Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft Sign White House Pledge For Equal Pay (fortune.com)
In honor of Women's Equality Day, an anonymous reader shares with us a festive report from Fortune: More than two months after the White House first announced its Equal Pay Pledge for the private sector, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and other major industry players have signed on. By taking the pledge, which was first introduced at the United State of Women Summit in June of this year, companies promise to help close the national gender pay gap, conduct annual, company-wide pay analyses, and review hiring and promotion practices. The new signees were announced in a White House statement on Friday -- which also happens to be Women's Equality Day, the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Apple, which announced earlier this year that it has no pay gap, released a statement promising to dig even deeper into compensation. "We're now analyzing the salaries, bonuses, and annual stock grants of all our employees worldwide. If a gap exists, we'll address it," the company said in a statement. Twenty-nine companies signed the pledge on Friday, bringing the total number of signatories to 57. The pledge is part of a $50-million, White House-led initiative to expand opportunities for and improve the lives of women and girls. The consortium members issued a statement via Whitehouse.gov's press release: "The Employers for Pay Equity consortium is comprised of companies that understand the importance of diversity and inclusion, including ensuring that all individuals are compensated equitably for equal work and experience and have an equal opportunity to contribute and advance in the workplace. We are committed to collaborating to eliminate the national pay and leadership gaps for women and ethic minorities. Toward that end, we have come together to share best practices in compensation, hiring, promotion, and career development as well as develop strategies to support other companies' efforts in this regard. By doing so, we believe we can have a positive effect on our workforces that, in turn, makes our companies stronger and delivers positive economic impact." The consortium members include: Accenture, Airbnb, BCG, Care.com, CEB, Cisco, Deloitte, Dow, Expedia, EY, Glassdoor, GoDaddy, Jet.com, L'Oreal USA, Mercer, PepsiCo, Pinterest, Rebecca Minkoff, Salesforce, Spotify, Staples, Stella McCartney, and Visa.
Can they work equal time?
Cause in my experience there's a lot more "oh my children" time given and no "Hey I am a single white male" time compensated.
Fine, as long as it works both ways. There are two women on my team who earn more than me with less qualifications and are on my team solely because they are women. Diversity! I should expect a raise right?
This is the gender-equality version of a promise-ring.
Mostly because the wage gap doesn't exist at all. It's another bullshit myth.
So, did women pledge to work as hard as men do? Did they pledge to take as many overtime hours? Did they pledge to pursue the same risky and physically demanding careers, such as construction or mining?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
What stops you from giving up your job so that the oppressed can work? Why does the progressive left always require other people to suffer to make up for suffering their policies have caused? I'll bet if your livelihood was threatened to support the narrative you would change your tune real quick. Strange how that works Comrade.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
http://fortune.com/2016/04/12/...
But hey, you need to keep the plebes riled up.
what, you didnt think that they were going to give women -raises- did you?
Sounds like a good idea. What I'd like to know is when has there ever been equal pay or equality in anything ? Even when it was just the 'good ole boys' club there were always the ins and the outs. Those that were part of the skull and bones frat scene and those that were not. The nouveau riche https://www.google.com/#q=nouv... vs. the old money vs. the working class. No matter which side of the tracks you were born on equality has always been a struggle.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"We're required to shove one SJW feminist STEM propaganda piece down our readers throats every week"?
Like the media outlets responsible for #GamerGate, it seems that more and more Slashdot's moderators actively loath their own readers...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I think if you read the actual agreement, I suspect it says "We promise to pay women just as much as we pay our male H1-Bs."
Signing some imaginary pledge doesn't change anything - it's already illegal to discriminate via pay.
If women could be earning any less for doing the same job, they would be the first to get hired at every occasion, since you could get away with getting the same quality employee for less. Unfortunately, statistics show that women are simply inferior employees. They are less skilled, less confident, introduce unneeded emotional conflicts, take more sick days, take more maternal leaves, their productivity is lower.
It's almost as if forcing women to do the same work men do was an idiotic, unnatural thing to do, but hey, global capitalism can't function with half of the population not being exploited. It was sold to you under the guise of "freedom" - freedom to be taken advantage of.
So a word of advice to women in tech fields entering the workforce - stay away from companies that pander to you, you will be better off for it and have workers that treat you with real respect.
I'd rather work for a place that pays well, I'll work there for a few decades and retire. Besides, I'm pretty skeptical that anyone can earn respect from brogrammers, and I question why anyone would even bother trying.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So a word of advice to women in tech fields entering the workforce - stay away from companies that pander to you, you will be better off for it and have workers that treat you with real respect.
