This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

If Mort Divine ruled the world

Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Zephyrus, Jan 20, 2015.

  1. rms

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    if the answer to equality for women is remote location working then it opens the door for any eligible employee to apply for said position. If we're thinking rationally, of course

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

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

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

    they have the same opportunity in my eyes, it's just a female employee who is actively interested in getting pregnant would be rated lower than one who did not.
     
  2. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,812
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    Yes, but I don't understand why that would give men an edge.

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

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

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

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

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    who goes to business school more, men or women? West and non-West? This shouldn't be controversial.

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

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

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

    your word choice is disingenuous and has been called out several times now.
     
  4. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,812
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    It's not that more women than men are turned away from business school though, just that fewer women apply. You don't think that women who want the kind of jobs we're talking about will go to business school?

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

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

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

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

    This feels pretty Brave New World-ish.

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

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    it doesn't really matter, as to why or why not. The simple fact is there are more men in any field not named nursing or pre k teacher. Opening the labor market up to non-home-country applicants, which is what remote employment does, makes it harder for women. Especially non-Western women.

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

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

    goofily skinny white liberals is a pretty common stereotype tbh

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

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

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

    yes, this perspective is sooooooooo complex I could never understand it.
     
  6. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,812
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    It's not that I think you can't, it's that I think you're not trying to.

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

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    you're literally spewing bullshit at almost every turn. at least admit that you hold a ridiculous perspective of women and just move on, CF did it years ago
     
  8. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    Pregnancy is far, far more likely than getting hit by a car the first day.
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/childlessness/
    Only 15% of US women by age 44 are childless. With that statistic, eliminate the word potentially and say overwhelmingly likely.

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

    You have a laugher in the assertion about "women not looking to take advantage of their employer", when you already noted women are looking for jobs that will give them the most benefits for not being at work. I do agree with the latter claim; they most certainly do. The military is probably the most generous employer for female employees. If the military collected and/or released statistics on female servicemember pregnancy, particularly when deployments and/or other extreme duty assignments arise, you'd be forced to back off this or experience extreme cognitive dissonance. Anecdotally, I can tell you it's quite a thing. Moreso among the enlisted than officer types, but still quite a thing.
     
  9. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,812
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    As I said to rms, I cannot keep responding to all this. It's not worth it. But this demands addressing:

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

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    "Being payed for not working for extended amounts of time" = "flexibility". You're just playing word games and complaining people are misunderstanding your arguments. Women already are allowed to take unpaid time off for pregnancy by law, which is actual equality in flexibility. So don't pretend you are advocating for either equality or flexibility.

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

     
  11. rms

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    i agree with Ein on the last one, if your employer offers extra time off for pregnancy it's not exploitation. I would maybe consider it exploitation if it occurred at a problematic time without warning or something, as then your employer would be hamstrung by said federal law above ^^
     
  12. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    Well there's using and exploiting. There's also seeking out positions purely for exploiting.
     
  13. rms

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    don't think your example demonstrates exploitation. nothing unfair about becoming pregnant considering no lies on behalf of the woman at some sort of agreement
     
  14. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    You were in the military so here's an example you can recognize: Is it exploitation if a women has 3 pregnancies in 4 years of enlisted "service"?
     
  15. rms

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    if in a deploying/active unit yeah, but i think that's quite different than what you original posed
     
  16. CiG

    CiG Infrared Horizon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    40,915
    Likes Received:
    21,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    W.A.
    Yeah this. Please substantiate.
     
  17. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    Ein hasn't seen offices in the South. :lol:
     
  18. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,812
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    Urban centers in the U.S. tend to be healthier than rural areas; and most people in cities tend to work office jobs.

    This doesn't mean people working construction or physical jobs are fat, which is a ridiculous assumption. Physical labor is its own exercise; but those jobs also tend to demand physical exertion that isn't designed for body health. Additionally, because people in manual labor are working physically all day, they tend not to spend their mornings or evenings exercising.

    Urban office workers tend to spend more time walking to work and training their bodies.
     
  19. CiG

    CiG Infrared Horizon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    40,915
    Likes Received:
    21,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    W.A.
    Aren't there many studies showing how unhealthy it is to be sitting all day?
     
  20. rms

    rms Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,564
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    this # is so minuscule yet you act like it's statistically significant. man this is a weird conversation for you
     

Share This Page