You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The DESTRUCTIVE Impact of Government Institutions & The Public Sector

in #politics7 years ago (edited)

Misogyny? Go look at some statistics for once in your life.

Here's a quick observation: I'm sitting at work right now.

There are

  • 2 female developers,
  • 2 male developers (myself included)
  • 4 male video editors/producers.
  • 8 female project managers
  • 1 male project manager

All 8 female project managers (and the others that aren't in today) are highly capable and intelligent people, but they've chosen lower paying jobs. I've asked a couple of them why. They've essentially told me the stress and time of a job role in their area of interest isn't worth it, and this enables them to use their free time to do other things they'd like to do. Essentially, their happiness matters. And a high-paying job doesn't bring happiness.

Additionally, we're in the process of hiring another developer. Most applicants are male.

The two female developers are both high ambitious people that have high career goals. But as you can see, from this real-world example AND actual measured statistics that the ratios differ between genders. Fucking misogyny. Yeah. Statistics are sexist. I knew my example would trigger you.

EDIT:

Oh, and my last job. A team of 6 developers. 2 female. One is married with a family, and therefore works 10am to 4pm. One is a junior who was working in fashion (low paid too) until recently.

Finance, Dev, and Print/Web Design were dominated by majority males (due to the ratio of applicants).

Sort:  

Evidently there are fewer women in significant positions (e.g. CEO, Editorial roles etc) than there are men, this is true. The difference of opinion here is explaining why.

What you have essentially said is that women are somehow hard wired to not take on hard jobs. Is this true?

Or do you believe that a society in which women are told not to have ambition, strive for equal pay or take similar roles to men is the fundamental problem?

The fact that I cannot distinguish between these two in what you have written there explains what I mean when I say you 'generalise'. You have made sweeping statements e.g. 'women prefer lower paying roles', 'there is no such thing as a well run state institution' or 'its humans who are greedy' whilst barely explaining any evidence or reason for coming to these conclusions.

I have, admittedly, made similar generalisations e.g. corporations don't care for individuals. My point there is that profit is nearly always the driving factor. If major corporations cared for individuals, BP would stop drilling for oil, BAE would stop exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia and Ford would stop selling diesel cars. But the hit to profit would be so disastrous that the resulting death of a few thousand (perhaps hundreds of thousand in BP's case) is seen as acceptable.