Feminism and women who can't do jobs men do but get paid the same

applying for a job should be a blind process...

here are dead weights the same as what you'll be expected to lift on the job. lift em and you're hired, don't and too bad. Then if lift, hire em...doesn't matter if its a man, woman, xir, etc.

All these labor jobs will be going to robots in 40 years anyhow.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
applying for a job should be a blind process...

here are dead weights the same as what you'll be expected to lift on the job. lift em and you're hired, don't and too bad. Then if lift, hire em...doesn't matter if its a man, woman, xir, etc.

All these labor jobs will be going to robots in 40 years anyhow.

IDK about the robot thing, maybe some things, especially assembly line, it really depends on how fine tuned they can get the accuracy and speed in an infinite range of positions and movement (of which balance is a key factor). I'd like to see a robot frame a house, that would be something to behold!!!

At one company that I used to work for, a woman was only allowed to lift something that was 50 pounds and under. A man could lift something up to 75 pounds. We had a female lab tech who played center for a women's semi-professional football team. She bench presses 300 pounds. One day there's no men around and she needed a box moved so she took care of it herself. The box weighed 60 pounds. One of the other women wrote a grievance against her. I tore up the grievance and asked the woman that wrote it, why didn't she help her move the box? Her answer was "It's not my job." Actually it was.

Another place where I worked had a lot of women working as customer account managers. There was always a high turn over rate. I was talking to the department manager on day and asked why the turn over rate was so high? The answer was "Weddings and Births". These women would start there right out of college and would leave when they got married or had a child. A few took medical leave to have their baby, most quit. The pay difference was brought up and I was told that this company's reason for the difference was that five women were needed to do the job that it took four men to do. This had nothing to do with physical strength. It was a desk job. It was that men tended to stay longer and between turn over and family leave, 25% of the women were either trainees or on medical leave. I asked the Manager what she thought about the policy and she was in favor of it.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
If you are really that dumb...

I am, but you're still complaining. Every consider opening your own business and employing whomever you want? No? Well, at least there's complaining then.

first are yous just assuming that the women are being paid the same amount for the lighter work?
second, aren't you assuming that the boss should place higher value on your heavy labor than the work they are doing, just because it's heavy work?
third how do you know that the boss isn't planning to section off a section of your department and then give higher wages to one than the other once he gets all those lighter jobs filled by the women.

but what do I know I was a screen printer, hired to be a finisher (where most of the women were, not that is was lighter work, some of those boxes we moved around weight quite abit.) and then ended up working just as much on the print presses as in the finishing. heck, when all the guys running the presses were arguing about who should be printing the heavy magnets... I asked to do them because, well I wanted some more time actually printing, and outside of the weight and the sheer amount of them (you were moving tons of the things through your press in a day's time) there were really an easy print, perfect for someone like me, who really didn't have that much experience actually printing!!)
so, I got to print the pain in the arse job that none of the guys wanted to print... although no, I didn't move any pallets of the stock that time.. . I had already screwed up my foot by that time by moving the pallets of the stuff and having one ram into my ankle during a previous run that I was helping out with...

but, ya know what... if the wages were doled out according to the actual work (as defined by science) one does... then we'd be as rich as the ceos and upper managers of the companies that employed us. so what can I say... you are assuming that your brute strength is valued, it's not, your skills might be, your intelligence might be...

a reply to: paraphi

There are jobs men are better at doing, and jobs women are better at doing.

Absolutely.

The fight for equal pay is a righteous cause for women, where jobs are the same.

Forcing employers to take on people who are unsuitable is the road to ruin.

honestly, I don't think it has anything todo with a righteous cause for women. A lot of the employers in the big Corporation are the ones pushing and painting a picture of women being victims in the work place.

IMO The reason why these corporation are pushing to hire more Women and minorities is because of money and as form of distractions.

The interesting thing about these large companies that are pushing to get more women and minorities in the work place are also coincidently the same companies that have a history of paying minorities and women far less money than men. So they push for women rights to distract from the fact that they have been the ones screwing women over with their pay negotiations and flood the worker pool with workers willing to get paid less .

In my field of study Computer Engineering I get bombarded with news on how important it is to get more women , minorities, and third world workers involved in computer engineering along with the numerous programs catered to get them into the field. Why?

Is it because Global Corporations are really good and care about doing what is right or is it because they want to flood the market with more workers to bring down the pay. Keep in mind these are the same corporations that have no problem with using Chinese slave labor.

There is no need to target any one gender or race to get people involved in the science. There is absolutely no reason why a female or a minority can't get into the Science fields and excel. Zilch none.
So what if a lot of women aren't interested in the sciences and so what if a lot of men aren't interested in being a nurse.

