m a bit clumsy sometimes.
When I grew up back in the 1970s, it was unusual for a girl to be interested in sports. While homosexuality was never talked about, such a girl was considered a bit butch and unfeminine. The rule was simple. Girls took home ec and learned to cook and sew; boys took shop and learned wood and metal work. I already knew the basics of cooking and sewing, but I wasn’t allowed to take shop the first time around because girls didn’t do that. They did let me when I tried a second time, and I still have and take pride in the comedy and tragedy masks I cast from aluminum. Even though I do sew, I still remember the pride and the pleasure I had in making them.
It was also considered unusual for a girl to be interested in math, science, or engineering. Indeed, it was only a few years ago that a teenaged friend of mine who really should have known better informed me that girls were no good at math. The notion that a woman can be as smart or as competent as a man has only started to become common in my life and, kanicbird’s opinions in this thread, there are some men who still don’t buy that.
I became a feminist because I like men and it looked like the guys got to have more fun. I call myself one today because I know what it took to get where we are and I appreciate it. Who was it who said, “If I have seen further than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” The reason I enjoy the career and the privileges I have today, including those of owning my own property and controlling my own paycheck, is because others have smoothed the way for me.