When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

Not buying what? The statistical facts?

Not buying that it's "not an option" when we see some people doing it. That statistically that option seems unpopular, sure.

Sounds like you know a lot of single women.

The ones I know who've struck that kind of bargain are happily married.

What do you think men are looking for in a wife?

Sex, mostly. And companionship. But few men want to feel like their wives aren't contributing in some way to building a life together.

I think you've made that clear....disdain for housewives/every woman should work.

Saying to women, "Make sure you have the option to support yourselves in case things go pear-shaped," is a far cry from disdain for housewives. Like I said, I don't want to be one, but if someone else does and is able to make it work, all power to her elbow.

It's an extreme measure, sure....but I suppose I wrongly assumed that regarding poverty, your concern would be for those most affected.

I have real concern for homelessness. But it's not the sole measure of poverty, and if you want to talk about poverty, there are more women in poverty than men.

Which is it? Barriers or outcomes?

Barriers affect outcomes.

Would you say this is a fair representation of how you imagine "outcomes" and "barriers" are related?


View attachment 333938

It's overly simplified (for one thing, we have other evidence of barriers in the system), but there's some truth to it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not buying that it's "not an option" when we see some people doing it. That statistically that option seems unpopular, sure.

Well we're speaking in generalities. We see people playing in the NBA but it's not realistic to call that an option for 99.99999% of men.

The ones I know who've struck that kind of bargain are happily married.

Sure.

Sex, mostly. And companionship. But few men want to feel like their wives aren't contributing in some way to building a life together.

Right. Nor does a woman suddenly become more desirable the more she succeeds at work.

Saying to women, "Make sure you have the option to support yourselves in case things go pear-shaped," is a far cry from disdain for housewives.

Women have that option built right into the law. Divorce tends to favor women in multiple ways.

I have real concern for homelessness. But it's not the sole measure of poverty, and if you want to talk about poverty, there are more women in poverty than men.

Am I reading this graph correctly?

https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/poverty/rate-of-poverty-by-gender-of-men-and-women/

When comparing all men with all women....women make up 1% more of the impoverished than men?

Barriers affect outcomes.

You think the barriers exist because of the outcomes though....right?

It's overly simplified (for one thing, we have other evidence of barriers in the system), but there's some truth to it.

OK. What's the other evidence?

 

[Paidiske]

Well we're speaking in generalities. We see people playing in the NBA but it's not realistic to call that an option for 99.99999% of men.

Being a stay at home dad doesn't require the elite level of skill that playing in the NBA does.

Right. Nor does a woman suddenly become more desirable the more she succeeds at work.

And yet I seem to see men objecting to "gold diggers" who don't want to contribute financially...

Women have that option built right into the law. Divorce tends to favor women in multiple ways.

Divorce isn't the only way you can lose a breadwinning spouse. And even if it were, very few people are able to live comfortably forevermore on a divorce settlement. Several years post-settlement, women are usually doing worse than men after divorce, not least because they carry more of the burden of caring for children. (Or, as this report put it, "men’s disproportionate strain of divorce is transient, whereas women’s is chronic."

Am I reading this graph correctly?

https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/poverty/rate-of-poverty-by-gender-of-men-and-women/

When comparing all men with all women....women make up 1% more of the impoverished than men?

On that measurement, apparently. I've seen measures with a bigger gap, but I tend to be looking more at global figures.

Either way, the point remains: you can't point to poverty and say that more men exist at this extreme and it's all down to gender differences in IQ.

You think the barriers exist because of the outcomes though....right?

I think the barriers exist because I live with them. The outcomes just show me that it's systemic, and that I'm not unique in that.

OK. What's the other evidence?

Eg. see here: What are the barriers facing women in the workplace?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not buying that it's "not an option" when we see some people doing it. That statistically that option seems unpopular, sure.

The ones I know who've struck that kind of bargain are happily married.

Sex, mostly. And companionship. But few men want to feel like their wives aren't contributing in some way to building a life together.

