A fair shake

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

destroy the inequality too , have you another suggestion?

Yup. Plenty.

An equal system of laws which do not promote one gender, race, etc over another. One where individuality is prized and praised.

Reinforce the belief that competition in employment is healthy, and necessary for an economy to grow.

Remove gender/diversity quotas as being sexist.

Acknowledge the weaknesses in our educational system, recognise that males/females learn better in different ways, and implement educational reforms to bring in the newer research in cognitive learning.

Implement course modifications to help struggling teens/adults to understand where their skills lie, teach them to analyse the employment market to make informed decisions about jobs (including whether jobs will be available in a decade or how the industry will change).

Acknowledge that life choices matter. Introduce benefits to ease the burden to those who choose to have a family, but not to penalise those who don't. In other words, understand that people who choose work over a family will succeed in a better fashion.

Recognize that the top 1% are the top because they're not normal. Also recognise that those who become CEOs are a different breed from most people, that you can't have that kind of position, and expect to have a "normal" life. Understand that careers involve "sacrifices". You want to be at the top, you're going to have to sacrifice certain aspects of normal life to get there.

Oh, and, grow the **** up and stop looking for someone else to make life easier for you. All your Marxist notions involve removing success/promotions/benefits from those who worked to get there, and make them your own. That's not equality. That's an unfair system to benefit the weak, and one that will simply encourage more people to become weak. Life is unfair. Get over it.

Sassygirl1999

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Plenty.

An equal system of laws which do not promote one gender, race, etc over another. One where individuality is prized and praised.

Reinforce the belief that competition in employment is healthy, and necessary for an economy to grow.

Remove gender/diversity quotas as being sexist.

Acknowledge the weaknesses in our educational system, recognise that males/females learn better in different ways, and implement educational reforms to bring in the newer research in cognitive learning.

Implement course modifications to help struggling teens/adults to understand where their skills lie, teach them to analyse the employment market to make informed decisions about jobs (including whether jobs will be available in a decade or how the industry will change).

Acknowledge that life choices matter. Introduce benefits to ease the burden to those who choose to have a family, but not to penalise those who don't. In other words, understand that people who choose work over a family will succeed in a better fashion.

Recognize that the top 1% are the top because they're not normal. Also recognise that those who become CEOs are a different breed from most people, that you can't have that kind of position, and expect to have a "normal" life. Understand that careers involve "sacrifices". You want to be at the top, you're going to have to sacrifice certain aspects of normal life to get there.

Oh, and, grow the **** up and stop looking for someone else to make life easier for you. All your Marxist notions involve removing success/promotions/benefits from those who worked to get there, and make them your own. That's not equality. That's an unfair system to benefit the weak, and one that will simply encourage more people to become weak. Life is unfair. Get over it.

and in your utopian wet dream do we all live forever with world peace, or has the free market decided that was not profitable?

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

and in your utopian wet dream do we all live forever with world peace, or has the free market decided that was not profitable?

Utopian wet dream? That would be more your thing that mine, since what I referred to is possible because most of them we had until recently. We had full legal equality until gender quotas were brought in and people like yourself started promoting equality of outcome. Most of what I refer to is what you oppose, since you're preaching group identity politics. Yup, preaching since you don't seem capable of actually arguing/debating your points.

And I don't think you quite understand what the free market is...considering the nature of your stance.

Still....

I am, once again, impressed by your inability to make a response that's longer than two lines. Go on, stretch yourself. How about a paragraph arguing against the points made? Perhaps even treat ideas different from yours with a tiny bit of respect and consideration? [By arguing against them, rather than these little dismissals]

Sassygirl1999

Deleted User wrote: »

Utopian wet dream? That would be more your thing that mine, since what I referred to is possible because most of them we had until recently. We had full legal equality until gender quotas were brought in and people like yourself started promoting equality of outcome. Most of what I refer to is what you oppose, since you're preaching group identity politics. Yup, preaching since you don't seem capable of actually arguing/debating your points.

And I don't think you quite understand what the free market is...considering the nature of your stance.

Still....

I am, once again, impressed by your inability to make a response that's longer than two lines. Go on, stretch yourself. How about a paragraph arguing against the points made? Perhaps even treat ideas different from yours with a tiny bit of respect and consideration? [By arguing against them, rather than these little dismissals]

free market is an easy concept, its the world we live in, sad state of affairs

indioblack

Bill Burr's comment to women on this subject was, "When the Titanic's going down and I'm on the deck, you're in the lifeboat."

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

free market is an easy concept, its the world we live in, sad state of affairs

The sad part is that you don't realise that one of the primary reasons that you have the ability to complain about these subjects is down to the free market. (Otherwise you'd likely be working in the fields or in a dodgy factory earning peanuts with a 50 hour week and have some real issues to complain about).

You're going to get a dreadful shock if your naive ideas ever come to pass... although likely you won't acknowledge your own responsibility in making it come about. There will always be some other group to blame for all of your misfortunes.

jiltloop

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Utopian wet dream? That would be more your thing that mine, since what I referred to is possible because most of them we had until recently. We had full legal equality until gender quotas were brought in and people like yourself started promoting equality of outcome. Most of what I refer to is what you oppose, since you're preaching group identity politics. Yup, preaching since you don't seem capable of actually arguing/debating your points.

And I don't think you quite understand what the free market is...considering the nature of your stance.

Still....

I am, once again, impressed by your inability to make a response that's longer than two lines. Go on, stretch yourself. How about a paragraph arguing against the points made? Perhaps even treat ideas different from yours with a tiny bit of respect and consideration? [By arguing against them, rather than these little dismissals]

free market is an easy concept, its the world we live in, sad state of affairs

Still incapable of stringing more than a few words together. Did you learn how to read and write on Twitter?