I'd rather work for a place that pays well, I'll work there for a few decades and retire. Besides, I'm pretty skeptical that anyone can earn respect from brogrammers, and I question why anyone would even bother trying.
Well I can see someone isn't going to be getting "Works well with others" on their performance review.
the ERA (link provided for you youngins) stands a better chance at getting ratified in our lifetime than these megacorps actually following through without asking for more h1bs to replace those formerly less-expensive female workers.
for introverts and extroverts.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Communities don't support science, they'll use it as a prop when it can be twisted to support their agenda
Seldon'd that for you.
If anyone was serious about this, there would just be a law and hefty fines for non-compliance.
Shows how fucked up the US is.
In the past few decades, I've learned that you will make less money and be discriminated against because of:
- Your age
If you're too young then you must be inexperienced, and if you're too old that means too outdated. I've seen exceptional people get turned down for menial positions, promotions, raises, and laid off. Why? Too old.
- Your sexual orientation
You don't even need to be gay to be perceived to be. Even if your office is "progressive," be prepared to make less if they even suspect that you might be gay. It affects the quality of your work somehow.
- Your weight
Even for a job that requires you to sit on your ass for eight hours, employers will not show much love to fat people.
- Your appearance
Attractive people often make more money. Ugly people almost always make much much less. Also, don't be too "un-white."
- Your marital & parental status
Often, startups want long hours and enterprises want someone who can "settle down." I'm pretty sure my raise was larger once because I had a wedding ring & a kid and my employer rewarded that.
- Not speaking English as your first language
A slight Indian accent atop an otherwise perfect English one can deeply affect your chances to be classified as "one of them" and paid so accordingly.
- The school you graduated from
I've seen a résumé trashed because it was from a UCLA grad. Damn them for getting their doctorate at the wrong place.
- Being non-male
When will people wake up and stop eating up this stuff? The entire notion that there isn't equal pay for equal work is pure crap. If it wasn't crap, all these companies would have been hiring women all the time for every position because they could pay them less.
Lets do a little common sense here, I am a hiring manager and just interviewed two people with very similar qualifications, backgrounds, and work ethic, but one of them I can save ~20% on pay/benefits.... Wow, I wonder who I am hiring...
Wait, but you mean to say that the market doesn't work in this case, that all the financial market theory, best practices, etc., all cease to function once someone introduces the gender of an employee. Go back to college if you still think that (or more to the point go to college in the first place, just make sure you study a STEMS field, apparently we need more of them to drive costs down because we can't hire enough, and thus need more H1Bs, and yet wages are still mostly stagnant...).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Sure... higher likelihood of death on the job, higher dropout rates, higher homelessness rates, higher legal obligation, higher deathtoll in wars, higher suicide rates, higher homicide rates, higher sentencing rates, less cancer research funding rates, smaller custody rates, higher victimization rates.
Enough ?
Hmm
They're all signing a pledge at a White House that still has a gender pay gap in 2016 under Obama. But of course Trump (who has long paid his female employees equally to his males) is the nasty/bad/evil/racist/bigot. Note: Most media claims to the contrary originate with a Boston Globe report that has as its basis a lawsuit by one temporary and part-time female campaign worker last January, NOT to his decades-long corporate record.
yup
makes sense to me...
The worst workers, as identified by small businesses are: Smokers, Women with children, other women. I can attest to that. I was an ISP from 1998 to 2004, and
smokers took out 10-15 out of every hour to go outside to smoke. Women with children: "Oh, I can't make it to work, I have to go to the school teacher conference", or "My babysitter did not show up" etc. Women in general do not have a good work ethic because to THEM, family and kids come first, and twice as many women are smokers as compared to men.
I'm convince the pay gap is a figment of accounting and statistics. If it were real, there would be a powerful incentive for employers to hire an all-female workforce, because the employers would save lots of money in labor costs (since they'd only be paying ~75% of what an all-male workforce would cost). However that has not happened.
Equal pay for equal work is a nice phrase, but this is not the way the world works. Forget gender for a minute, and think about whether this approach has a chance to work in any situation where we're trying to equalize economic outcomes.
You don't get paid just based on the work you do. The risks you take, your ability to negotiate, and your ability to leverage your existing finances can play a much bigger role in how much money you make than your actual work. This is why investors make more money than management, who make more money than the people doing the work.
This policy of focusing on salary, standardized benefits, and career development worked in the economy a generation or two removed from today. Now, wealth and advancement are generated through job-hopping or maintaining ownership of your work, not annualized salary. I think telling women they'll do well by sticking with one company and fighting for raises and career development is a recipe to create a gender wage gap.
No, it's never enough.
