Friday, May 3, 2013

Equality: female style

So much for the notion that putting women in charge would result in more equitable treatment of the sexes:
Nine months after Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer gave birth, she is extending Yahoo's parental leave policy. Both new mothers and fathers at Yahoo can now take eight weeks of paid parental leave, and the mothers can take an additional eight weeks. What's more, new parents will also receive $500 to buy items like groceries and baby clothes.
How, one wonders, can such an openly discriminatory corporate policy possibly be rationally defended in a world that denies sexual differences?  Through the Female Imperative, of course.  It is more generous, but every bit as unequal as the previous policy that gave women eight weeks of paid maternity leave and men nothing.  So the end result is that the policy is still unequal, but considerably more expensive across the board.

This is why all female appeals to "equality" should be rejected out of hand.  What they mean by "equality" has absolutely nothing to do with the equal treatment of two individuals. It is merely a rhetorical device utilized as a political weapon.

43 comments:

OCS said...

Hey it fits her job title of Company Equalitarian Ovulary.

Anonymous said...

Some Miss Piggies are more equal than other piggies.

Anonymous said...

Extortive Quotas Urging Artificial Limitations Imposed Toward Y-chromosomes

earl said...

Solipsism strikes again.

Anonymous said...

Solipsism strikes again.

Oh, no, no, no! It's not about them, it's all about the kiddies, see? That's why the mothers get an extra eight weeks, because mothers need to bond with their children and look after them, which is why the women were working full-time jobs in the first pla- wait, what?

Dez said...

They want it all.


swiftfoxmark2 said...

On the flip side, at least all the white women who work for Yahoo will be popping out more babies instead of aborting them.

Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta said...

No matter how much "parental leave" they offer fathers, it doesn't matter. If the daddies actually believe they're serious and take them up on it, their jobs will suffer their expression of lacking commitment to their careers.

earl said...

The mind of a woman is wonderful thing to witness...let's make decisions off our experience instead of the bottom line.

If I ran the company I can save tons of cash on unnecessary expenses and just hire men. I could even give them a raise to them men that do better work which would in turn benefit their baby making wives.

Or is that too discriminatory and misogynistic of me?

Ioweenie said...

Not too discriminatory and misogynistic, earl: too logical.

Anonymous said...

Not too discriminatory and misogynistic, earl: too logical.

Logic is discriminatory and misogynistic.

earl said...

"too logical"

Spock was a ladies man.

Ioweenie said...

"Logic is discriminatory and misogynistic."

Youch.

Ioweenie said...

earl: Spock was a ladies man.

And Star Trek was sci-fi.

Perhaps in the new order (after the collapse), the world will right itself. I went out a few times with a guy in college who was pre-med. He explained to me why smart men made better lovers. Explained. Still brings a smile to my face (as does the mystery that I "lucked" onto my husband).

TLM said...

A woman CEO of an internet company, now that's funny. Me thinks you may actually be able to find more hot chicks at a Rush concert than at Yahoo corporate, maybe.

earl said...

"And Star Trek was sci-fi."

Then it must have been an accident it occurred that way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/star-trek/5831834/Star-Treks-Mr-Spock-was-created-to-be-sex-symbol.html

tz said...

Do both partners of a lesbian couple get 16?

So if she moonlighting as a serrogate mother and the baby will be adopted a day or two after birth...

Also remember that traditional employers who paid men with wives and families more than singles were one of the discriminatory evils.

Anonymous said...

Spock was a ladies man.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318237/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-trailer-Uhura-shares-passionate-kiss-Spock.html

Ioweenie said...

I wasn't trek fan, but do recall Spock was supposed to be all logic/minimal or no emotion. My best friend back then (original tv) thought Kirk was dreamy. Wasn't that the default?

Anyway, it would be more logical (natural) to breed a lot to enhance chances of procreation, so it would make sense for Spock to be a chick magnet, but that's not how it has played out, has it?

earl said...

Spock and Kirk is probably the ladies equivalent of comparison like Ginger and Mary Ann is for guys.

A leader with manipulated emotions...or second in command with no emotions.

Ioweenie said...

Back to post topic . . . reminds me of the government policies in Sweden that VD proposed might ultimately lead to more women staying home. I do think the longer a women stays with her newborn, the harder to leave it. I support company's creating any policy they so choose, no matter how inequitable so long as they don't tout it as equitable and accept that any business decisions made not on the basis of successfully sustaining the business' bottom line may lead to the destruction of business and employment - a point which seems to be lost on many businesses and certainly employees (very likely from the inclusion of women/feminization of society).

Seems most people today think money grows on the money trees in the wealthy's backyard and the wealthy just need to grow/give more; "employees" do the "owners" a favor by stopping by for a shift to staff the establishment for some nebulous purpose (don't customers grow on customer trees too?). Oh, yes - for the glorification of the worker and so employees can share time together engaged in HR-initiated morale-building activities.

We are doomed.

Brad Andrews said...

Isn't she the one that banned all work at home by those in the company recently?

Der Hahn said...

Brad, yup she was.

Wonder what the over/under on that decision being reversed is? I'd say within a year.

Retrenched said...

For feminist women, "equality" = "we get everything we want".

sunshinemary said...

I wonder if Mrs. Mayer is pregnant again and is hoping to take more than two weeks off after the next birth.

I can't take her seriously. Any woman who of her own volition leaves her two-week old to go back to work full-time is not really a woman.

Rex Little said...

This reminds me of a quote I once read:

What they [women] are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear.

