Tree worker beat by crowd

Mac- I give you facts, you accuse ME of ignorance and intolerance. Classic.

tem·per·a·men·tal:
of or pertaining to temperament; constitutional: temperamental differences.

Men (me, for example) are less averse to confrontation- TEMPERAMENTALLY. They are more likely to demand higher pay to perform a job initially, and to ask for raises.
http://www.today.com/video/today/52799791#52799791
One example: http://www.today.com/video/today/52799791#52799791

Stupid, ignorant, intolerant, racist, white privileged "Today Show".

Enough derail.
 
thanks, I know what temperamental means. My issue is with how you used it. You're saying that men get more because they ask for it nicely? Rather than getting all emotional and temperamental, like women. Is that what I'm to understand?

Or are you saying that its ok to pay women and minorities less, because they don't come out and ask for it like white men who expect to get paid a lot. (behavior of the privileged)
 
When you look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2010 concerning women's to men's earnings ratios within selected occupations, the numbers still read 80 cents on the dollar on average(http://bit.ly/1eFBgaC).

And men do statistically demand higher pay and get it, but is it because of their natural temperament or because of the way our society has learned to interpret it?

[Carnegie Mellon Professor Linda] Babcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, "Yes, pay him more." But the woman?

"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."

To be clear, both men and women thought this way.

So men's temperament doesn't really seem to be the deciding factor here. Aggressive men are perceived as sexy and successful. Aggressive women are perceived to be domineering and unlikeable. Why is that?

Historically women generally do take time out of their careers to have and or raise children. For free. And at great expense to their overall earnings potential. In part this is because women are just assumed to be primary caretakers. In part it is because our country is sorely lacking in family friendly work places that would grant parental leave instead of maternity leave.

Throughout history women have typically played a subservient role in many societies. Women were first "allowed" to go to university in 1833 in the US, but only with a focus on a career in the home. It wasn't until the 1960's that women were able to earn degrees and even then it was intended for those degrees to generally be put to use in the context of a job "suitable for a woman". That's really just the blink of an eye as far as the evolution of a society is concerned.

Yes, we've made great strides as of today, but we are often bound within the mindset of the society that has been forged before us. Being able to reflect and look at context simply gives us the power to understand how to shape our actions and our community in a way that makes the world a little better for everyone involved. It does in no way justify abhorrent acts or make excuses for inexcusable behavior.
 
macswan said:
Look at all those white faces in that crowd...
Click to expand...


if all the people had been black, would you be saying, 'look at all the black faces in the crowd'?

no you wouldn't would you, because that would be racist, but it's ok for you to say 'look at all those white faces in that crowd'

you're arguments are absurd macswan, you're caught in a web of political correctness which has left you incapable of critical thought.

.
 
Oh, that's what it is, thanks tc.

That part of the post was actually meant in jest. Considering the trajectory of the conversation, I just thought it amusing. Perhaps it was in poor taste. I apologize.

My question to you stands, do you believe that men deserve more money because they ask for it in the proper tone of voice, or because that's how you've been conditioned to think by the web of social inequality which has left you incapable of critical thought.
 
ladybird said:
When you look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2010 concerning women's to men's earnings ratios within selected occupations, the numbers still read 80 cents on the dollar on average(http://bit.ly/1eFBgaC).

And men do statistically demand higher pay and get it, but is it because of their natural temperament or because of the way our society has learned to interpret it?

[Carnegie Mellon Professor Linda] Babcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, "Yes, pay him more." But the woman?

"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."

To be clear, both men and women thought this way.

So men's temperament doesn't really seem to be the deciding factor here. Aggressive men are perceived as sexy and successful. Aggressive women are perceived to be domineering and unlikeable. Why is that?

Historically women generally do take time out of their careers to have and or raise children. For free. And at great expense to their overall earnings potential. In part this is because women are just assumed to be primary caretakers. In part it is because our country is sorely lacking in family friendly work places that would grant parental leave instead of maternity leave.

Throughout history women have typically played a subservient role in many societies. Women were first "allowed" to go to university in 1833 in the US, but only with a focus on a career in the home. It wasn't until the 1960's that women were able to earn degrees and even then it was intended for those degrees to generally be put to use in the context of a job "suitable for a woman". That's really just the blink of an eye as far as the evolution of a society is concerned.

Yes, we've made great strides as of today, but we are often bound within the mindset of the society that has been forged before us. Being able to reflect and look at context simply gives us the power to understand how to shape our actions and our community in a way that makes the world a little better for everyone involved. It does in no way justify abhorrent acts or make excuses for inexcusable behavior.
Click to expand...

Look at the level of research ladybird put into this, women even post more thoroughly than men. I'd hire her. Those are facts, tc you gave me unsubstantiated opinion, not fact. I would post the definition, but it seems to time consuming.
 
macswan said:
Look at the level of research ladybird put into this, women even post more thoroughly than men. I'd hire her. Those are facts, tc you gave me unsubstantiated opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...

I've never disputed there are disparities in income across race and gender, but ladybird is posting statistics that fit her narrative, anyone could do the same thing with statistics.