Saying to women, "Make sure you have the option to support yourselves in case things go pear-shaped," is a far cry from disdain for housewives. Like I said, I don't want to be one, but if someone else does and is able to make it work, all power to her elbow.

I have real concern for homelessness. But it's not the sole measure of poverty, and if you want to talk about poverty, there are more women in poverty than men.

Barriers affect outcomes.


It's overly simplified (for one thing, we have other evidence of barriers in the system), but there's some truth to it.

I don't want you thinking I'm picking on you with that picture I drew, there's a lot of people following a very similar thinking pattern on the "progressive left"....for example....

That appears to be the way systemic racism works in the minds of those who believe in it.

 

[rjs330]

There's no chance of rational discussion with you, is there?

Tell me, is there anything at all that you can conceive of that would indicate to you that you are wrong?

I've proven my point that you've been duped. So the question is if there is anything that will convince you that you are wrong?

A rational discussion can only be had when one acknowledges the truth. If you wish to go on believing the studies that have been shown to be full of faults and are completely untrustworthy then no rational discussion can occur. But if you admit that the studies you have believed in have been shown to be faulty and untrustworthy then we can have a rational conversation on where do we go from here.

That's the discussion I'd really like to have. The countries in Europe have gone a different direction because the experts there realized they trusted faulty studies and they were doing it wrong. So they changed course. Why isn't America doing the same thing?

 

[rjs330]

Their rights aren't being erased, although we do have some more work to do to make the situation the best possible for everyone.

Wow what an ideological statement. It's funny you wish us to believe you when you claim how your rights have been violated and have all these experiences of the patriarchy putting you down and controlling you removing your rights etc.

But then totally dismiss the women who say their rights are being taken away by MEN who want to be women. Their rights to earn medals, scholarships, winnings, privacy and psychological well being ARE being erased. Their right to compete against other women are being erased. Their right to a private locker room space have been erased. Their right to earn money (which is a big deal for you) is being erased. You have lost all credibility now with your claims of being oppressed by men while you claim women aren't being oppressed by men in women's sports and other areas. Like so many feminists you have jumped in the trans train and disregarded your own sex in favor of transwomen (men who want to be women).

 

[rjs330]

Being a full time stay at home dad isn't an option for men lol. Even if we were to go along with the wildly inflated post covid numbers likely due to involuntary unemployment....you're talking about a woman who doesn't exist. There's no woman in their mid to late 20s saying "I'm just looking for a good husband who wants to be a father and stay at home dad while I continue my career making 80-120k$ a year and paying all the bills to provide for my new family."

That's not a real person who exists.

Actually one does exist. My wife's boss. Her husband wanted to have children and she told him that if he wanted that he would have to be a stay at home dad while she worked.

He was a navy seal. He agreed and is a stay at home dad while she provides the money.

It's the first time I've ever heard of this.

 

[rjs330]

Which is what I'm saying, but apparently women who work are bad mothers... (or at least, that's what some are claiming).

You can only have both if one parent stays home to raise the kids. Most women want it to be them. By a very large margin. Women who work and put there kids in day care are not as good as the ones who stay home and care for them and nurture them and raise them. They are letting someone else do it.

Why aren't Dad's who work bad dads? I've already said why. Look I don't care who stays home. Mom or dad. Someone should if they can. The REALISM of the station is the vast majority of women prefer to be the ones doing it instead of the dad. That's what you are arguing against. That women shouldn't be. You are looking down your nose at women who choose to do that as if the men are subjugating them and have their boot on their neck. Poppycock. Women are much stronger than that and make their own choices these days. Long gone are the days of patriarchy. Stop living in the past. Strong women are CHOOSING to stay home. Why? Because they are strong and can make their own decisions.

My wife is one of the strongest people I know. And she chose to stay home and work later. I fully supported her decision to do so. But I certainly didn't order her to or demand that she do it. She didn't want someone else raising our kids. She wanted me to warn the money and she wanted to raise the kids. And she wanted me to jump in and help when I got home. And I did. Gladly because I appreciated what she did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Being a stay at home dad doesn't require the elite level of skill that playing in the NBA does.