Sure, it is. That's why I went full MGTOW.
over my cold dead body (literally) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Apples claims there is no gender wage difference between any of their employees, it would be interesting to take the methodology used that showed this wage-gap in the first place and apply it to Apple. Would it still show a gender wage-gap?
They've also promised to stop beating their wives, to stop sending classified government secrets to alien bases on the moons of Jupiter, to stop playing rugby while wearing white gloves and frilly dresses, to stop pulling out workers' fingernails as punishment for not clearing their desks before leaving for the day, and many other practices that they have never done and have no intention of ever doing.
There are some real issues for men, no doubt. Homelessness, drop out rates, longer sentences... But I'll address a couple of the others you mentioned because they aren't quite as simple as they seems.
Higher suicide rate is actually more like a higher success at suicide rate. Women tend to try cutting and poison, where as men tend to use guns (in the US) or jumping which are more effective. The actual attempt rate is similar, it's just that men more often succeed because they choose more effective methods that don't leave time for medical intervention.
Which is not to say I'm unsympathetic, but the issue isn't the disparity, it's the things that drive people to suicide.
As for the custody issue, I looked into the stats carefully on this one. The disparity goes away when you only consider times that the couple went to court, which is less than 1% of cases. Most of the time an agreement is reached outside of court, and in those cases when the man requests custody they have about the same rate of success as women. The disparity in the overall numbers come from the fact that men simply request it less.
Again, I'm not unsympathetic to cases where there is genuine injustice. What I'm saying is that it's easy to see individual cases, and see the headline number, and think there is a vast "feminist conspiracy" or something.
It's really important to properly understand the problem if we want to fix it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The "Gender pay gap" is not because two equally skilled and experienced people are getting paid different amounts based purely on their genitals, the pay gap is the result of men and women being different, and because they're different they choose different types of work and working hours which affect their income (ie stockbroking vs nursing). Therefore the averages are different, ie on paper there it appears to be a gap when there isn't
The ironic part is that the feminists are too angry to figure this out, thus contributing further to the problem.
Note: If anyone cares, I've worked on payroll systems, with access to real numbers. Some men get paid more than other men for the same job, and some women get paid more than other women. And sometimes women get paid more then men, and other times men get paid more than women. And in even more cases they all get paid about the same. Most of the time it's down to the individual and their ability to negotiate (and most likely not cry like a bitch when they don't get the job/promotion/pay rise).
I'd rather work for a place that pays well, I'll work there for a few decades and retire.
Too bad that many employers these days don't keep employees that long. Heck at many companies you'd be lucky to make it to the point of qualifying for the health insurance/benefits package. Employee-churn helps to keep the costs of labor down when costs are driven up by government mandate.
The more that government causes labor costs to rise, the more ruthless employers will be forced to become towards the workforce in order to remain competitive, which will cause workers to grow ever-angrier & resentful towards employers. This is a good thing in the eyes of TPTB when TPTB are trying to incite class-warfare among the population as a reason to increase government power, scope, and control so as to maintain order.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No, they're signing up to do exactly what they already do: Paying people according to experience, capability and contribution.
It's basic economics.
This is an easy pledge to make, if you pay people based on their education and actual years of experience. Why? Because - if you look at it that way - there is no gender pay gap.
All the studies that show a substantial gender pay gap either (a) equate different professions, or (b) compare people based on their ages.
The first of those is obviously flawed, because different professions are, in fact, different. This includes studies that compare average pay in an entire region, because women and men do tend to congregate in different professions. Exactly why women go into lower paying professions is a complex issue, but really, it doesn't matter. All that's important is that women and men both have the choice to do what they like. If a woman wants to become a civil engineer, or a man wants to work in a kindergarden, those doors should be open. If they are, then there is no problem: people can choose a career that suits them.
It's the second type of study that's more insidious: comparing earnings based on age. More women than men take time off, or work part-time, to raise children. Hence, the average (to pick an age) 40 year old woman will have less experience than the average 40 year old man. Some opportunities may be entirely lost: for example, not being available for a high-intensity or high-travel position may make one ineligible for a later promotion. An alternate approach is to compare women with and without children. What a surprise: women without children earn much more than women with children (article is in German).
So it's easy for companies to pledge to pay women the same as men - because they already do.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
When Tim Cook's Butt-Buddies are guaranteed under their LGBT quota.
It definitively sucks to be judged by a collective based on your race and gender, rather than your individual merits and hardships.
Wow thanks, now we can solve the pressing issue of muh equality /s
Meanwhile the companies in question and dodging taxes and exporting jobs / using H1-B in discriminatory fashion. But I'm sure the SJW squad will move onto those issues next... right?
