thegreekdog wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:huamulan wrote:When negotiating remuneration packages, men are more likely to ask for higher pay and women are more likely to ask for extra holiday/flexible working.
Few women even HAVE jobs where they can negotiate anything.. try beginning there.
Women who, as you say "demand" things are "b*tches". Men who do the exact same or who are even outright jerks are just "asssertive" or "playing the game".
huamulan wrote:There are ways in which women are directly/indirectly discriminated against in various employment markets but it's bogus to suggest that bosses are sitting around thinking 'stupid woman let's pay her less'.
As long as people like to pretend that is what is being said by anyone.. nothing WILL change.
Let's examine this discussion structurally:
- huamulan makes a comparison (men ask for money, women ask for flexibility). He/she does not use the word "demand."
- Player interprets huamulan's statement to use the word "demand" rather than "ask" and once Player has seen huamulan's paragraph in that light, she feels empowered to say that women who "demand" are bitches and men who "demand" (note she did not use the term) are assertive.
typical miscontruing... and significant in this thread, I believe.
What I was saying is that most women are in hourly or set-salary positions and don't have the ability to negotiate except to take the job or quit. I could have said the same for people in general, but it is true that the further up you go, the more men you find.
Saying "women don't negotiate" is one of the arguments being thrown out a lot today. There is some truth to that, but only if you look at the end/surface happenings. For the real story, you have to ask why it is that so few women get to the kinds of positions where they can negotiate.
And... I suspect you and just about anyone who is married will agree its not really for lack of ability to negotiate or communicate. [tongue slightly in cheek, there, but also a point of truth]
thegreekdog wrote:- huamulan indicates that men don't discriminate against women directly (which I think is true).
Very much depends. You work in a professional office, and, I believe an attorney's office. That is a "hyper professional" environment, a profession where women have made serious inroads. (and, again, probably for some specific reasons.. in particular, attorneys are good at following rules, making find distinctions, understanding and using subtleties and pushing them).
thegreekdog wrote:- Player indicates that if people pretend it doesn't happen, nothing will change. I think Player misstated what she wanted to say. I think she wanted to agree with huamulan, but further explain that the lack of direct discrimination does not mean there is not any indirect discrimination.
Yes and no. My initial comment was somewhat poorly worded. It is accurate, but was misconstrued.. either intentionally or unintentionally. The part that made me think "intentional" was the partial quoting.
But the reason things won't change is because its always easy to find excuses for why things are the way they are. Few women are actually denied jobs or dismissed because "the boss doesn't like women". No, they are let go because they are not "team players", because they "just don't fit", "lack skills", etc, etc, etc.
Is there truth in that? Of course, yes. At its bluntest, its hard to be a real "team player" when being a "team player" really means throwing around off-color jokes, or sitting with the guys after work in a bar. That some women do this just fine means nothing.
But even that is probably too blunt. In truth, a lot of the real discrimination is just about people feeling more comfortable around certain types of people and thus having an inherent kind of bias that those type of people inherently more competant. Women often just don't fit that pre-set mold.
The bad part is only partially that women still, today, do make significantly less than men. That does matter in economic times when both parties work and or where so many households are being supported mainly by women. However, the other bad part is that it represents a kind of entrenchment, a kind of unwillingness to look beyond to new ideas. That last is actually why some significant gains have been main in what might seem to be unusual field. Attorneys, for example, why very traditional in certain ways are also trained to truly challenge thinking. (or perhaps I should say attract people who truly think and analyze well in a particular ways?).
Anyway, no, I don't think that most people are intentionally sexist. They absolutely exist and are a royal pain, just like real racists and well, plain jerks of every stripe exist and cause the rest of us grief. Also, things have come a LONG way. Its somewhat mind-boggling to think about the changes that have occured.
At the same time, we do have a long way to go.
I think one of the hardest and yet most important lessons of the past few decades is just how much we need to think beyond just "I don't call people nigger"/ or "I don't call women chickie babe or hoar" on a daily basis. Unlike with the race issue, most men do have fairly close associations with women. However, that is part of the very problem. Black men are not really "different" per se from white men. Women and men really are different.
The thing is we can, as a society see and understand those differences as strengths.. use those differences at all levels or draw artificial lines that will always wind up distorting and discriminating.
And, well.. the fact that a lot of the monetary rankings of society are still set largely by a few white males matters. Its not just women who dont get to decide their salaries. A lot of men don't, either. It just so happens that a lot of men are still in professions that pay slightly more than women's jobs.