Now if the universities are telling women ,sorry you cant be a scientist you are better suited for nursing then lets talk and I will be protesting with you. However this is solely a manufactured issue created by the corporations to flood the worker pool and lower compensation.

If they really cared about women ,minorities, and third world workers they would be educating them on how to better negotiate for themselves and creating laws to ensure they get equally compensated based on their positions versus just forcing employer to hire based on gender and race to fill a space.Also why aren't they pushing for a minority or female unions if there is such an issue if they really cared?

The only way that these schemes/scams by the free loaders work is with the invention of the big, multi-location businesses. it is not a coincidence that as we saw large businesses come into the market, we have seen free loaders (of both sexes) flourish and now there are some that are not only using the fact that the "owner" is never around, but that they can exploit the "equal employment" mindset and push work off on others.

I want to say that I've worked with some women who, in my expereince with them, would never do this and I'd take them over some of the men I've worked with any day. Some of them were awesome at doing things that didn't require "heft" and could knock out a task that I would have hated doing and I was doing stuff (that I didn't really like) that she would have a lot of difficulty doing and between us we had extra time to "relax" at the end of the day. Now there would have been a problem if I would have said I couldn't do the heavy stuff and it would have looked odd, IMHO, as well.

originally posted by: dawnstar
first are yous just assuming that the women are being paid the same amount for the lighter work?
second, aren't you assuming that the boss should place higher value on your heavy labor than the work they are doing, just because it's heavy work?
third how do you know that the boss isn't planning to section off a section of your department and then give higher wages to one than the other once he gets all those lighter jobs filled by the women.

but what do I know I was a screen printer, hired to be a finisher (where most of the women were, not that is was lighter work, some of those boxes we moved around weight quite abit.) and then ended up working just as much on the print presses as in the finishing. heck, when all the guys running the presses were arguing about who should be printing the heavy magnets... I asked to do them because, well I wanted some more time actually printing, and outside of the weight and the sheer amount of them (you were moving tons of the things through your press in a day's time) there were really an easy print, perfect for someone like me, who really didn't have that much experience actually printing!!)
so, I got to print the pain in the arse job that none of the guys wanted to print... although no, I didn't move any pallets of the stock that time.. . I had already screwed up my foot by that time by moving the pallets of the stuff and having one ram into my ankle during a previous run that I was helping out with...

but, ya know what... if the wages were doled out according to the actual work (as defined by science) one does... then we'd be as rich as the ceos and upper managers of the companies that employed us. so what can I say... you are assuming that your brute strength is valued, it's not, your skills might be, your intelligence might be...

The system we had in place was perfect, we would switch around every couple hours to give each other a break from the heavy work, then it ended up with 4 guys doing the heavy work all day and 4 women sat down at the desk all day.

It may come as a shock to some people but there is most likely a reason that many products come in a standard weight of 50lbs or 25kg. This is a weight that most everyone can life, yes even women. This has been a long used standard going back some 2000+ years or more. Women of old were fine with lifting these sacks of flour or grain or fabric of this weight. Some industries did go larger to 80-100lb sacks but this was usually in fields where it was almost completely men. So what happened? Why can't they lift this anymore and they need 20-30 lb bags? Is it they are weaker or is it that it is socially acceptable to pass it off to another (man) even if it means they are doing the work another was supposed to do.?

It makes most sens to use the heaviest sack possible when dealing with bulk product as it means less times handling it and less overall cost. The thing is that it has to be liftable by everyone and industry has tested this and it seems that the number hasn't really gone down. In 3rd world countries this is not a problem at all and they lift heavier bags than this. You would think with all the gyms, yoga classes, pilates, spin classes, etc we would have the most buff, tuffest gals in the world, but it seems like there are too many that think they are Fabergé eggs.

Yeah, this is the same with many military or police roles.

One thing that many have pointed out though is that few feminists are calling for women to be equally represented in all kinds of working class jobs, or dangerous ones. It often seems to be only the best paying or most prestigious jobs/orgs.

And this is one of my issues with most feminists except some better scholarly ones who know these issues. Many entry level feminists seem to want equality in things where it will help them, such as access to high level jobs, but then don't want equality in things like family court/custody.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Canada went in for the idea that jobs of "equal worth" to a company should be paid the same. So there is a haulage firm that is staffed by truckers and admins. The truckers who will spend weeks away from their families transporting containers from one side of Canada to another at all hours, in the freezing cold, hot weather, rainstorms and blizzards. They would be paid $50/hour or more. The admins have a nine-to-five job living in downtown cities commuting by Metro train from their apartment to the office block and would be paid around $20/hour on a fixed salary. The government ruled that jobs of "equal worth" should be paid the same regardless of supply or demand.

