Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Cord

Moderators
  • Content count

    3,190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cord

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Enneagram
    1w2
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    RCOAI
  • Astrology Sign
    Leo
  • Personal DNA
    Cautious analyst

Converted

  • Biography
    Constantly bored. Finance major from UT Austin. 26 years old. I welcome random PMs/messages.
  • Location
    Houston TX
  • Occupation
    Financial Systems Administrator
  • Interests
    MMA, drawing, video games, books, intelligent conversation, the usual INTJ stuff.
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

13,520 profile views
  1. My social life comes and goes, but it's always been really quiet in general. I haven't been "out" with people in at least a few months. Part of me misses having people to hang out with, but then again I don't really know where to find others that I'd get along with in a "friends only" type setting.
  2. Damn. You're a badass MissJ. Nicely done.
  3. Heh. Yeah I see a few posts like this. They're hoping to catch someone desperate to fill an employment gap with experience most likely. I also crack up when I see "part time" positions listed with job descriptions that would require someone to be there full time. Pay half, get the whole thing.
  4. Yes of course. In my opinion trying at this point to boil down the root cause to only one factor is intellectually irresponsible. Although I would not discount either of those two factors as possibilities either. My point in bringing up the paper was to discuss the pressures being applied on both sides on both men and women, and how like I discussed with Seablue, I agree with her point that what we need to strive for is the elimination of these pressures on both sides. Essentially, perpetuating the common trope of "you can be whatever you want when you grow up." I also agree with her when she said: However, while working toward the endgame of eliminating gender roles, it would be close minded to not even consider the possibility that "maybe women (and men) are just different." I think the best that we can strive for is to offer equal choices and opportunities for both genders free of judgment. Basically, my stance is: 1. I'm not convinced that the gender gap exists because women are being forced to take lower paying jobs and are getting paid less. I consider the possibility that women may be making the choices for themselves to take lower paying jobs that they enjoy. 2. I don't deny that gender bias exists today. It is something that currently is illegal, and should be challenged wherever it is found. I don't deny that it is a contributing factor to a wage gap, but I won't say that it is the MAIN factor. 3. Gender expectations and pressures exist and are created by both men and women against both men and women, and should be removed. 4. I can't deny the possibility that men and women are just "wired differently" which could have an impact on on the women choices make (which refers back to my first point). ...... added to this post 8 minutes later: I'm not claiming that it is the sole factor, only that it statistically looking at the correlation, it COULD be a factor. Why are you so quick to rule it out? As as side note, if lowering the quality of life then made everyone happier, would it be absurd? I'm not sure what the point you were trying to make is. You're saying that if women working is the main factor in their unhappiness, we should still encourage them to work because it's better for women to be working? Correlation does not imply causation, but sometimes correlation can indicate the cause.
  5. My conclusion is that one of the factors in the decline of women's happiness over the past 40 or so years could be the fact that they are taking on more responsibility by working harder and more high powered jobs, because they feel pressured to "live up to their potential". Of course this is just one of the many theories that the data set can produce. It's even discussed in the paper: Section IV of the paper is the section that deals mostly with happiness within the work/life balance, if you're interested in going through it. They discuss their findings in Section V, which is the discussion. They also provided other theories as well:
  6. I agree with your point and am glad that you acknowledge that at least in some cases it could merely be the choice of some women to not pursue those opportunities. I think it's important to allow women (and men) to choose the path that they want without influence from either side. I don't really know how to objectively tackle the problem of inherent influence over behavior, but I will acknowledge that it could be a factor in the choices that both men and women take. To your second point: Correlation does not imply causation, but the correlation is there nonetheless. I'm just saying that it is a possibility and could be a contributing factor. I am not arguing that it is the sole or only reason. How is inequality of punishment related to the pay gap? Men are sent to prison for longer sentences for the same crimes as women, but this is not related to the pay gap. Unless you're claiming that the existence of these biases causes women to choose other careers, but then this isn't going to be related to "equal work for unequal pay". I haven't read any sources for your other points, but if they are true then I agree that that is biased and should be eliminated. This unfairness of punishment/hiring/firing could be one of the factors that Seablue mentioned, which could very well cause women to select other careers, which I am completely against. This type of unfair treatment needs to be completely eliminated. I'm not sure what breitbart making the same argument has to do with mine. If breitbart wrote an article defending evolution, would it also suddenly be a bad theory?