The fact that men don't have the option has nothing to do with ability. Men don't have the option because women don't want to support a house-husband. Before you say "well women don't have to support a house husband"....I agree 100%. That doesn't change the fact that it's the reason most men don't get a chance to choose that option.

And yet I seem to see men objecting to "gold diggers" who don't want to contribute financially...

Right. That's why we don't typically care about how much success women achieve in the workplace. Even highly successful women (or at least high earners) tend to not want to contribute as much to bills as their spouse. They tend to still prefer a man who will provide for them and the majority of their expenses.

Divorce isn't the only way you can lose a breadwinning spouse.

True, but most other ways involve acquiring 100% of his wealth.

And even if it were, very few people are able to live comfortably forevermore on a divorce settlement.

You'd be surprised. Women find another man....then don't marry him so they can continue to collect alimony while also having a new man provide for them.

Women who date younger men who earn less than them tend to be divorcees.

Several years post-settlement, women are usually doing worse than men after divorce, not least because they carry more of the burden of caring for children. (Or, as this report put it, "men’s disproportionate strain of divorce is transient, whereas women’s is chronic."

Yet you've spent multiple posts explaining how fulfilling and preferable it is for women to have both children and a career....now suddenly you're claiming it's real hard without a man around supporting them lol.

Men are obligated to pay child support until the child is 18....and I don't know how it works in your nation, but in mine....it can be extremely difficult to get out of this obligation even if the man finds out later he isn't even the father. I'm not going to go into all the options women have from abortion to abandonment but should a mother decide she cannot afford a baby, she has a myriad of ways to get out of it. Men have 2 choices....condoms and abstinence. Forgive me for not being as sympathetic to the plight of women on this.

On that measurement, apparently. I've seen measures with a bigger gap, but I tend to be looking more at global figures.

Well I'll just say it....1% isn't much of a concern in my eyes. I'd be wary of any policies that insist upon complete parity.

Either way, the point remains: you can't point to poverty and say that more men exist at this extreme and it's all down to gender differences in IQ.

Poverty isn't the extreme though....homelessness is. That's why I picked it. A 1% difference between impoverished populations seems to the same sort of problem as having to fill out one more resume than men on average to get a job.

I think the barriers exist because I live with them.

We aren't talking about you specifically....we're talking about large groups of people. Your personal experience doesn't extrapolate to every women or even most of them. I could easily tell you that my personal experiences are that even though women only make up perhaps 5-10% of entry level employees.....that percentage skyrockets for supervisory or other high visibility positions like 30-40%.

Does this in any way negate your personal experience? Of course not. Does it prove or is it evidence men are being discriminated against at my job? Nope. Perhaps most importantly it doesn't even provide evidence that women are being favored in some way unfair to men.

The outcomes just show me that it's systemic, and that I'm not unique in that.

Just FYI....I'm not thrown by the word "systemic". All systems are finite, and we can examine all parts and processes within a system to find any sort of claimed barrier. If no barrier is found...chances are it doesn't exist.

Eg. see here: What are the barriers facing women in the workpla

I'm struggling to see the barriers in many of these....for example....

1. Maternity leave. Women get time off to be pregnant and care for a child once it's born. Some places offer some time off to men as well....but typically not as many places nor is it a similar amount of time. This is a barrier? It sounds like a massive accommodation that men don't typically get.

2. This is the discussion we've been having lol. It's saying that women struggle to be both a good employee and parent (my position) while you claim it's not at all that difficult to be a good parent. You've been arguing against this being a problem for women in most of your posts.

3. Bias in favor of men lol. I've presented evidence that bias actually favors women....as have you. In fact, I linked a study showing even traditionally hyper masculine roles like "soldier" have a bias favoring women.

4. See #3.

5. I'll agree with this....sometimes women get in their own way. Men do this as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually one does exist. My wife's boss. Her husband wanted to have children and she told him that if he wanted that he would have to be a stay at home dad while she worked.

He was a navy seal. He agreed and is a stay at home dad while she provides the money.

It's the first time I've ever heard of this.

