Post: #1

This ludicrous article basically says women don't feel comfortable working as hard as men, but "society" should pay them anyway.

Why Women Still Can't Have It All

women can [not] have high-powered careers [even if] their husbands or partners are willing to share the parenting load [because] most women will [not] feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children. … men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job.
...
Ultimately, it is society that must change, coming to value choices to put family ahead of work just as much as those to put work ahead of family. If we really valued those choices, we would value the people who make them; if we valued the people who make them, we would do everything possible to hire and retain them; if we did everything possible to allow them to combine work and family equally over time, then the choices would get a lot easier.

Translation: Women don’t want to work long hours with beta house-husbands. They want to have it all: respect and pay, leisure and family quality. If they aren’t hot enough to attract a rich alpha then they want “society” to subsidize them. Men should support families, be disposable wallets, and die early ... because women feel comfortable about that.

Post: #2

(08-23-2012 08:40 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  This ludicrous article basically says women don't feel comfortable working as hard as men, but "society" should pay them anyway.

Why Women Still Can't Have It All

women can [not] have high-powered careers [even if] their husbands or partners are willing to share the parenting load [because] most women will [not] feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children. … men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job.
...
Ultimately, it is society that must change, coming to value choices to put family ahead of work just as much as those to put work ahead of family. If we really valued those choices, we would value the people who make them; if we valued the people who make them, we would do everything possible to hire and retain them; if we did everything possible to allow them to combine work and family equally over time, then the choices would get a lot easier.

Translation: Women don’t want to work long hours with beta house-husbands. They want to have it all: respect and pay, leisure and family quality. If they aren’t hot enough to attract a rich alpha then they want “society” to subsidize them. Men should support families, be disposable wallets, and die early ... because women feel comfortable about that.

Nah. You translated wrong.


the translation is: give me everything I want....because I deserve it because I am white and have a vagina.

Post: #3

The good thing about being men is that we were born with the part of the brain that allows us to use logic; Why can't women have it all? Because no one can have it all.

Entitlement, these days the default mode of the women of the West, doesn't even register with me any more...and that's what needs to change.

Post: #4

Did you guys even read the article?

That is not even close to the point of it.

Her arguments are mostly just common sense.

1) The workplace could stand to evolve a bit more to give employees more flexibility.
2) In an emergency, if you give a woman no option and force her to choose, she is always going to choose family over work.

If you're not in favor of that, why not?

What I see in this thread is a bunch of guys claiming to be superior to women. But the substance of the article doesn't even matter. It's just an excuse to parrot manosphere credos and high five each other in some kind of empty circle jerk.

Post: #5

The article sucked. Poor, over-flowery writing that didn't really get to a point.

@Tigre.......

Why should the workplace evolve for any purpose but to improve the work that is being produced? "Flexibility" sounds like a buzzword for a relaxed, non-serious atmosphere where it is hard to keep employees accountable.

More importantly, it is bullshit to think that men choose their jobs over their families. Many men work because they make it a priority to provide for their families.

Post: #6

(08-24-2012 01:18 PM)polymath Wrote:  Why should the workplace evolve for any purpose but to improve the work that is being produced? "Flexibility" sounds like a buzzword for a relaxed, non-serious atmosphere where it is hard to keep employees accountable.

Below are some studies quoted from the article. If you have some better evidence, it would be interesting to consider it.

Should men and women take advantage of new technology to work from home and schedule work for convenient hours or not? Why or why not?

Would you argue for or against paid vacation? Isn't it less efficient to grant vacations? Or do paid vacations improve the work that is being produced? What about sabbaticals?

It depends somewhat on the industry. In certain industries, you have to look after your top producers and retain them. Otherwise it can dramatically affect your bottom line.

One example is spelled out in "The Jordan Rules", about the Chicago Bulls. The Bulls ran their organization to get results, to win. That meant sometimes they let Jordan opt out of certain obligations, gave him special treatment. They kept things somewhat flexible to keep him happy.

Would it have been smarter to always keep him accountable?

Quote:In fact, while many of these issues are hard to quantify and measure precisely, the statistics seem to tell a different story. A seminal study of 527 U.S. companies, published in the Academy of Management Journal in 2000, suggests that “organizations with more extensive work-family policies have higher perceived firm-level performance” among their industry peers. These findings accorded with a 2003 study conducted by Michelle Arthur at the University of New Mexico. Examining 130 announcements of family-friendly policies in The Wall Street Journal, Arthur found that the announcements alone significantly improved share prices. In 2011, a study on flexibility in the workplace by Ellen Galinsky, Kelly Sakai, and Tyler Wigton of the Families and Work Institute showed that increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention, and employee health.

This is only a small sampling from a large and growing literature trying to pin down the relationship between family-friendly policies and economic performance. Other scholars have concluded that good family policies attract better talent, which in turn raises productivity, but that the policies themselves have no impact on productivity. Still others argue that results attributed to these policies are actually a function of good management overall. What is evident, however, is that many firms that recruit and train well-educated professional women are aware that when a woman leaves because of bad work-family balance, they are losing the money and time they invested in her.

Post: #7

Tigre ,

you have a lot of would, coulds, shoulds, in your post......

you strike me as one of those big government statist types.

Did you ever pause to consider that many jobs are jobs provided by private entrepreneurs - small and mid size firms who know best what works best for their productivity.......... ???

So you want to dictate from on high what their work policies should be and what is most efficient.

You are very likely a closet communist with no respect for private property and capital.