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

read the OP and close the gender pay gap !

We'll arrange your 17% pay decrease immediately.

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

no because the employment roles wouldn't be in the same societal band , CEO would be in the CEo band and child minder in the child minder band

And how are these bands to be decided? Would the children of a CEO be on the CEO band? Could a person move up bands by working harder and longer hours? Could a person push for a promotion between bands.

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

your just having a laugh

I never laugh at the outsize privilege of the white western woman.

Sassygirl1999

jiltloop wrote: »

Still incapable of stringing more than a few words together. Did you learn how to read and write on Twitter?

statist !

Sassygirl1999

jiltloop wrote: »

Still incapable of stringing more than a few words together. Did you learn how to read and write on Twitter?

v busy little girl, don't get much time on this to dismantle you

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

v busy little girl, don't get much time on this to dismantle you

Um, I've yet to see you even attempt to dismantle anyone (yup, I browsed your post history). You'd need to write a lot more (in comparison to your standard posts) for starters.... and actually engage in the points made rather than simply dismissing them immediately without any arguments made.

Sassygirl1999

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, I've yet to see you even attempt to dismantle anyone (yup, I browsed your post history). You'd need to write a lot more (in comparison to your standard posts) for starters.... and actually engage in the points made rather than simply dismissing them immediately without any arguments made.

as you can tell I rock, hard to get my time , busy bee, if you need some answers to your conundrums I'm sometimes happy to help

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually it's not... Single Childless people make up a reasonably large proportion of any population, and yet, they're being included in a system that rewards people who have children.

If this is really about equality or fairness, then their situation would be taken into account... not simply dismissed because it's inconvenient.

How is it rewarding them exactly? Parental leave isn't some sort of holiday camp that childless people would willingly sign up to if you lent them a kid for 6 months.

nah. it's ok. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of the ideas you preach about. There are better and more informed sources out there should I need clarification.

pickarooney

SassyGirl came pretty close to passing the Turing test at one point but it needs a bit of work.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

How is it rewarding them exactly? Parental leave isn't some sort of holiday camp that childless people would willingly sign up to if you lent them a kid for 6 months.

Their jobs are protected and the time spent away must be taken into account relating to any promotions/performance related reviews, while those who are childless are still working through the same period. In any environment where there are limited positions for advancement, competition should be an important factor which is usually represented through greater attention to the position, and a dedication to the company. However, the demand for recognition for parents expects companies to ignore their absence from work during those periods... which places the childless people at an disadvantage.

And why would be want to have 6 months to raise a kid? We could have chosen to do that anyway ourselves. Many of us chose not to have children, instead focusing on our careers, or just not being interested in having kids at all.

Sassygirl1999

Deleted User wrote: »

nah. it's ok. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of the ideas you preach about. There are better and more informed sources out there should I need clarification.

if you need me to venture back here to arouse your vapid vacuous vacant vacuum of a vortical cortical substance just holler

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Their jobs are protected and the time spent away must be taken into account relating to any promotions/performance related reviews, while those who are childless are still working through the same period. In any environment where there are limited positions for advancement, competition should be an important factor which is usually represented through greater attention to the position, and a dedication to the company. However, the demand for recognition for parents expects companies to ignore their absence from work during those periods... which places the childless people at an disadvantage.

And why would be want to have 6 months to raise a kid? We could have chosen to do that anyway ourselves. Many of us chose not to have children, instead focusing on our careers, or just not being interested in having kids at all.

If you choose to focus on your career why is it punishment to be at work during those six months?

Childless people should be allowed take a 6 month sabbatical with the same protection of employment, if anything.

Fr_Dougal

8/10, OP. One of the better ones.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

If you choose to focus on your career why is it punishment to be at work during those six months?

Childless people should be allowed take a 6 month sabbatical with the same protection of employment, if anything.

You know, I've never even heard of that being suggested before. Interesting.

Ray Palmer

Women choose to work less hours and get paid less that is known. Gender pay gap studies point this out all the time.

Of all the people working part time where I work it is the women that take it. They do so by choice and for all the claims of hard work they enjoy it and it the choice they made to enjoy having kids. If I took care of 10 dogs because I loved and wanted them I wouldn't claim it is hard work because I chose to do it.

It has real world effects on work. They leave work half done all the time because they have to pick up the kids and they are off the following day. Their priorities are obviously not work. The fathers in work who pick up kids make sure the work is done and never claim they had to go with half done work.

The whole thing is meant to be a work life balance but they are not balancing the work part.

I worked in a company where a promotion was given to a women over the other male applicants. Can't say and reason was based on her being female or not. However 3 months later she is pregnant and has taken a lot of extra time off due to issues with the pregnancy one of the guys who wasn't promoted takes over her job. Nobody has any issue with this. She has her baby takes her maternity leave and the extra unpaid maternity leave. So the guy has now been doing the higher job longer than her but it is her job and he goes back down a level. She has terrible time understanding her role as she had been out of the loop. She can't work any overtime so the guys basically has to do a huge chunk of her job. Then she insists on a shorter working week which they give her so the guy has more work but they give him a minor pay rise but no title change.
Then she announces she is pregnant again. Great for her but everyone knows she will be out for a year again soon enough and already not pulling her weight. The company is petrified about any perceived discrimination so do nothing but tell the guy he will have to cover his work and they can't afford to pay him more. He waited till she left on maternity leave and then quit because he thought the company was being unfair. When she was due to come back from her unpaid maternity leave she quit a week before.

Nobody can say that was equality