Things are changing just slower than anyone wants. I'd like to see more experiments with all women firms. I think, that way lot of energy wastage, dealing with soon to be extinct cretins, can be avoided.
Do you think women who have the personality and temperament to rise to the top in 2024 corporations will act substantially different than the men who are there today? Why?
Point being there is nothing magical about women that would solve all our problems. I would much rather see a balanced workforce than trying for creating this pure homogeneous workforce.
I'd like to see more experiments with firms that actually focus on providing a better product more effectively to maximize shareholder profit legitimately rather than through abusing dark patterns/ignoring the business purpose entirely for weird ESG goals. When that was the norm rather than an experiment progress happened at a much faster rate and progress makes us all rich enough to pursue our dreams and interests rather than toil at work all day to scrape by. Focusing on technological improvement to drive sustainable economic growth makes firm composition irrelevant because it gives individuals more freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue.
It's so pointless to argue about what percentage of which group should be toiling in which salt mine. The goal should be to grow enough that we have the leeway to pursue our individual interests
I'm a tall brown man and people have asked me that too. In general, im quite social and extroverted and have gotten every job I've interviewed for. Even managed to get a job as a strategy consultant at bain and company despite realistically having no credentials. Sweet talking is a skill that crosses boundaries of melanin.
Some white people have this weird habit of assuming that good things happen because of their magical skin color. It's insufferable honestly. No one cares if you're a white guy who thinks he's so attractive / devilishly charming that people fawn over him. Lots of people have that experience. Goodness the self-aggrandizement knows no bounds
Actually I'm the one who's often confused - I've been told I "look like a tech company CEO" and I don't really know what that means. I can measure the objective stuff like height and skin color to come up with something, but at the end of the day I don't really know what a tech CEO is "supposed" to look like. The actual CEO of the tech company I work for is a Hispanic grandma, which I suspect is not the stereotype. If people knew I lived with my parents, they would probably stop thinking I'm much of a leader lol.
White people in the workforce are probably the most inviting out of all races seeing that they are least likely to discriminate against other races. So I doubt your experience of the field being awful is at all related to the extent it is dominated by white men.
This will never be equal if safety and childbirth are taken into account. Men are stronger than women and women have to deliver babies and have lots of hormonal changes. That gap will never be filled and we shouldn't be trying. Instead we should work on making our society be such that women don't need to work and one person income is sufficient to run a family. What is tremendously sad is that today women have to work and also take care of the kids (who naturally prefer mommy since they were inside her). So they have to work much more than men and get paid less. Instead, one person income should be sufficient and then moms can spend the first 3 years of her life being with and taking care of the children. Of course if someone doesn't want to do that, it's totally fair, but today society pushes women to go back to work as soon as the baby drops out.
See, I read this and take it the exact opposite direction.
Here's my 2c, as someone who got generous paternity leave with 2 of my kids and 0 paternity leave with one of them, now watching many peers have their kids too. Here's 1 neat trick to help the whole situation a LOT:MANDATORY 1 year parental leave for the mother and father. it must be mandatory for both genders, or women will be pressured to take less and men will be pressured (or tempted) to take less or none (whereas women are of course physically forced to take at least some).
Employers will whinge and cry about this because of productivity or something like that. I regret to inform them that whether they like it or not, any parent of a less-than-one-year-old is going to be pretty un-useful at work during that first year. I know I was. Waking up 2-3 times per night, every single night, for a year is a real great way to get very little done that isn't programmed into your lizard brain's firmware.
Childless adults will complain it's unfair. They should not - these children are who is going to pay for their social security and who will generate the capital gains to fund their IRA/401k retirement. They're just getting to skip out on the work of raising them.
We also need a lot of work in society to encourage fathers to be present and actually share the weight of child-rearing. Too much still falls to women all too often. But that's of course a lot harder to fix with policy. Mandatory parental leave is comparatively easy.
I'm one of the childless adults here and I feel like I get to have things both ways because I can say I agree with you while knowing that there's zero chance of any of this making it into US (I'm pretty sure that's the country we're talking about here) law. So thanks for raising those future tax-payers.
Yeah - pessimistically, the upper class won't vote for it because they don't want to pay more taxes and they don't raise their kids anyway.
The middle class should vote for it, but they won't because the men can simply be absent fathers by being "career-focused", and our ultra-conservative midpoint will still mostly frame this as making taxpayers pay for poor black parents to not work, which is a double-whammy to racists - more nonwhite babies _and_ the parents can be "welfare queens".