Sorry, but you must be looking at different stats:
Contested cases where the Custodial Father (meaning the child currently lives with the father) retains custody: 17%
Contested cases where the Custodial Mother retains custody: 83%
The only articles I can find that say otherwise are ALL pointing to the same HuffPo article (not even a scholarly backed piece).
The "majority" of parents does indeed reach an agreement out of court, a little over 50% (Macooby & Mnookin) reaches a so-called uncontested agreement, that means at least 49% is contested. In SJW-world this would mean any contested cases should automatically go to the father right? Equality in numbers and all.
In a study of 705 cases, an uncontested request for maternal physical custody was made in 500 cases. The outcome matched the request for maternal custody in nearly 90% of such cases. In contrast, paternal physical custody was awarded in only 75% of the 47 cases in which there was an uncontested request for sole paternal physical custody. - So EVEN in uncontested cases (the mother agrees), the courts will 25% of the time override the parents' wishes and still grant the mother custody.
There are some 40,000 disputed custody cases every year which are decided by family court judges. These judges will listen to recommendations from court welfare officers who visit the family and write 35,000 reports every year. The welfare officers work in the probation service which deals with mostly male criminals, this makes it difficult to see fathers in a positive light. The result is that family courts award mothers sole custody in 71% of cases and fathers sole custody in 7% of all cases, joint custody is awarded in the remaining 21% of cases. Many fathers report giving up an expensive custody fight for their children after advice from lawyers who say they can't win. It is very common for mothers during custody battles to receive state funded legal aid. A custody battle is therefore a very unequal war of attrition. Many fathers report that efforts to have contact with their children are blocked by mothers, and the courts will not enforce the right of children to have contact with their fathers.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"Which is not to say I'm unsympathetic, but the issue isn't the disparity, it's the things that drive people to suicide."
That's saying that women are incompetent at suicide. It's not like it's a big secret that pills and cutting aren't very likely to actually kill you and getting information of easily accessible methods that will actually get the job done isn't more than a search away (automotive assisted decapitation ftw!). Being capable of researching options isn't a gendered thing (or we should re-evaluate a lot of things).
I suspect the reality is that the disparity is largely based on the rational projections of future life chances. There's a large difference in the likely development of a life for those who aren't completely capable of dealing with it for men and women. Women make an ultimately rational choice to keep chances high to get help, because they have a significant chance of actually getting help, and even women who can never support themselves will often be able to life a somewhat decent life, get support from parents, attract a mate, etc. While men... well, a failed suicide attempt isn't exactly CV improving material.
So, whether a fully conscious choice or not, the disparity is sociologically and probably biologically rational. Men have better reasons to be serious about it if they decide to check out.
And I really don't see any tendencies that it will change. Rather, I think our care for women is biologically hardwired, and the way society is progressing for the moment, being unsympathetic to men is more popular than ever. I mean, fuck, look at something like BLM; even if, in reality, the black men are mainly getting shot due to being male rather than being black, would you try launching a 'mens lives matter' movement? I think not.
Higher suicide rate is actually more like a higher success at suicide rate.
Check your privilege, you tool of the patriachy! Your insinuation of the tired old accusation that men are more competent than women is offensive!. Just kidding, but if we are going to go there, I'm going to make fun of it.
When is this inequity iniquity going to end? We must tirelessly work until women are as successful as men in offing themselves. Close the suicide gap!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm getting divorced. Does that count as going my own way? Hehe :(
It definitively sucks to be judged by a collective based on your race and gender, rather than your individual merits and hardships.
Bigotry does not know limits based on gender. A female who decides all men are rapists is no different in principle that a Klan member who believes all blacks are inferior. All men have a rape switch http://jezebel.com/5279283/is-...
That's pretty offensive. But watch the feedback telling us that its somehow different.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
...but that 55 mil only represents 79% of what a male CEO would get, so that makes her a victim of oppression??
Yet another thing women fail at, killing themselves.
But they succeeded at getting media attention and suicide prevention support groups just for them. I guess if that was their goal, then a hardy bravo is in order.
Thanks for this point of view. I often see people reply that both genders try but men succeed because "guns" and it is left at that. (Especially because many of those same people hate guns and so are insinuating that men get what they deserve when they kill themselves with them.)
My opinion on this is similar to yours: For women, suicide is a cry for help that will be answered. For men it is an act of desperation. Also, in general, men are expected to succeed while women are rewarded for trying.
I disagree that this can't change and that it is biologically hardwired. I'm old enough to remember "holding doors open for women" and "never hitting a woman" being absolute rules. Holding doors has gone by the wayside and the majority now think it is proper to hit a woman in self defense.