They did similar things with the public sector. Looked at the jobs done by everyone and placed each position on a payscale. Some people had to take paycuts on order to ensure that all salaries were equal.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
This has been an issue for longer than many people think and the people who suffer from this are men. A quick example I'll use is a job at a tree nursery. Every day trees have to be dug up, moved around, watered and loaded into trucks. It had been all men in the department until someone wanted to be out there because the register was always slow and they could talk on the phone, text etc in between customers. Over an 8 hour day the guys would work 1-2 hours at the register as a break or often they would just come when a bell was rung and they would stay in the yard working with the guys. When a guy got hurt or sick they would get the register until they were better. When the "special person" came in, everything changed.

Instead of one person moving a 200-275lb tree, 2 people were needed and it was actually harder because one person wouldn't even be able to lift their 1/2 so the weight was out of balance and it made the weight equivelent to 400+ lbs for one person (b/c it was extended 2-3ft out from the body) and the special person was lifting 30-50lbs. Well this made it about 4x slower or more, so that was done away with and only the "old employees" (guys) were left doing that.

Then there was digging holes and the average was about 6-20 an hour depending on size. Well the special person was doing 0-3 an hour and couldn't plant after digging, so everything got backed up.

Obviously the solution should be to buy a $35,000 digger that can fit in between the trees and a $15-20,000 lift for trees to move them around, plant them and load them, right? Why are we so limited with having a $30 shovel and a $20 set of hay bail hooks? That is discrimination and sexist, oh, and not fair.

So since the nursery is IN BUSINESS and not the standing around waiting business, the "special person" ended up sitting at the register the whole shift (except for the 4-10 bathroom breaks to go talk to friends in the rest of the store - leaving the bell for the guys to cover). Now when someone gets hurt they don't work (and no workmans comp unless you loose a hand or arm or something), get sick, your still heeling in 275lb trees in the rain. But hey, it make your stronger right?

So now there is some diversity in the department and we can all say "a woman can do any job that a man does" (often added to this line "sometimes even better").

I guess we have all seen the road crews or utility workers and we all see who is doing what. Who usually has the shovel, pick axe, digging iron, jack hammer, pneumatic tamper, etc? Who is holding the road sign's?

I'm for equality when there is equal work done and not relativistic work. Now there is a difference when looking at a site with an 18yr old and a 55-65 year old and expecting the same. What one may lack in experience they may make up for with a youthful body, endurance and exhuberance. The experience may keep the youngin from hurting themselves or show them something that saves a lot of time, but the difference is that they are capable of equal work. This is how things have been in hard labor jobs since most everyone can remember and only recently has the world gone insane thiking that b/c someone weighs 90 lbs compared to a 220lb worker, they should only have to carry 40% of a tree or 40% of a rock - which is impossible so they end up not doing it.

I can list about 30-40 other jobs like this if anyone really wants to argue against this point, but I'm open to hearing why someone thinks it is equal or fair. These "easy" jobs are necessary for the people on the team and are a built in rest for the workers. When dead weight takes these jobs the rest of the team suffers and people end up getting hurt (could be why so many workers have chronic pain and other repetitive injuries).

This whole idea makes me incredibly mad and I need to stop before I say things I shouldn't.

Here's my counter story...I program and operate cnc machines in a granite shop. My position is supposed to to be a 2 person job...right now I work it alone...but...over the more than three years now i've done this job. The only person to last longer than 3 months was a girl. I've worked with probably at least....7 different people on this position, which involves lifting stone all the time, programming, operating and maintaining 2 cnc routers, a line polisher and a bridge saw, cutting and laminating double edges and miters, and other general random shop type #. The first dude cried every day at the end of the day...eventually he quit and became a stay at home dad while his wife went to work. Second guy was never very good at programming, got moved onto install for a while did pretty well there till he quit, next guy lasted about three months before he walked away in the middle of a shift and never came back he used to complain that he couldn't just sit around smoking weed all day like his girlfriend did. There was the guy who....I swear to god....was planning some oceans 11 type #...the only person that was capable of doing the job for more than a couple months...or days in most cases was the girl I worked with for over a year and a half. She could lift stone as well as any of the guys at the shop, could actually program and operate the machines without needing to be babysat and was really damn good at cutting and gluing stone.

And as to your op....i've landscaped with chicks that could outdig and outplant any guy on the crew ...even me...

originally posted by: paraphi
There are jobs men are better at doing, and jobs women are better at doing. The fight for equal pay is a righteous cause for women, where jobs are the same. Forcing employers to take on people who are unsuitable is the road to ruin.