From the 2012 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -

In 2012, 4,045 men died on the job (92.3% of the total) compared to only 338 women (7.7% of the total).

Reflect on those statistics and get back to us when you've formed a conclusion.


.
 
macswan said:
Women don't do as many stupid things as men do
Click to expand...

Almost 12 men died on the job for every woman who died while working in 2012 because a disproportionate number of men work in higher-risk, but higher-paid occupations like coal mining and oil and gas roustabouts (almost 100 % male), fire fighters (96.5% male), police officers (86.6% male), correctional officers (72.8% male), farming, fishing, and forestry (78.3% male), roofers (99.3% male) and construction (97.4% male).

On the other hand, a disproportionate number of women work in relatively low-risk industries, often with lower pay to partially compensate for the safer, more comfortable indoor office environments in occupations like office and administrative support (77.3% female), education, training, and library occupations (73.8% female), and healthcare practitioners (74.4% female). The higher concentrations of men in riskier occupations with greater occurrences of workplace injuries and fatalities suggest that more men than women are willing to expose themselves to work-related injury or death in exchange for higher wages.

.
 
ladybird said:
Yes, we've made great strides as of today, but we are often bound within the mindset of the society that has been forged before us. Being able to reflect and look at context simply gives us the power to understand how to shape our actions and our community in a way that makes the world a little better for everyone involved.
Click to expand...

Ladybird, getting back to your notion of 'white privilege', answer me this please, two questions

1 - why is it that the only time white people are allowed to act as a collective is when we're united with collective guilt?

2 - you have white pride gangs in prisons, according to you they're racist yes? but those guys are victims of the system as well aren't they?
 
Last edited:
There is a feeling of mob psychology with this incident. Once a group gathers in a agitated stated it doesn't take much to set things heading into a given direction. Plenty of examples at sporting events where the division is along the lines of team affiliation and have nothing to do with race. In this situation, all we really have is a defenseless kid hit by a vehicle and some in that crowd, and it really only takes a very few, vocal ones, convincing people to turn to violence. The city has seen the highest rate of violent crimes in the US for the past 4 yrs, depression era unemployment, bankruptcy of the city and, little prospect of anything getting better soon. So imagine the mindset, there's plenty of pent up frustration and anger, and nobody to direct it at. Until this. An interesting opinion piece was published in The Detroit Free Press regarding this incident. http://www.freep.com/article/20140413/COL10/304130051.

As to all the rest of this thread, racism is part of the human psyche. We are all prejudice, in other words, we all pre-judge others. It is how we assess our surroundings as to whether we are in a situation of relative safety or not. It is also about our power and our wont not to lose that which we have. We rely heavily on our sense of sight to ascertain what potential something has to bring us harm or good. We go on what we know about that thing, and this is where we run into ignorance. When we lack any information or experience then we cobble together a judgement from anything we can associate with whatever it is we're in the process of assessing. Where it's a person, we look at them in relation to what we know of ourselves and those we trust. If they don't look like us then that difference becomes a warning flag. Until we have personal experience we rely on others to fill the gap (Carol's vid goes to the point).

Then there is our power and the threat others pose to it. No matter what our circumstances are, we find a place where we have a certain degree of control or power over our circumstances and thus defend it. Friend or foe? Does this "other", threaten my power? T.E. Lawrence in his book, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" talks of the Arab philosophy and its challenge to organizing them in armed revolt: "Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, the three of us against all others". In order to get them past their tribal feuds and fight as a unit, he had to identify the Turks as their common enemy who threatened their way of life. As portrayed in the movie, "Lawrence of Arabia" there is a underlying tension between Auda and Ali which Lawrence is perpetually having to keep in check. Divisions and alliances form along power lines and is fluid with whatever the perceived threat is. Whites and blacks, upper class and lower classes, male and female, Catholics and Protestants, Christians and Muslims, US and Russia, etc, etc..... Orwell did have a bead on this in 1984 where he talks about the 3 super nations where they are constantly at war with one and allied with the other but, which one is which is constantly changing.

So, we judge others, not as individuals initially but as part of a group and more importantly as whether they belong within our own group. Being white in America at one time meant being White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and no others were acceptable. Keep the Irish and the Jews out. Watch out for those Italians! Now, Being white in America has become much more inclusive of those who at one time were persona non grata. Now we see different divides within this community, a class divide, think "white trailer trash", the "makers" vs. the "takers". Take the time to talk to anyone within any given demographic and you'll find who they're biased against within what we perceive as a unified group, i.e., blacks, Muslims, etc...

Gender wage gap, yes, it exists and it's not just about men being more risk tolerant and thus in jobs that pay more for that apparent danger. About 40% of the wage gap between men and women can't be explained by those measurable factors. When all things are equal there is still a gap and over time it widens. http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/.

As long as we defend the status quo and refuse to take a critical look at actions that offend us to seek solutions that go beyond punitive and are more rehabilitative, we will be mired in a circular debate as to who is to blame.

Just my .02$ worth.. with some extra change thrown in.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom