Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

laukys t1_itpbw0c wrote

Reply to comment by Kallasilya in Women will have equal share of seats in [New Zealand] Parliament with Soraya Peke-Mason's swearing-in by giblefog

How does this privilege manifest at lower levels of society? Would you support 50:50 quotas for garbage men, plumbers, builders, mine shaft workers?

−5

Kallasilya t1_itpdxv4 wrote

Absolutely, and also for nurses, carers and teachers. (Maybe if we recruited more men to these professions they wouldn't be so overworked and underpaid!)

15

laukys t1_itpemph wrote

So you want to force men into jobs they don't want to work and force women in jobs they don't want to work?

−5

Kallasilya t1_itpf2pc wrote

I'd like us to get rid of dumb stereotypes that say men can't be 'nurturing' and women are too weak for hands-on work, yeah. Do you really think men and women choose different careers because of some innate god-given gender difference, or because thousands of years of societal/cultural pressures push us towards different things? I know which one I think is more likely...

11

RookieRemapped t1_itpjd2u wrote

Could be argued that thousands of years of societal, cultural and (I’m gonna add) environmental pressures have created an innate gender difference

−1

laukys t1_itpj5b1 wrote

So let's take testosterone for example, it is a biological fact that the average man produces more testosterone than an average woman. Testosterone is linked with aggression. Would you rather leave your kids with someone who is more likely to be aggressive or someone who is more likely to be empathetic?

−4

Sabz5150 t1_itpo6jx wrote

>Would you rather leave your kids with someone who is more likely to be aggressive or someone who is more likely to be empathetic?

The one who wouldn't get away with it. Googles student rape cases

3

[deleted] t1_itu5dyn wrote

[deleted]

1

laukys t1_itvg3hl wrote

My other comment adds more context to this. But basically no, I was just trying to say that:

  1. Stereotypes are harmful because they pigeonholed people and attribute qualities to each individual, however they are also grounded on some level of truth, which provides some level of utility. Dismissing them is dismissing that element of truth. Be honest, if you had a small child and had to leave them with a random woman or a random man for a few hours, which would you be more comfortable with? Of course, if you had to leave them with someone you knew well(like your brother vs your sister) there would be almost no difference.
  2. Women and men (talking about group averages, not individuals), have different predispositions. In US 97.6% of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female. Why do you think that is?In my view, it's a combination three main factors: ability to do the job, finding the job fulfilling and discrimination. Even if we got forcibly get rid of discrimination by enforcing 50/50 quotas, why would we want to force people in roles that they would be worse at and find less fulfilling?

It does suck for the people who actually have the talent for jobs in fields where they face discrimination and we should always be looking for sensible ways to approach discrimination. I will note however that there is less discrimination now that in any moment in history, yet people still try to suggest the most radical of changes, which annoys and baffles me to no end.

1