 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
GrahamS - MemberThe idea of a world where everyone is kept at arms length and innocent acts like touching someone's arm as reassurance, being alone with a woman in public, or shaking hands are regarded as inappropriate, is a very sad one.
It's Islamification by the back door I tells ye!!!
Brexit?
The mistake you're making here, Geetee, is that, whilst sociopaths tend to do well in business, most people who are successful in business are no more a sociopath than anybody else.
Fair point and one I accept. There IS some evidence to suggest that sociopathic/psycopathic traits are more over represented at senior levels of business, but an over representation isn't the same thing as saying all leaders are like this.
This naturally leads to the person in the position of power behaving in a lees empathetic way towards those below them, it's the only way a lot of people can deal with the decisions they have to make.
This is so very true; this has been associated with the trait of 'low agreeableness' and has been used by some to explain why more men that women occupy these position, i.e. because men [i]tend [/i]to score lower on agreeableness than women and therefore have an easier time being, well to put it blunty, '****s' 😀
Just wandering briefly back on track again, it irritates the tits off me when someone touches my arm in a supportive fashion. **** off, you dimwit, I don't need consolation because you changed the lunch rota, just bring me a sodding biscuit.
"It's Islamification by the back door I tells ye!!!"
Just don't be talking about the back door when you're giving her a shoulder massage ,just saying .
because men tend to score lower on agreeableness than women and therefore have an easier time being, well to put it blunty, '****'
And why do you think men tend to score lower on agreeableness? Genetics? Or a society that nurtures these traits in males from birth while telling females to be "nice" and "agreeable"?
The same society that allowed men to go on abusing and harassing women because "that's what men do" while effectively expecting women to just put up with it so as not to seem disagreeable. Because women can't be disagreeable, can they...
perhaps that society is starting to really change. Maybe during this change there's going to be some problems for men to confront about ourselves. Maybe that's going to involve putting ourselves in the shoes of women, who may see the things we do in a very different light to the way we intend them. Hopefully we can find a way of getting on that everyone feels comfortable with, possibly some of us will be left feeling a bit put out. Tough shit.
"Fancy a tandem?"
"I'd stoke'r"
Pervert.
And why do you think men tend to score lower on agreeableness? Genetics? Or a society that nurtures these traits in males from birth while telling females to be "nice" and "agreeable"?
Well that's the million dollar question isn't it; that's the ball game. I don't know the answer and I'm not sure anyone does but you're right to ask it.
If it's a genetic predisposition then it's wrong to try and re-engineer this norm (but crucially that is not the same thing as sanctioning abussive behaviour, I'm NOT saying that).
If it's societal then it's not wrong.
I don't know of any conclusive study that tells is whether these differences are nurture or nature but I have read that the differences are most marked in societies and cultures that have made the greatest progress towards gender equality, for exampel in the Scandinavian countries.
The hypothesis to explain this is that when you are less likely to be penalised for inherently male or female personality traits (i.e. agreeableness and 'neuroticism' or whatever you want to call the scale that reflects the degree to which a person is predisposed to worry about things) then those are more outwardly expressed.
I know other scientists have argued that the lack of physiological differences in brain structure mean there can be no difference in men and women's personality types outside of nuture, but then that argument falls down when you consider the obvious other differences that still arise between men and women despite this lack of difference in brain structure (i.e. the physical differences).
If it's a genetic predisposition then it's wrong to try and re-engineer this norm (but crucially that is not the same thing as sanctioning abussive behaviour, I'm NOT saying that).
So we shouldn't re-engineer out a genetic tendancy towards murder and canibalism, we should just punish it. I disagree, civilised society depends on humans restraining their natural instints.
I was in Burgos (Atapuerca) recently where there are human remains going back about a million years, we really don't want to live the eway we are genetically programmed to. People shake babies that scream, they have to be taught not to for the good of society.
It's the same with sexism, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination: it is harmful to society and people have to be taught or "re-engineered" (I'm not sure what you mean by "re-engineered", it's an odd choice of words) not too. Have you learned anything from this thread GT? Have you read our links? Or do you still think there is no statistically significant difference in pay between men and women? Do you accept that your own experiences of being subjugated by women are not the norme and that the norme is women being the victims?