And obviously corporations won't like anything that implies their workers aren't just robotic cogs who are society's problem outside of the ages of 18 and 40.
> Here's 1 neat trick to help the whole situation a LOT:MANDATORY 1 year parental leave for the mother and father. it must be mandatory for both genders, or women will be pressured to take less and men will be pressured (or tempted) to take less or none (whereas women are of course physically forced to take at least some).
You do not need to make it mandatory for it to become effective. Look at countries like sweden who have rolled such systems out. Both parents get paid parental leave (around 9 months per parent, per kid I think). The 9 months cannot be shared between the parents. So if the father does not take the months he loses them. From my experience working in Sweden people take those. Men take those months off and it is socially accepted and expected that you take them.
> I regret to inform them that whether they like it or not, any parent of a less-than-one-year-old is going to be pretty un-useful at work during that first year.
This statement is just untrue. 1 year of no productivity? That is a ridiculous claim.
Domestic work is still work. Shouldn't that be acknowledged, credited, and compensated?
Instead of excluding this necessary labor and forcing homemakers and carers into dependence, document it, if that's the issue. The same is true when children care for elderly parents and grandparents, or the disabled, or any of the hundred other scenarios that occur that we don't see.
Otherwise, what, every spouse and partner should register themself as a business and invoice their household? How perfectly transactional would that be.
"I love that what we share, to the limit that our long term interests intersect with sound fiscal and economic practice, my love. Please don't forget to bill me at the after hours rate for asking you to move my laundry over."
World Bank complains, "How do you expect these countries to make their payments on-time when their women are raising their own children instead of working in our sweatshops?"
26 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 70.5 ms ] threadPoint being there is nothing magical about women that would solve all our problems. I would much rather see a balanced workforce than trying for creating this pure homogeneous workforce.
Honestly I'm not denying racism, but as I've told so many people who allege it matters, I just go and cry in my bank account.
Some white people have this weird habit of assuming that good things happen because of their magical skin color. It's insufferable honestly. No one cares if you're a white guy who thinks he's so attractive / devilishly charming that people fawn over him. Lots of people have that experience. Goodness the self-aggrandizement knows no bounds
https://www.ljzigerell.com/?p=9002
Here's my 2c, as someone who got generous paternity leave with 2 of my kids and 0 paternity leave with one of them, now watching many peers have their kids too. Here's 1 neat trick to help the whole situation a LOT:MANDATORY 1 year parental leave for the mother and father. it must be mandatory for both genders, or women will be pressured to take less and men will be pressured (or tempted) to take less or none (whereas women are of course physically forced to take at least some).
Employers will whinge and cry about this because of productivity or something like that. I regret to inform them that whether they like it or not, any parent of a less-than-one-year-old is going to be pretty un-useful at work during that first year. I know I was. Waking up 2-3 times per night, every single night, for a year is a real great way to get very little done that isn't programmed into your lizard brain's firmware.
Childless adults will complain it's unfair. They should not - these children are who is going to pay for their social security and who will generate the capital gains to fund their IRA/401k retirement. They're just getting to skip out on the work of raising them.
We also need a lot of work in society to encourage fathers to be present and actually share the weight of child-rearing. Too much still falls to women all too often. But that's of course a lot harder to fix with policy. Mandatory parental leave is comparatively easy.
The middle class should vote for it, but they won't because the men can simply be absent fathers by being "career-focused", and our ultra-conservative midpoint will still mostly frame this as making taxpayers pay for poor black parents to not work, which is a double-whammy to racists - more nonwhite babies _and_ the parents can be "welfare queens".
And obviously corporations won't like anything that implies their workers aren't just robotic cogs who are society's problem outside of the ages of 18 and 40.
You do not need to make it mandatory for it to become effective. Look at countries like sweden who have rolled such systems out. Both parents get paid parental leave (around 9 months per parent, per kid I think). The 9 months cannot be shared between the parents. So if the father does not take the months he loses them. From my experience working in Sweden people take those. Men take those months off and it is socially accepted and expected that you take them.
This statement is just untrue. 1 year of no productivity? That is a ridiculous claim.
Instead of excluding this necessary labor and forcing homemakers and carers into dependence, document it, if that's the issue. The same is true when children care for elderly parents and grandparents, or the disabled, or any of the hundred other scenarios that occur that we don't see.
Otherwise, what, every spouse and partner should register themself as a business and invoice their household? How perfectly transactional would that be.
"I love that what we share, to the limit that our long term interests intersect with sound fiscal and economic practice, my love. Please don't forget to bill me at the after hours rate for asking you to move my laundry over."