I know, it's a shame there is nothing we can do to actually help people, all we can do is make it equally bad everyone. Maybe some kind of "guns for suicidal women" programme, or a leaflet with tips of successfully killing yourself.
Joking aside, the really useful thing this information tells us is that for men intervention has to come earlier and that the reason many of them do kill themselves is probably not because society is biased against them or the number of hot women has decreased because feminists oppose shaving armpit hair or something... In fact the most common cause is toxic masculinity, the feeling that they don't meet some impossible standard of manliness or the shame of being a 26 year old virgin, that sort of thing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I agree there is no difference morally, but there is a big difference societally. A female who decides all men are rapists gets rewarded with Title IX kangaroo courts in universities where the man's right to trial by jury is denied.
Also, this repugnant quote from the Jezebel article: "Most men who were in combat in Viet Nam raped." No sources or stitch of proof. What do we expect from Gawker Media, I guess?
Here's that attitude I talked about that men get what they deserve because "guns". Thanks for displaying a complete lack of empathy for the suffering of fellow human beings and proving the point that men do not get support or empathy in our society.
There is a massive suicide support network for women and only a nascent support network for men. If you are a partisan gender warrior then just ignore this but if you are a human being then start to realize that we don't know why men are more successful at suicide because there is virtually no research about it. Why? Because people like you are happy to snigger and blame "guns" or "toxic masculinity" instead of trying to find a solution for a tragic problem.
You are looking at the wrong stats to support the claim, i.e. that men generally do worse in legal custody battles. It's not the percentage of time that the child lives with the father that matters, it's the percentage of time when both parents want custody and the father doesn't get it that matters. Otherwise you are including all the fathers who didn't want their children to live with them for any number of reasons.
Here's a page summarising the stats from your source, Macooby & Mnookin, and others: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Trend: "In 1970, 2.8 million single mothers had custody of their children. By 1994 the figure had almost tripled. The number of fathers with sole custody practically quadrupled during that same time period."
So actually, between 1970 and 1994 men actually gained a greater percentage of custody than women. Unfortunately those are the most recent stats I could find, but it certainly seems that despite feminism being very strong during that time (remember that equality has actually declined in many areas since the highs of the 80s and early 90s, e.g. percentage of female engineering graduates) it wasn't negatively affecting men's ability to get custody.
Note also that only 4% of cases actually go to court, and only 1.5% are decided by the court. For most men, any bias in the legal system is of little concern because 98.5% of the time it isn't decided that way. Thus the often repeated claim that the law now favours women is actually making things worse for men by distracting from the more more common mediation route.
In SJW-world this would mean any contested cases should automatically go to the father right?
I can't speak for those people, whoever they are, and I certainly don't agree with that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think you have to understand what the mental state of people contemplating suicide is like. They tend not to research it too heavily, in fact often it's a hasty decision. Men tend to have higher gun ownership and access to guns too. I was going to suggest that one way to help men would be more gun control, but that's another powder keg that will only distract people. There are other gendered issues too, like women wanting to not mutilate their corpses by jumping or shooting themselves, which is quite common in many cultures (e.g. Japanese women would use a different suicide method to men for that reason), but they tend to affect women. Well, I suppose you could argue the toxic masculine idea of taking everything to the limit, maximum available force is a factor.
I don't have all the answers, I'm just saying that the claim that men are more prone to suicide is wrong, and focusing on that isn't really helpful, especially when the focus is on blaming women.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Contested cases where the Custodial Father (meaning the child currently lives with the father) retains custody: 17%
Contested cases where the Custodial Mother retains custody: 83%
Could you maybe provide a citation when you quote numbers like this? Because your figures suspiciously add up to 100% here, even though you're claiming success rates for two different groups. Are you sure you don't just mean something like, "In contested custody cases, 17% go to the father and 83% go to the mother"? Because those numbers roughly mirror the the split between custodial parents overall (roughly 80-85% mothers, 15-20% fathers. which has been roughly the same over the past 25 years at least).
Anyhow, I agree that there are often still lingering inequalities and prejudice in the court system against fathers, despite the overturning of the "Tender Years" doctrine.
However, I'd also offer some important advice to fathers here: if you're actually concerned about this statistic (and not just trying to win some internet argument) -- spend time with your kids.
Seriously. While prejudice does still exist in the court system, you know another reason why mothers get custody a lot more? Because moms disproportionately spend more time with the kids and taking care of them, thus they can prove they are the "primary caregiver." Who ends up taking off work when the kid is sick, leaving early to attend a parent-teacher conference, maybe even rearranging the whole work schedule to be home in the afternoons with the kids? MANY more moms than dads do these sorts of things, and if you look at estimated time parents spend doing childcare-related activities each week, you'll see that moms disproportionately take a LOT more of the work in most families.