So we shouldn't re-engineer out a genetic tendancy towards murder and canibalism, we should just punish it. I disagree, civilised society depends on humans restraining their natural instints.
You're right, that means discouraging society from rewarding sociopaths and allowing them to pass on their genetics. Unfortunately, society does reward men with the dark triad features - and the fact that we reward these men also seems to be hardwired into into the humans that reward them(both male and female) and select sexual partners, I guess the fact that we reward them could be down to "nurture" - but my gut instinct is that we'll find a set of genetic traits that govern attraction to these types of people.
And you can't re-engineer genetic disposition unless you're willing to go down the route of eugenics. Otherwise we'd have been done with murder by now.
Have you read our links? Or do you still think there is no statistically significant difference in pay between men and women?
I've read them and a lot of other material as well. Here is what I believe to be true based on the ONS data:
- when you compare the earnings of all men with all women in full time employment and based on age, up to the age of 40 there is no statistically significant difference in what they earn. There is some variance but it is as likely to be sample error as anything else and it's not even consistently in favour of men.
- above 40, the gap really starts to widen so tht by the age of 50, it's up to 20%.
- irrespective of this, if you compare men and women, at all ages in the exact same role (not equal role, but the SAME role), then the difference in earnings is 1.6%, again, not statistically significant enough to draw any conclusions and certainly not enough to worry about.
- I don;t know why the gap emerges beyond the age of 40 but it is likely a combination of factors including self selection (women taking a voluntary step back to achieve better work life balance having had children), coercion (women feeling they need to do this, men feeling they need to continue working), bias/discrimination (employers regarding women with children as being of higher risk and therefore not promoting them into positions of senior management).
All of these issues are important to consider and important to try and fix.
That's what I belivee. Anything else I regard as propoganda. If you don't agree with me that's OK.
So you cherry pick one paper GT, I can cherry pick another:
Ed - regarding this paper.
First it's based on data from the US. My data is based on the UK. I'm not saying that doesn't make it valid or important, but for clarity, I only confine my arguments to the UK. I accept it may well be very different in other countries.
Second, that data only looks at all physicians, it doesn't look at physicians by age. The ONS data still shows a 20% gap by age 60 so we know there is something going on, it's just that for some reason it doesn't start to happen until we get to our 40s. That pattern could be replicated in the US medical world.
Third, the difference isn't necessarily attributable to discrimination, but it might be. Aggressive negotiation approaches might account for some of the variance (or it might not, we simply don't know).
Fourth, it's one group of employees in one specific field, so trying to draw any kind of conclusion about the rest of the population is pointless. All you can say with certainty is that in the US there is s 20% difference in pay between all; male and female physicians.
So people are both ageist and sexist, and more ageist to women. both are bad and the two together worse.
Gertee suggests as much.... did you read what he wrote?
bias/discrimination (employers regarding women with children as being of higher risk and therefore not promoting them into positions of senior management).
I did read and sumarised.
Sexual discrimination on jobs starts in the home. It's another form of sexual harassment. Males prioritise their own career over that of their spouse, putting on time limits and making the woman responsible for dealing with illness, schooling, taxiing etc. that means women are assumed to be less availble than men, even if the roles are reversed as they are in my own family.
You only have to read the relationship threads on here to get a feel for the expectations some males have of their partners.
Considering Geetees use of the term "coercion", he probably agrees with you.
Unless you are agreeing with Geetee? Or trying to make a point?
You only have to read the relationship threads on here to get a feel for the expectations some males have of their partners.
I think you can say that that happens at least some of the time, but you cannot possible know to what extent that happens or if it is a material variable in explaining what happens to women's earnings after the age of 40.
Ironically, in our household, I'm the one taking the backseat in career development in order to enable my wife's career to progress (which is why I have so much time to enter into discussion here). I haven't changed jobs in six years and have turned down four key career development opportunities because they would have meant I had to be office based, which would then make the household routine impossible (I do the majority of the work in the mornings and evenings with our kids).