Lol yeah....don't get me wrong....I'm sure it has happened. It's within the realm of possibility. It's just that for every guy who's even had the option....there's probably 10,000 women who have had the option.

 

[Paidiske]

Wow what an ideological statement. It's funny you wish us to believe you when you claim how your rights have been violated and have all these experiences of the patriarchy putting you down and controlling you removing your rights etc.

But then totally dismiss the women who say their rights are being taken away by MEN who want to be women. Their rights to earn medals, scholarships, winnings, privacy and psychological well being ARE being erased. Their right to compete against other women are being erased. Their right to a private locker room space have been erased. Their right to earn money (which is a big deal for you) is being erased. You have lost all credibility now with your claims of being oppressed by men while you claim women aren't being oppressed by men in women's sports and other areas. Like so many feminists you have jumped in the trans train and disregarded your own sex in favor of transwomen (men who want to be women).

I just don't agree that an ongoing and evolving discussion about how to meet the needs of a very tiny number of vulnerable people amounts to "women's rights being erased." It's said as if every changing room, shelter and so on is flooded with transwomen, but they're not. Most women have probably never encountered a transwoman in such a setting. So all this hysterical hyperventilating seems to me to be whipping up a storm in a teacup for the sake of scoring rhetorical and ideological points. And that perception is only entrenched for me by seeing people who, in one breath, say "transwomen are erasing women's rights" not care one jot about actual problems with women's rights when it doesn't involve demonising trans people.

You can only have both if one parent stays home to raise the kids.

There are many ways to balance working and parenting across a couple. It doesn't have to be so absolute.

Women who work and put there kids in day care are not as good as the ones who stay home and care for them and nurture them and raise them. They are letting someone else do it.

Again, it all depends. I know women who use day care one or two days a week, and during that time their children get quality early education, socialisation, and absolutely love their time with a wider circle. And still have a secure attachment and plenty of time with their parents.

It seems to me that this idea that the only people who can properly nurture a child are its own parents, is another very modern notion. In pre-modern times, when extended families lived together in multi-generational homes, the equivalent would have been the young aunt, or the grandmother, or some other person looking after multiple children so that the other tasks of subsistence agriculture could be shared, including by the mothers.

The REALISM of the station is the vast majority of women prefer to be the ones doing it instead of the dad. That's what you are arguing against. That women shouldn't be.

I'm arguing that for those who don't want to be a full time stay at home parent, there should be options. All too often women find that they're trapped in situations with very few, inflexible options.

Men don't have the option because women don't want to support a house-husband. Before you say "well women don't have to support a house husband"....I agree 100%. That doesn't change the fact that it's the reason most men don't get a chance to choose that option.

I reckon more women would go for it, if it were an option men were seriously willing to consider.

Yet you've spent multiple posts explaining how fulfilling and preferable it is for women to have both children and a career....now suddenly you're claiming it's real hard without a man around supporting them lol.

When talking about parenting, I do typically imagine it as a shared responsibility with both parents. Sure, there are single mothers by choice, but generally, if they'd found a suitable man they'd have preferred to do it with a partner.

Poverty isn't the extreme though....homelessness is. That's why I picked it.

You also spoke of impoverishment.

A 1% difference between impoverished populations seems to the same sort of problem as having to fill out one more resume than men on average to get a job.

Maybe, but you picked it to claim that more men exist at either extreme, in order to argue that IQ determines life outcomes. But if that were true, we wouldn't see more women in poverty than men.

We aren't talking about you specifically....

But if you ask me why I believe women face barriers, before anything about studies and data and so on, my answer is, because I face them. Because they are blatant, because people have been brazen enough to tell me to my face that they are because of my gender.

I do not, for one second, believe I am unique in this.

I'm struggling to see the barriers in many of these....for example....