This is the flip side to those of you who are complaining about women who "want equal pay" but can't work as long hours "because of the kids." Well -- if you're the dad who is working long hours and never sees his kids, you're making a choice about your priorities in life. And if divorce happens -- and many people think it could never happen to them -- the court has a greater chance of siding with the parent who demonstrated greater interest and time commitment with the kids.
I've personally seen this sort of stuff happen with a couple friends -- they didn't realize how little time they were spending with kids until it was too late, and then they ended up with even less time in a custody agreement. In fact, lots of dads seem to prefer this stuff -- they are driven to work long hours, and many aren't particularly interested in spending a lot of time with kids (particularly small ones).
So, if we're TRULY going to have this argument, perhaps we need to have some real statistics that take such trends into account. You know -- like those who say, "But women just aren't as interested in engineering -- they put their time into other things and want to be nurses and such!" Well, most dads are less interested in child-rearing, and they demonstrate this on a regular basis by spending less time with the kids. Do you really need to wonder why mothers win more custody battles -- which are often decided on the basis of which parents the kids "have a closer bond" with and which parent "will be less disruptive to their routine already in place"? If the mom if already spending four times as much time doing childcare-related stuff each week as the dad (not at all uncommon), it's likely to be less disruptive for the kids to stay with mom. It's that simple.
You want to keep your kids? Maybe it's time to reconsider all those complaints about women who "have to leave work early because of kids" and maybe volunteer to do it yourself sometime.
And you know what? Your kids will actually love it, and they'll love you more for it. Unless of course you don't really want to spend that much time with your kids -- in which case, when you later fight a custody battle, is it really about spending time with the kids, or is just to "win" against the ex-wife you now hate?
Amimojo you bigot. Try reading real stats and not regurgitating some huff post op Ed piece as fact. You know better.
Oh, I understand it very well, and was active in a rare non-judgemental forum for a long time. The actual act itself is often triggered due to short term events, but people contemplating suicide have often lived with depression a long time, and among them, interest in methods is so high that most 'help' forums will outright ban any discussion of suicide or methods and/or threaten to call police on anyone discussing it. Most will have had suicidal thoughts for months or years, and looking at how to do it is a normal component of that. Many will prepare for and have a method that is at least realizable within a few days to a week.
Most are smart enough not to actually admit to it to healthcare or family, as nothing good for them, personally, will come from that, so I think it looks a lot more sudden and unresearched in many cases than it actually is.
I doubt masculinity has much to do with it; the human body is simply quite durable. If you want to be certain, it all comes down to one thing; destroying the brain, physically or by oxygen starvation. Most effective ways to do that are by necessity quite violent, and the ones that aren't are technically complicated or highly uncertain. As both men and women contemplating suicide will find that out quite quickly, the disparity must be explained by something else. And like I said, personally I think it's largely due to men being quite sure that they're not going to get any long term help, so they'd better make sure they're off permanently.
Yep.
I have a suspicious that most of those movements are normally quite sane and do asks for reasonable things, but from time to time there is this huge mass of simpletons that pick a movement and completely wreck it with what we could call "intellectual laziness".
They don't inform themselves of the subject, try to simplify it with stupid ideas like collectivism and then flood the thing with awful ideas until its dead.
It does if you stop trying to date women and just hire a hooker when you want to get your rocks off.
If you're going to date, go for older ones. They don't tell, they don't yell, they don't swell, and they're grateful as hell. You want to bang 20-year-olds, stick to the professionals. Much cheaper in the long run.
Just reduce the wages of male workers.
Don't talk to AmiMoJo. He uses any facts available to benefit women or disparage men. When there are no facts he posits opinion or simply lies to do the same, then ignores any refutation, as you have learned today.
Deception, red herring, ad hominem, and ignoring reality is the MO of AmiMoJo. Save yourself the aggravation and don't feed the trolls, even seemingly polite ones.
Slashdot voting up lies and ad hominem.
Shame!
The problem has NOTHING to do with women and advocating for better treatment of women in society. It has EVERYTHING to do with what you dismissively characterized as "toxic masculinity."
Men are taught to swallow their feelings. They aren't taught to share. Other men brutalize them for sharing their emotions, and talking about things like depression. THAT is your root cause, and the thing that needs addressing, yet you seem to be very, very hurt by the use of the term "toxic masculinity."
Is your solution that, instead of building support networks and socializing boys and men to the idea that talking about their feelings is okay, we should encourage more women to kill themselves in an effort to achieve parity?
Fuck dude, make up your mind.
Wow. One can indeed rationalize almost anything these days! "They're doing it to themselves!"
