Anonymous wrote:I'm an academic, and when MIT was confronted with statistical evidence of institutional sexism, MIT had to act. For MIT not to engage in some sort of "affirmative action" (or whatever you want to call it) would be an injustice.
You're comparing apples and oranges. What you've described here is evidence of sexism in a particular institution. That's very different from believing that individual companies and organizations have an obligation to institute policies to remedy the perceived wrongs of society as a whole.
I'm an academic, and when MIT was confronted with statistical evidence of institutional sexism, MIT had to act. For MIT not to engage in some sort of "affirmative action" (or whatever you want to call it) would be an injustice.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.
"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."
If you want to take that as saying that it's the family's problem, that's fine - that's close enough to what I said.
You haven't explained why it's sexist for a company to decline to ameliorate a preexisting injustice.
Is it racist for a company not to engage in affirmative action?
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Anonymous wrote:TheManWithAUsername wrote:Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.
Huh. I am responding to your points. It's just hard when you say something, and then say you didn't say it. It just means we will go in circles, and that is no fun. And you've gotta let the cursing thing go. I didn't curse you anyway, I said what you said was fucking bullshit.
Since it really bothers you, I'll stop. I posted later - you did say it was a family's problem. I didn't respond to the rest of your points because I didn't think you really had any good ones. We are just going to fundamentally disagree.
Yeah...heckuva job arguing your points.
Anonymous wrote:TheManWithAUsername wrote:Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.
Huh. I am responding to your points. It's just hard when you say something, and then say you didn't say it. It just means we will go in circles, and that is no fun. And you've gotta let the cursing thing go. I didn't curse you anyway, I said what you said was fucking bullshit.
Since it really bothers you, I'll stop. I posted later - you did say it was a family's problem. I didn't respond to the rest of your points because I didn't think you really had any good ones. We are just going to fundamentally disagree.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Anonymous wrote:Man with the username, I did support the statement. Quit being obtuse.
Bottom line is you say there is no sexism going on, and I don't agree. No real point in arguing further cause I doubt we will change each other's minds. I do think you are sticking you head in the sand. Take a Women's Study class, or read an article. Saying the work life policies in this country aren't sexist is not a valid argument. Not caring about it, or saying it's not your problem, that is valid.
Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.
"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."
Anonymous wrote:"as a dad, I would LOVE to be able to stay at home. There is a reason they call it "WORK", because it SUCKS. Not everyone is career obsessed. And talk about female privilege. Do you realize the stress that men are under in this economy? To be the breadwinner when so many traditional male jobs are disappearing. It is soulcrushing. "
Why are you assuming the male is the breadwinner? My DH earns 45% of the household income. If you don't like to work, you should have married a career oriented gal.
Also, I'm willing to bet that to you SAH is synonymous with "not working." Would you really do all the household work that SAHMs do if you were unemployed?
Anonymous wrote:Man with the username, I did support the statement. Quit being obtuse.
Bottom line is you say there is no sexism going on, and I don't agree. No real point in arguing further cause I doubt we will change each other's minds. I do think you are sticking you head in the sand. Take a Women's Study class, or read an article. Saying the work life policies in this country aren't sexist is not a valid argument. Not caring about it, or saying it's not your problem, that is valid.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Anonymous wrote:Saying it's a choice to have kids and if you don't want the career impact then don't have them is absolute fucking bullshit.
You going to support that statement, or just rest on cursing?
Anonymous wrote:as someone who takes advantage of daycare at my husband's worksite, which couldn't be more high quality or convenient, as well as taking advantage of my husband's very flexible schedule (he works a lot but he can shape his hours a lot of the time), and as someone who worked four days a week when I had young kids, I can say companies do have choices.
No one said companies don't have choices.
Anonymous wrote:Saying it's just a family's problem sucks, especially since so many families require two incomes these days, if for nothing else than health insurance.
I didn't say that either. I said that it's not sexist to decline to support a choice.
Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying we should have extreme maternity leaves or anything, but things like supportive breastfeeding policies, more flexiblity when reasonable (and a lot of times it is reasonable, etc.) goes along way. Successful companies have realized this, it's just time more got on board.
If the company thinks it's a good idea for business - or if they simply think it's a good thing period - they can knock themselves out supporting families. I'm just saying that it's not sexist if they choose not to.
Anonymous wrote:And the fact that a man's career benefits from his being a dad and the mom's plummets, yeah that is sexist.
I'm not sure to what you're referring. I might agree with you if you explained it more.
You quoted me, but you're arguing against completely different points.
Anonymous wrote:This is perhaps one of the most misogynist things I've ever read on the internet. And that's saying something.TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.
I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.
So we are gross dirty hysterical harpies who can't lift heavy things.
Anonymous wrote:Maniwth a Username, are you at all able to multitask? Do you call off sick when you have the sniffles? Do you realize not all women have PMS or have tough pregnancies or breastfeed?
Anonymous wrote:they will likely ask me for help because men may not be "safe". Need I go on? It sucks that men are always looked at with a skeptical eye. I don't think that's fair do you?
I can choose to SAH with my children and that is normal. DH chooses to do this and somehow that is weird.
I'm tired of people who say men and women should be treated equally, and then pick and choose where they want the equality. . Examples are: I call my DH an asshole. He calls me a bitch back. I can't whine and complain that he called me a bitch. I get pissed off at DH and push him away. He gets mad and pushes me. I call him an abuser.
People who go on and on about how women are treated unfairly always seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that men are also treated unfairly.
As for the people talking about poor women, there are actually more government programs and help available to women than men.
Anonymous wrote:Saying it's a choice to have kids and if you don't want the career impact then don't have them is absolute fucking bullshit.
Anonymous wrote:as someone who takes advantage of daycare at my husband's worksite, which couldn't be more high quality or convenient, as well as taking advantage of my husband's very flexible schedule (he works a lot but he can shape his hours a lot of the time), and as someone who worked four days a week when I had young kids, I can say companies do have choices.
Anonymous wrote:Saying it's just a family's problem sucks, especially since so many families require two incomes these days, if for nothing else than health insurance.
Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying we should have extreme maternity leaves or anything, but things like supportive breastfeeding policies, more flexiblity when reasonable (and a lot of times it is reasonable, etc.) goes along way. Successful companies have realized this, it's just time more got on board.
Anonymous wrote:And the fact that a man's career benefits from his being a dad and the mom's plummets, yeah that is sexist.