I know this is apples and oranges but please do a search and look at what the US Soccer Federation wrote in its legal argument about equal pay for the women’s national team. Some of the most sexist stuff you could imagine, I don’t see how any lawyer would think the arguments were good ones or how any CEO would want them made public.
Well they’re not hiding anything there. I think I remember reading that when it came out because the women’s team did really well around the Olympics, got everyone excited, and watching and… the men’s team didn’t. The issues about their pay came out, made the news, and those guys in charge still tried and justify the huge gaps in pay… with very unfortunate arguments.
The argument most girls and women hear about why those, their sports, get piss poor support, is the audience is not there. And then when one group actually shows, nope they’ve got the audience, new arguments… imagine that.
Is that the one you were talking about?
Yeah, the latest released legal letters say all sorts of great things like the women are less skilled, and work less hard than the men, who labor under an abusive work environment due to the high expectations on them. . .
It’s pretty fucking rich.
But remember kids, sexism is dead and Jordan Peterson is a good person who deserves to be out of his coma.
It’s always something.
Too aggressive, not aggressive enough, don’t have the money, have the money but the audience isn’t there, too timid, didn’t ask for enough, dared to ask, too cute, not cute enough, professional, not professional enough, smiled too much, didn’t smile enough, shook someone’s hand to hard, didn’t shake their hand, has kids, dared to not have kids, tried too hard, didn’t try hard enough… was just too much, oh who is she, yeah she wasn’t much enough.
There is always a reason, and they will never run out of excuses. There will always be someone to pay to create stats to support an argument and when that one gets shot down, they’ll just move to the next one and pay for that.
The underlying desire does not change because what they really want is for things not to change. It’s a lot harder to prove a future state than to dig in and support the status quo.
What I know is the women’s Olympic team kicked some serious ass, and even non-sports not soccer fans took notice.
They had kids shirts saying ‘When I grow up I want to be Megan Rapinoe(sp)’ for when they came to visit.
She was something else too, I admire her IDGAF spirit.
I managed to get to about 30ish posts before I had to nope out for good.
31 for me
I’m still in it to win it dog!
I honestly can’t tell if you guys who are proclaiming the number you made it to are virtue signaling or the inverse of that.
I don’t know what that means
Whatever it is, they’re obviously very cool.
I was able to spend more time in the thread due to being a male, thus without parenting responsibilities.
Well I am a male, and that thread was created while my wife was out of state and left me with the two older kids.
Clearly I am a paradox and should not think on it lest my head explode.
The old argument as to why the men received higher pay and men’s programs received 10x more funding was that the men’s program made more money. With the women’s prominence now they are actually making more revenue than the men, so the Federation can’t argue that. They are now arguing, to put it simply, that men are better (they are actually making the argument that since the mens team could beat the womens team they deserve more pay) and under more pressure so therefore they deserve more pay.
The current suit is for something like $65 million in back pay, to balance things out.
All I think of when I see the title of that thread is the guy Elaine worked for on Seinfeld. The catalog guy.
Seinfield almost predates me. I say almost because I saw a few of them, but I watched Friends not Seinield. My parents watched it though, so I know who the characters are at least; I remember a couple of scenes.
I know both of you are joking but our HR dept (Intel) did give us a study kind of explaining why we weren’t getting as many female resumes as males (I was a software mgr) and it turns out that women in general look at a job posting and will only apply if they meet 80-90% of the criteria. They also take more time to decide whether to apply to a particular job.
Men, OTOH, will see one thing on the posting they can do and will say they can do the job and apply to everything under the sun.
So we refactored our job postings to be much more ambiguous rather than the “5 years of web development” and we extended our time to wait for resumes to 2 weeks and you know what? Our female candidates applying SOARED.
The job I have right now had a requirement of 3 years in a program I had never heard of. Not only would I have not applied for it, the HR system auto kicked out my application because I couldn’t, essentially, check that box. So how did I get through… a recruiter familiar with the site. I was head hunted. I got an interview before I applied, and after the interview both the manager and the director told me to go through HR, to expect a auto generated rejection and to… ignore it. They were working on the backend to still hire me.
I’m still here almost 5 years later, and that stupid system I knew nothing about, I taught the two people who maintain with me. I learned that stupid thing through trial and error because… there is no one else.
So now when I tell someone, try, just try, the worst that can happen is they say no. I tell them my story.
Also, we no-longer require someone with that experience. If i can figure it out, a good employee can certainly learn with my help a lot faster and easier than I got, and they do.
We also had month long debates about whether a title should be labeled analyst or coordinator… and guess what, just the name of the positions seems to have an affect on who will apply for it, including a sex/gender affect.
Good for you, that was well done.
Agreed. We have done something similar for our job descriptions. It does help.
Which reminds me, probably time to do another pass at them.