Can anyone identify the author of this (other than Vox, I'm sure he knows)? Hint: it was a man, and not one who has ever, to my knowledge, been identified as a feminist.

Rex Little said...

Forgot to mention--the same author once suggested that it would be a good idea if only women were allowed to vote and hold office.

Houston said...

"What they [women] are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear."

It's from The Liberal Crack-up, a book by R. Emmett Tyrrell.

ioweenie said...

Retrenched said...
For feminist women, "equality" = "we get everything we want".

Don't forget to add, "and the right to change our minds whenever we feel like it."

Rex Little said...

It's from The Liberal Crack-up, a book by R. Emmett Tyrrell.

Tyrrell might have quoted the line in that book, but he didn't originate it. Try again.

Loki of Asgard said...

Heinlein.

Carlotta said...

This is all part of the work life balance approach that corporations are taking. Never with men for some reason.

When I was working I got to experience the "benefits" of this as my Boss got the pleasure of working part time and making more then me because she was a working mom. I was not a working mom, so I got to pick up all her slack, stay late and make the same amount she made only work twice as much.

I was watching a feminist discussion that was broadcast here and one of the main topics was how they could restructure the American workplace so women did not have to chose between a career and follwing their dreams (an example given was how discriminatory it was that women have to quit their job if they want to go climb a mountain, yes, actual example used).

It is as if "the workplace" is a code word for "trust fund" because apparently you should not even actually have to perform the job you have been hired to do to get paid for it.

Will Best said...

The 8 weeks is about the kids. The additional 8 weeks is about the mom. And shooting a kid out of you is fairly traumatizing so I don't have a problem with women getting some time off specifically to recover from that physical and hormonal destruction, but 8 weeks is excessive considering the majority of women will be 85-90% within a week or two.

I do know a woman that had a perforated uterus and that took 6-8 weeks before she was reasonably recovered, but that would fall under medical necessity.

Mike M. said...

The quote is almost certain from Heinlein, but he was NOT a female supremacist. Heinlein was a supporter of something we hear little of today - viewing men and women as complementary.

It would be interesting to see what he would make of Game. I suspect he would take the position that I tend to favor - that the problem is not that women are inherently incapable of rational thought, but that they are culturally encouraged to emote, not think.

jestin ernest said...

The quote is almost certain from Heinlein, but he was NOT a female supremacist.



he popped off often enough with like minded comments ( even if fictional ) that i really have to look askance at that assertion.

i seem to remember that he also made the oddball assertion that not only should women be 'in charge' of something like a generation ship, but that they should be pregnant while doing so. because they would be maximally risk averse.

i don't have any personal knowledge of him, but what i've read and heard leads me to believe that he was a major player who was quite adept at saying things / telling women things they'd like to hear.

Rex Little said...

Heinlein is the correct answer.

jestin ernest said...

no, the correct answer is "Lazarus Long" ... as portrayed by Robert Heinlein.

this leaves the stated sentiment subject to attack along the "don't mistake opinions expressed in fiction for the opinions of the author" line of argument.

Jack Amok said...

If I was still in the stock market, I would be shorting Yahoo.

No matter how much "parental leave" they offer fathers, it doesn't matter. If the daddies actually believe they're serious and take them up on it, their jobs will suffer their expression of lacking commitment to their careers.

and Bingo was his name-o.

Rex Little said...

the correct answer is "Lazarus Long" ... as portrayed by Robert Heinlein.

OK, point taken. But the one about only women voting was from Heinlein himself, in a non-fiction article.

Penrose said...

We stepped out of the realm of equality decades ago. The idea of complementary pair is gone, lost. Men and women only seem to work together in how much they can belittle men.

Loki of Asgard said...

no, the correct answer is "Lazarus Long" ... as portrayed by Robert Heinlein.

Which means that Heinlein did not write it, you say?

Kindly do not try to impress me with your ability to split the wrong hairs.

jestin ernest said...

Loki of Asgard said...
Kindly do not try to impress me with your ability to split the wrong hairs.




perhaps you need to consult with Vox on the wisdom of mistaking the words and opinions of a fictional character for the words and opinions of the author? i believe he has a little adage he likes to use for such occurrences.

i already agreed with the premise that Heinlein was prone to female supremacist utterances. BUT, that is because of OTHER evidence. and that's still a different thing yet than agreeing that Heinlein really meant that women should rule.

in my opinion, Heinlein was an expert manipulator of women, likely a classic Intrinsic Alpha. that he SAID that women were superior was irrelevant when he could manipulate them into doing pretty much anything he wanted. which usually involved sex.

try reading 'For Us, The Living' ( which was written in 1938 and may be the first 'work for pay' he ever attempted ) and get back to me on the wisdom of holding Bob up as the exemplar of Libertarian Sci-Fi. he also advocated seizing children from their parents and having them educated by the state so that parents couldn't "infect" their children with religious beliefs.

are you aware that Heinlein was originally a socialist?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein#Series
It appears that Heinlein at least attempted to live in a manner consistent with these ideals, even in the 1930s, and had an open relationship in his marriage to his second wife, Leslyn. He was also a nudist;
...
Heinlein was active in Upton Sinclair's socialist End Poverty in California movement in the early 1930s. When Sinclair gained the Democratic nomination for Governor of California in 1934, Heinlein worked actively in the campaign.



there are many things to appreciate about Heinlein as a Sci-Fi author but, as with Rand, there are also things to be leary of.

Anonymous said...

Vox, would you subject yourself to this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KTvSfeCRxe8

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.