In my current work we functionally have a hyper affirmative action zone. The problem is we are trying to solve and address very complex issues, such as health care access for the poor and affordable housing/homelessness. 60,000 homeless people we work with.

I've seen first hand objectively less qualified people put in positions due to either social justice ideology, or cronyism. Please note that I am not referencing women or minority individuals who are highly trained or have expertise. I work with plenty of them too.

The issue here is that even if one agrees with such diversity initiatives, such roles have the power to positively or negatively impact thousands of people (or millions if an org or agency is macro enough). If they are insufficiently experienced or trained in these fields, they may lower the impact of these programs, undermine the mission, and possibly harm all the low income communities we work with. I think this is the main issue in all cases, whether we are talking in business or public sector.

The final issue is within the work place, because a person that is much more capable or exp can get passed over, harming their career and so on.

These are complex issues, with points on both sides.

a reply to: interupt42

The interesting thing about these large companies that are pushing to get more women and minorities in the work place are also coincidently the same companies that have a history of paying minorities and women far less money than men. So they push for women rights to distract from the fact that they have been the ones screwing women over with their pay negotiations and flood the worker pool with workers willing to get paid less .

haha not to long after I posted that, who would have thought corporations only care about money.

Demands for diversity and equality have reached the top of the ladder, however, and now the executives want nothing to do with it - even going so far as to oppose studies on gender pay gaps within their company.

a reply to: NeoSpace

sounds like your boss seems to think you should be able to do the heavy work all day with just your regular breaks...
and it also sounds like yous aren't doing the same job even if you are in the same department and their should be reason to have a different pay rate according to what jobs you are actually doing. in the print shop, we had a pre-prep, a printing, a finishing, and a shipping department (didn't mean we all stayed in the department we were assigned to though), but in the printing department, we had several sizes of machines along with several types. some you really didn't need that much strength two run, and well one that you needed two or three guys just to lift the screen. and you also needed different knowledge and skills for each one. ya know, it's funny, but the printers that were capable of actually loading the screen on that big press, weren't really the best ones to do the actual printing... they weren't really that detailed oriented, and well, since it was very, very manual, they just had trouble getting consistent pressure throughout the run. so the guys would set up the screen and walk away, and me and another women would be the ones actually running the job. she would do the actual printing, because well, she was good at it, and I would be in the back, pulling the big banners off the belt and watching for any errors.. which, could cost the company quite a bit of money if not corrected and allowed to continue throughout the run. I might not have been as strong as those guys... but, I know for a fact that I saved that company, and their customers a lot of money... sometimes, even catching things that were being missed on runs that I had no part in. sometimes, the weaker ones bring something to the table that is just as important as your strength.
and I was getting about the same as the finishers were.... the person who would be printing those huge banners, she was getting paid less than the male printers in the shop although she was the most experienced one in the shop.

It happens. Of course there are jobs the average woman can't do. I'd say the same for a helluva lot of men too. In my prime I might have been able to do the work you've outlined. Maybe not. That's physically intense work. that said if your looking at other jobs for physical inequality...

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I guess we have all seen the road crews or utility workers and we all see who is doing what. Who usually has the shovel, pick axe, digging iron, jack hammer, pneumatic tamper, etc? Who is holding the road sign's?

... you may have a problem with women in the workplace.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Work in a factory, a metal fabrication shop. Very few women I've met can actually do it, the physical and mental labor of it.. there are some.. have a good decent friends that were hard workers but ultimately was not the career for them.. I can't blame em it sucks tetons

Right, but it's all about bell curve and medians/averages.

General policies cannot be based on outliers, although outliers should be treated as individuals.

Good example is military field roles. Lots of women can't cut it, and are at a disadvantage. Far more women can't cut it than men. However, some can. Let them do it.
a reply to: intrepid

I was thinking about this and a question occurred to me.

Who is more violent?

A king or a queen?

We've had female rulers and male rulers.

They should be equal, shouldn't they?

WOMEN were less likely than men to support the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, or the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They commit far fewer murders. They are less likely to favour drone strikes. For scholars such as Steven Pinker, a psychologist, and Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, these are grounds for thinking that a world run by women would be more peaceful.

But European history suggests otherwise, according to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings.

www.economist.com...

Women. They are meaner, more violent, make better sandwiches, and should not be considered equals because they will kill all us men.


If you see a woman, run!


Why?

a reply to: DBCowboy

you seem to be ignoring the amount of meddling powerful men did to weaken the queens and get them either dethroned or married so they could have their king though.