Ezekiel 23:20
Yet another thing women fail at, killing themselves. But they succeeded at getting media attention and suicide prevention support groups just for them. I guess if that was their goal, then a hardy bravo is in order.
Considering the latest form of feminism, the "I am too weak to withstand any negativity, people need to check their speech so I am not triggered, and I need a safe place where only people that agree with me can be around me, and the special women's help because we experience enverything harder feminism - well, it's a short drive to burkha land, where the women are considered too weak to be around the men. And almost completely apart.
Can we get jazz hands for that?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Asians make more on average than everyone else. Tall people make more than short people and attractive people make even more on average. Is this wage gap going to also be addressed?
This is a wet dream for labor unions. By pushing merit out of the pay equation (need to pay everyone equally by position so that there can be no claim of bias), non-union labor is losing one of its biggest advantages to union labor.
This is good news and a good step. Moreover, now we can enjoy the following counters from the waaaambulance crowd:
babies, emotions, crying, death of family, anecdotes of women failing on teams, not naturally rational, babies, higher health insurance burden, can't take a joke, crying babies, discarded children rotting away in daycare, every single woman tech CxO ever, babies crying, etc...
I can't wait to see some new items though from this crowd of strong, confident, self reliant men. This should be a blast!
The only gap that exists is due to women not working the same types of jobs (favouring part-time), the same number of hours (favouring family over work), etc, as men, BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.
all the better to bullshit the fuck out of you, slashdot plebes.
each of those companies is NWO
How will you have equal white house pay when your debt looks like this: usdebtclock.org
They already robbed you and used your monies to pay for the shit they use to surveillance you right now.
Sorry did I fuck up the bullshit?
Wahoo! Now they can cut male salaries 21%
Umm, you know 'brogrammers' aren't a thing, right?
But it is nice to not have to be afraid of cops. Cops are merely annoying for white people.
This is all a bunch of horseshit. If you came here to escape the basic horrors of human nature, then you probably came to the wrong space. People are horrible, and there is no escape.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
People like you make me sick. Let's play "lame the victim" right? Your ownuse of a statistic shows the major disparity in cases where it's clear the father wanted his children. Than you us anecdotal evidence supporting your bias that men in general don't really care about their children. I have plenty of friends who spent as much time as they could with their children but we're denied custody because they are a man.
Until you can actually prove that men don't want their kids keep your advice to yourself.
The problem is the decisions are disproportionately favored in the mother in contested cases. Actually go to family court once, as a father you have to prove that your ex is truly incompetent and incapable of taking care. It takes a very expensive 3-way psych eval in most cases meaning a full psych eval of all people involved for the plaintiff, defense and for the court; a single one costs $2000/pp on average and the cost is solely carried by the plaintiff (father). That is $12-20k simply to prove your ex has the condition she often has been prescribed medication for but never takes and then you still only have a 75% chance of success.
It doesn't matter who spends more time with the kids before, the mother has often kidnapped or been granted temporary full custody the children and is refusing to allow court ordered visitation and as a result she gets to claim she spent more time with the kids.
When the statistics surrounding temporary custody do not go 90% in the mothers favor (the court is supposed to be ignorant of any unfounded accusations until they hear the case), then fathers may see a chance.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I think the caring (more) for women is at least partially biologically hardwired, but of course, the advantage of being human is that we don't have to obey our hard wiring when it conflicts with a reasoned ethical position.
Treating men and women when they're on the down and out could happen if we applied ourselves. But currently, as a society, we're more concerned with treating men and women equally in boardrooms, and as there are fewer women on the bottom, well... it's not an area I see getting a high priority in the near future.
I guess you misunderstood my position, or I misunderstood previous AC comment.
I'm never gonna get "domesticated".
I agree there is no difference morally, but there is a big difference societally. A female who decides all men are rapists gets rewarded with Title IX kangaroo courts in universities where the man's right to trial by jury is denied.
By the way, in the citadels of learning where much of the misandry is enabled, there are cracks in the foundations. The University of Chicago sent a letter to all incoming students that included in part:
"Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at adds with their own," the letter from Dean John Ellison said, sent Wednesday to the class of 2020.
"Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship," the letter also said. "You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort."
http://www.businessinsider.com... Full text https://twitter.com/ChicagoMar...
The problem of course is that in earlier attempts to be inclusive of other viewpoints, Universities have found that many of those who desired inclusiveness had no intention of granting it to others. Not only that, but the denials of expression that the snowflake crowd demanded started to extend into ridiculous areas, such as chasing comedians off campus, and while one could find Bill Maher offensive - of course, that's what he's trying to do, be offensive , funny and make you think, but their outrage extended to Jerry Seinfeld. Seinfeld and others don't even play college campuses any more.