  7. Woke up this morning to several pages. Had to read through to catch up. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. From what I've gathered the argument on both sides goes as follows: Argument: There is a pay gap between men and women and this should be eliminated. Rebuttal: Yes, but this pay gap exists because women CHOOSE lower paying careers. Counterpoint: That may be, but the reason they are CHOOSING these careers is due to outside influence that is not within their control. Assuming the last point is true, then I would like a few clarifications on it. If it is true that women are being influenced into these positions, then what are the primary influencers, and how can they be eliminated? Also, is it the social responsibility of the world at large to try and eliminate these social influences? What would the end game be? If finally enough generations of women were convinced that they should shoot for higher paying jobs and they receive them and then the income of both men and women on average is equal? I would also like to point out that at some point, as this "gender wage gap" is closed, a new gap is and has been opening. According to a paper published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, (American) women have seen a steady decline in happiness since the 1970s as they gain more economic power and freedom. At what point will there be a new cry of outrage against the "gender happiness gap" suggesting that women should work less? From the abstract: Full source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969 I would suggest that it is possible, given the evidence in the paper, that women are making choices that make them happy, and are not making choices due to outside influence. In fact, I would even go so far to say that due to this new movement of "women are empowered and need to work", women feel pressured into not doing what makes them happy, and instead feel the need to do what makes them financially successful, which is reducing their happiness.
  8. Ok, that's fair. I understand your point. If the assumption then is that this is a universally held belief, and not just held by one gender, and that there are already laws in place to try and prevent this type of discrimination, then I'm not sure what else can be done to stop it. ...... added to this post 1 minute later: I think this is where I misunderstood. Generally on this forum it's accepted that racism and sexism can only come from "places of power and authority against a minority" which is why I was confused that so many were labeling this as sexism while also claiming it is coming equally from both men and women.
  9. I honestly don't know what that means. I could almost understand it if men made up the majority of the population, or if men were the sole caregivers to their daughters growing up, but I don't believe that is the case. It would be women teaching other women that they are not worth as much. Claiming that men are responsible for the thoughts of women is the largest loss of agency claim I've ever heard of.
  10. See, this is my fundamental problem with the entire argument. I'm NOT trying to say that they are "equal" and that they offset. I'm saying that biases exist on both sides, and if you are going to argue against one you have to argue against the others otherwise you are a hypocrite. Saying my examples "aren't on par" is the same as saying, "my problems are worse than yours in my opinion, therefore we won't do anything for your problems but will only focus on mine." Who would try to help someone with that kind of mindset? Also, to say they are not equal is completely subjective and not measurable. Could you really tell a father to his face "you not getting to see your kids is not as bad as me making less money than you"? And here is where I have another problem with the argument. If you are suggesting that females also believe that they are less productive in the workplace, then this is not even a sexism issue at all and should not be treated as such. I wouldn't know how to change a female's mind on this matter, and in fact would feel a bit ridiculous trying to do so, seeing as they would have much more first hand experience on the matter than I would. The argument "everyone has these biases, therefore it must be men's fault" makes no sense.
  11. How? "You must pay a higher premium because we assume males are more reckless than females and will cost us more money." "You will receive less pay because we assume females take more time off than males and will make us less money." If data supports both of these statements, then you're either for it based on financial responsibility, or you're against it based on the ethical stance of no applied bias. Any mix is hypocritical in my opinion.
  12. Agreed. I think the problem is that a lot of people misunderstand that the discrimination is inherent on the employer side (for the most part, as I mentioned earlier in my posts that some hiring managers may not have bias or may even be female themselves) and does not boil down to the woman choosing or not choosing to have kids. Of course I would expect those fighting this discrimination to also fight for discrimination that men face in terms of things like insurance payments and child custody as well. Two consistent stances exist. You either believe that the assumptions/statistics should be followed, in which case you're in favor for biases against both men and women based on those statistics/assumptions, or you're completely against all bias for both genders. Anything in between is hypocritical, which is the issue that I have with a lot of posters on this forum.
  13. I don't know. I've never looked at any studies. If it has, then the practice makes sense, in the same way charging men more insurance makes sense. If it hasn't, then it's baseless superstition that should be corrected. I'm not arguing for its continuation. I'm only arguing for the logic behind the practice. I suppose so. It's a wonder it took 7 pages of dialogue though.
  14. But should statistics be abandoned in the name of fairness? That's probably a topic for the philosophy and ethics subforum, but that's basically what you're suggesting I think. If it is more likely that women will take time off and devote less to their careers, then mathematically it makes sense to pay them less. It is the same way with insurance and men, since statistically men are more likely to be in wrecks. But in the interest of fairness, we would have to throw out these biases, which would of course result in a greater loss for companies issuing insurance policies and hiring women.
  15. Men drive more and drive faster? Just like women are more likely to take maternity leave and invest time with their kids rather than work? Applying broad stroke statistics like this are what result in biases in the first place, which is exactly what my point is. It isn't fair, but it gets factored in because it is seen as the more likely outcome. From a financial and mathematical perspective, it would be irresponsible to not take these variables into consideration. Also, I added to my post that you replied to: Furthermore, this discrimination is not automatically applied to every woman either. Like I said in my earlier post, it truly comes down to the employer/hiring manager on whether or not they hold these biases. There is even a chance that the hiring manager is female.