

We did it - bootload
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15174489

======
timr
_"If that means massive intervention, in the shape of affirmative-action
programmes and across-the-board benefits for parents of all sorts, the answer
is no. To begin with, promoting people on the basis of their sex is illiberal
and unfair, and stigmatises its beneficiaries."_

I have news for the Economist: in the US, the "win" came from doing exactly
what they think is illiberal and unfair. Nearly every major US company makes
an explicit, systematic effort to increase female representation in the
workplace.

Is that "illiberal" and wrong? I don't know. I like having a balanced
workplace, and I think that certain fields (hello, CS!) need more women. But
when I look around and see men doing the vast majority of the blue-collar work
(which is _why_ they're being laid off in the "mancession"), while women make
up an ever-increasing proportion of college graduates and the white-collar
labor force, I have to wonder when we'll have to start giving _men_ the
affirmative action.

------
nostrademons
"Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: in America, childless women earn almost
as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less."

There's an easy (cough, cough) solution to that: figure out how to let men
have babies. Heck, it could be Arnold Schwarzenegger's new initiative for
California. He has prior experience with it, after all. ;-)

~~~
restruct
Perhaps fatherhood, not motherhood, is the issue. Fathers need to be going on
paternity leave at the same rates as mothers.

~~~
wensing
I heard (but can't verify) that fathers in Norway get a lengthy (many months
to year?) paternity leave, as the powers that be realized that this time meant
less juvenile delinquency ergo less monetary strain (and better national
economy) in the long-run.

~~~
gcheong
Norway is 56 weeks at 80% salary or 46 weeks at %100 salary:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave>

------
Locke1689
This is one of the most confusing articles I've ever read. One of the first
things that it points out is that in many ways women are not becoming equal in
certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities. It then proceeds
to state certain deficencies and propose possible broad reaching social
programs as reform. Wait-- go back. There will soon be _2 million_ more women
in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that? It
seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na." I'm not
saying there weren't good points brought up and maybe decent solutions but I
felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there.

~~~
martincmartin
Ok, it's just after midnight, I've had a lot to drink, and
<http://xkcd.com/386/> someone is wrong on the internet.

 _in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre
becoming significant majorities._

Actually, the reason for the article, as stated in the first sentance, is that
women will be 50% of the American workforce overall. No just certain
workplaces, but over the entire workforce. That really is a moment to pause
for reflection.

 _It then proceeds to state certain deficencies_

Right. When the average of a bunch of things is 50%, then some of them are
lower than 50% and some of them are higher. (Or they're all exactly 50%, but
in super complex situations like human behavior that never actually happens.)

 _Wait-- go back. There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education
than men? How does the author just skip over that?_

The author doesn't. The author says that there will be more middle class women
with jobs, but fewer poor women with jobs. He/she wants to help the poor ones.

He/she also points out that, while they're in the work force, they make less
money, and provides evidence that this is because they take time off to raise
children. He/she thinks its a detriment to society overall when a woman, who
is equally capable as a man, makes less money just because she has a gap in
her resume. That's not inconsistent.

 _It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na."_

Restating your point with a visceral image doesn't make it any more true.

 _I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there._

You mean because being "significant majorities" in "certain workplaces" is
happening at the same time as "certain deficiencies"? As explained above, I
don't see how that's a contradiction or requires congitive dissonace.

~~~
nagrom
_"The author doesn't. The author says that there will be more middle class
women with jobs, but fewer poor women with jobs. He/she wants to help the poor
ones."_

What about helping men achieve equality with women in the desirable job
sectors? What about providing a security net for everyone that falls through
the cracks?

 _"He/she also points out that, while they're in the work force, they make
less money, and provides evidence that this is because they take time off to
raise children. He/she thinks its a detriment to society overall when a woman,
who is equally capable as a man, makes less money just because she has a gap
in her resume. That's not inconsistent."_

One could make an equally valid point that women, as a class, receive more
benefit from having a family. Men, traditionally, spend less time with their
families and derive less emotional benefit from them - hence the higher
alcoholism rates in men, the higher male suicide rate and the higher tendency
towards violence. Of course, there's no great multinational campaign to target
men for any affirmative action on these causes, in the vein of the 'equality'
laws that can work against them. The article rightly says that positive
discrimination tends towards the creation of feelings of resentment; a better
solution needs to be found.

I think that the OP was attempting to make the point that, in many (most?)
ways in the developed world, women are equal to men, and in some ways they
have superior rights. This is causing growing resentment, and pushing for
further action while ignoring "men's issues" (it feels absurd just to type
that!) will cause further resentment. Take a look at child custody rights for
an example.

I wonder what will happen when, across the board, women are acknowledged as
having equal rights to men. Will women's issues charities close down, or push
for more? I think that there's a growing suspicion that 'equality' means
professional talking heads, professional charities that carry out government
policy and a push towards superiority that threatens to grow the gap in the
(non-traditional) direction.

------
dotandimet

      OK! OK! Hold it!
      I just want to say something.
      You know, for every dollar a man makes
      a woman makes 63 cents.
      Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents.
      So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3,888
      before we make a buck.
    

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3GLdtcmMw>