The snowflakes even extended their umbrage unbrella toward Halloween costumes. They would deny others what they demand for themselves.
This might be coming to an end, as Universities are figuring out that the model is a tyranny of the presumably oppressed. Expect to see the whackadoodle element scramble to find other places where they can act all outraged.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Or have you assumed the opposite, that women are too god damn fragile, always talking about their "feelings" ?
how would that make any sense based on what I said? Do you really believe that anti-suicide lines and counselors really aren't available to men? A 20 year old guy calls in and says, " I hate my life and want to end it," and they're being hung up on? Fuck off.
The problem is, the programs exist, and men aren't taking advantage of them to the extent women are. And the reason for that is that they've been socialized to "toughen up," and "stop being pussies," and every other "masculine" message they receive. They're competing against an unrealistic image of what they should be and how they should behave, and part of that means that when they fail to "stack up" to that image, they're even LESS LIKELY to try and talk about it and seek help, because that's even MORE proof that they're not measuring up.
If we're saying that "preventing suicide is good" - and I agree that it is - then you have to look at why men aren't taking advantage of the available programs, not bemoan the fact that women are using them.
Yes, in fact, they are. It's not rationalization at all to look at society and the ridiculous level of "hyper-masculine" bullshit men hear day in and day out, and conclude that it's a key reason they're not willing, likely, or in some cases, able, to take advantage of resources that exist and would happily help them.
Now fuck off, MRA.
So they'll reduce pay for women in their 20s? Cuz https://www.theguardian.com/mo... is a thing. Or is this all bullshit designed to make them look good without really doing anything?
That is until they taze you death. Seriously, more white people die via cops in a year than black.
Equal opportunity is not the same thing as equal outcomes. What you are claiming is that the latter is necessary, but the former is virtually impossible. I make more in my job position than many other people in the same position. I happen to have much more experience, knowledge they lack, a willingness to do what they don't, teach people what they can't, and advise people they would not communicate with. My job, like the overwhelming majority of jobs is not strictly producing X widgets per day. If it were, we would have a way to measure outcomes much more accurately. IN which case we would have like most factories do, and equal pay for equal outcomes.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Slashdot is a safe space for trolls, assholes, cranks, and degenerates of all kinds. Never understood how anyone reads it at anything other than -1, wheres the fun in that? IMHO the shitposting on this site has gone downhill even faster than the real discussion has. Apps are for Cows, indeed! Utter pablum.
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking tea baggers.
P.S. APK can eat a dick, fuck him and his stupid hosts files. *sniff* I miss ya buddy.
Sorry, I don't live in Saudi Arabia. No "hyper-masculine bullshit" here.
Ezekiel 23:20
Perfect excuse to cut pay, bonuses, etc for men.
It's a known fact that Obama doesn't pay women in his white house as much as men. Let's start there instead of with other people's money.
You'd never know this from the 24/7 news coverage of the Ferguson riots et. al., but white violent offenders are slightly more likely to be shot by police than black violent offenders.
So we're pretty close to equal racial treatment right now, but if you want to remove the small remaining discrepancy, you would have to either
âÂdecrease the number of white violent offenders shot, or
â increase the number of black violent offenders shot.
BLM may think that equal racial treatment is its goal, but actually, if it had its way, and fewer black violent offenders were shot by police, racial treatment would become more unequal.
Employers only care about how much $$ you will bring into the business. So if you need a crapton of OT hours to get that done, why should you be celebrated? Someone else, who may happen to be of the opposite sex than you (or not), is capable of making the company a crapton of $$ on 40 hours per week. Do you think the company would give any craps about your overtime? The risks you take or don't take? Unless you are paid hourly, they wouldn't care. My point is that you are using the wrong measure.
also not a choice to just 'get another job' as that does absolutely zero about the problem, and instead perpetuates the bad behavior.
So, as a single father, are you also claiming that I should be able to leave work early to pick up my kids from school? You want equality, so how about the equality of male single parents to female single parents?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Or, possibly, if suicide rates among men HAVE gone up in the past few decades, they've become terrible at "toughening up" and started acting like that guy who cried about Britney Spears.
apk is the closest thing to shitposting that we have left. :(
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Coren22 it's fair to claim you should leave /. after stalking, harassing, libeling and lying about people https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9577115&cid=52791605/ who exposed you're just a can't backup your bs blowhard "ne'er-do-well" liar that's mentally defective due to outism making you into an assburger!
Go spread your lies on tumbler, it is the only place you will be believed.
It gets worse in some states. There are a few where the man has to pay for the woman's lawyers too.