1. Maternity leave.

Under maternity, they listed:

1. Singling out pregnant employees or new mothers for redundancy (particularly for sham redundancy situations).
2. Mishandling requests for flexible working upon returning from maternity leave (such as unjustified refusals).
3. Inappropriate comments about pregnancy that amount to harassment.
4. Health and safety breaches against pregnant employees or new mothers (such as a failure to carry out a risk assessment).
5. Penalising a woman who is sick during pregnancy (such as treating pregnancy-related sickness absence as standard sickness absence when evaluating their suitability for work).
6. Failure to communicate with an employee on maternity leave (such as not informing them of opportunities).
7. Failure to ensure the appropriate pay is awarded during maternity leave.
8. Failure to enable the employee to return to their old job after maternity leave, or another suitable and equivalent role if leave is more than 26 weeks.
9. Disadvantaging a mother in relation to training (such as that she might have missed while on leave).
10. Basing a recruitment decision on an employee’s family situation (such as asking about their intentions regarding having a family, or childcare arrangements).

And these aren't hypothetical, these are what legal services tell us they are dealing with.

That's just one example. These are real barriers, and they affect so many of us.

 

[rjs330]

It's not unreal and impossible to make this work. It just takes a bit of willingness to be creative and flexible.

So you say, but the world around you disagrees.

I didn't say that. I said that with a bit of willingness and creativity, we could come up with solutions which cater to everyone's needs.

Once again so you say. But you haven't thought through any of it. Words like willingness and creativity are all sunshine and wishes. None of which actually creates a solution. For example one solution that just took a little willingness and creativity of individual bathrooms and it shower stalls ran into reality when I asked how much it would cost to do that for every business, school and sporting arena etc. You had no answer. Yet you were convinced it would work. Just cause you have an idea doesn't mean it will work when it butts up against reality. Why? Because you didn't think it through. You just keep tossing out feel good words like willingness and creativity is all that's needed to stand society on its head.

 

[rjs330]

Here's some irony that's about to happen....life doesn't come with guarantees you say?

I think that was the best response I've heard from anyone all year! Well done!

 

[Paidiske]

So you say, but the world around you disagrees.

A few noisy people disagree...

For example one solution that just took a little willingness and creativity of individual bathrooms and it shower stalls ran into reality when I asked how much it would cost to do that for every business, school and sporting arena etc. You had no answer. Yet you were convinced it would work. Just cause you have an idea doesn't mean it will work when it butts up against reality.

And yet I see it being successfully implemented in various places. Lots of public swimming pools and the like now have individual changing cubicles. It's not really different than individual toilets, even cheaper because it doesn't need the plumbing. They have individual shower cubicles already (or anywhere I've ever been has). It's not that hard; it's already happening. So I'm not really convinced by fussing that it's not possible or too expensive, especially if we just make it part of how we set up these spaces into the future.

 

[rjs330]

just don't agree that an ongoing and evolving discussion about how to meet the needs of a very tiny number of vulnerable people amounts to "women's rights being erased." It's said as if every changing room, shelter and so on is flooded with transwomen, but they're not. Most women have probably never encountered a transwoman in such a setting. So all this hysterical hyperventilating seems to me to be whipping up a storm in a teacup for the sake of scoring rhetorical and ideological points. And that perception is only entrenched for me by seeing people who, in one breath, say "transwomen are erasing women's rights" not care one jot about actual problems with women's rights when it doesn't involve demonising trans people.

So we are back to "It hasn't happened to me so I dont care" routine? Funny how that works. Maybe YOUR rights haven't been erased, but some women's rights have been. This is how it works.

Today a man erases a woman's right to privacy and her own space. It doesn't affect every woman today, but tomorrow another woman's right is erased by another man. Then another. You see once you accept that it's okay for one woman's right to be erased you have just given cart blanche for every woman's right to be erased.

The difference is that you haven't actually shown any real problems with women's rights being taken away. We have. Women have the same rights as everyone else. The only ones who are actually taking them away are transwomen with the blessing of people like you. If you can provide actual evidence of women's rights being removed in society today then we'll take it seriously.

Because there are laws actually prohibiting it. There are no laws prohibiting the removal of women's rights in the transgender debate. Well they are coming.

 

[Paidiske]

So we are back to "It hasn't happened to me so I dont care" routine?

No. I'm saying this is just not the problem it's being made out to be. And that the people driving that narrative, have an agenda that has nothing to do with actually supporting women's rights.

The difference is that you haven't actually shown any real problems with women's rights being taken away.

You're claiming that all the things I've listed aren't real or don't happen?

Because if you are, we're back to, if you're just going to deny reality, there's no basis for discussion.

Because there are laws actually prohibiting it.

That might take the edge off, but it hasn't solved the problem.

 

[rjs330]

There are many ways to balance working and parenting across a couple. It doesn't have to be so absolute.

No said it is.

Again, it all depends. I know women who use day care one or two days a week, and during that time their children get quality early education, socialisation, and absolutely love their time with a wider circle. And still have a secure attachment and plenty of time with their parents.

Alright I'll add the caveat of full time. Cause that's what I meant.

seems to me that this idea that the only people who can properly nurture a child are its own parents, is another very modern notion. In pre-modern times, when extended families lived together in multi-generational homes, the equivalent would have been the young aunt, or the grandmother, or some other person looking after multiple children so that the other tasks of subsistence agriculture could be shared, including by the mothers.

We don't live in those times or those cultures. There are still cultures who do that. But you know what the difference is? They were family. Not hired daycare workers where you ship your kid off to so you can earn a few extra bucks. And besides in those times and cultures mom was still around with brothers sisters, aunts and grandmas.

arguing that for those who don't want to be a full time stay at home parent, there should be options. All too often women find that they're trapped in situations with very few, inflexible options.

And who supposed to provid those options? Oh yeah, everyone else. Woman chooses to have a family and then she wants to have everyone else bend over backwards for her so she can fulfill her dream. Once again we are back to choices. Choices you make, which means you have to deal with the reality and consequences of those choices instead of thinking everyone else should make life easier for you. It's a narcissistic viewpoint.

 

[Paidiske]

No said it is.

"You can only have both if one parent stays home" sounded pretty absolute.

Alright I'll add the caveat of full time. Cause that's what I meant.

Which would be a good reason to support more flexible work options...

We don't live in those times or those cultures. There are still cultures who do that. But you know what the difference is? They were family. Not hired daycare workers where you ship your kid off to so you can earn a few extra bucks. And besides in those times and cultures mom was still around with brothers sisters, aunts and grandmas.

Even then they weren't always family. It's that whole "it takes a village" thing. And if your childcare worker, family daycare worker, nanny or babysitter is part of a robust village around a child... that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

And who supposed to provid those options?

It's about how we structure systems for the benefit of everyone. There's nothing narcissistic about that.

 

[Robban]

"You can only have both if one parent stays home" sounded pretty absolute.

Which would be a good reason to support more flexible work options...

Even then they weren't always family. It's that whole "it takes a village" thing. And if your childcare worker, family daycare worker, nanny or babysitter is part of a robust village around a child... that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

It's about how we structure systems for the benefit of everyone. There's nothing narcissistic about that.

"For the benefit of everyone" sounds like something from Lalaland.

The majority of choices are made on the basis of "What's in it for me?"

Take the bull by the horns and see it as it is, the ironclad system of this world is,

"Buisness is buisness love is bs."

 

[Paidiske]

"For the benefit of everyone" sounds like something from Lalaland.

The majority of choices are made on the basis of "What's in it for me?"

Take the bull by the horns and see it as it is, the ironclad system of this world is,

"Buisness is buisness love is bs."

So what do we have right now? A situation where most employment is, to be blunt, stacked to benefit the employer, with the benefit being shared with employees to the minimum extent possible that the law will allow the employer to get away with. (Or, to put that another way, employers exploiting the relative vulnerability of their employees as much as we allow them to).

Over time, we've raised the bar on what they can get away with, insisting on things like a living wage and safe working conditions, the weekend as a standard thing, annual leave, sick leave, and so on (each staunchly resisted by those claiming it was impossible or would bring the economy to a halt!). Why shouldn't flexibility (for example) be the next big shift? Covid's already got us partway there in many industries by normalising working from home, at least some of the time.