Even more ironically, while I've done this, my wife has still chosen to go part time (75%) so that she can enjoy a better work life balance. She works three weeks in four.
Sexual discrimination on jobs starts in the home.
It might start in some homes but that has never happened to me
So people are both ageist and sexist, and more ageist to women. both are bad and the two together worse.
Ed what's more likely, that firms which have otherwise treaed their employees entirely equally suddenly start to behave in a grossly discriminatory way (leaving themselves open to serious legal threats) when they hire women over 40 or that women over 40 are making very different decisions about their career and empployment arrangements after they've had children?
or that women over 40 are making very different decisions about their career and empployment arrangements after they've had children?
Or (as discussed earlier) that we are experiencing a hang-over from earlier salary discrimination. I'd had both my children and resumed my career well before the age of 40 but started my career being naive about salaries. I thought everyone would be paid the same for doing the same job at the same level, but since found out that most of my colleagues negotiated fiercely for starting salaries and pay rises, even threatening to leave.
Why wouldn't men be affected in the same way, GT? I quit a managerial post when Madame was pregnant and closed down a business so only she was left working when junior reached an age where both of us working got complicated.
Are you sure, Vicky? A lot of us on STW have a secret garden around our couple. I make references to "Madame" and sometimes quote her but avoid posting any detail on the dynamic of the couple. Within our couple there are three dynamics: 1/ the public one 2/ the way we treat each other on the surface 3/ the underlying dynamic; rarely if ever stated even between us but there, something that defines our couple. A mix of instinct, hormones, feelings, socialisation... . Things are rarely as simple as they seem or are stated. "Never" is emphatic, I've felt pressure and I'm sure Madame has, where we are is the solution we've found, that has worked so far and long may that continue.
Edukator, I'm pretty sure I haven't experienced discrimination at home with regards to my career. In my marriage (and in a previous long term relationship) I am (was) the higher earner. The discrimination hasn't been in the opposite direction either, as I didn't progress my career at the expense of my husband's.
Well as this is a public forum I'll stop there even if I could write pages on this.
Why wouldn't men be affected in the same way, GT?
Buddy I don't know but honestly think that is the key question we should be asking because that's the key to unlocking the last remaining issues of inequality that exist.
I suspect that it is a combination of the following factors in no particular order:
- personality differences between men and women that mean they make different life choices
- societeal pressures that do the same, coercing women to be care gives and men to be in work and where the penalties to both for contravening this are punative
- continuing discrimination towards men with regard to parental leave that disuades men from taking the lead in the first instance
- continuing discrimination towards fathers seen where fathers are seen as secondary in society
- continuing discrimination towards women in senior positions particularly in the STEM industries
There's a lot to fix and really it only starts to get fixed when you diagnose the problem correctly. Some people have been articulating the problem correctly but the received wisdom that lots of people would like us to believe is just plain wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
So who drove most on yur last holiday journey, Junkyard? You or your female companion (I seem to remember you having one, apologises if this doesn't apply). Most couples are insured to drive each others' cars. Here any driver can drive any insured car with the owners permission.Back when I lived in the UK I don't remember any wife, girlfriend or female colleague ever driving unless the male was too drunk, ill or exhausted to steer.
My missus ferries me around, well, at least up to the Austrian border coz I got a driving ban. 😆
Every picture of you and your good lady on a tandem has you up front. Who fixed the last puncture?
I fix her punctures. She gives me blow Jobs*. Seems like a fair deal and once reason not to go tubeless**.
* not necessarily at the same time as I'm plugging her hole. 😉
** she rides tubeless 😥
Don't touch people who don't want to be touched, even if you want to touch them.
Cheap quotation of TNS lyrics aside, just ask.
But how do you know they don't want to be touched unless you try touching them ..
Ask you say ..so something like :
"You look upset ..would it help if I touched your arm to show that I'm sympathetic ..or would that open up another can of worms whereby you might get the impression that Im some sort of sexual deviant and further lead to a complaint of harassment from yourself against me"...
Kind of loses its spontaneity..
I just had a lovely moment with three female colelagues. They'd bought me a small cake to celebrate my birthday and wish me all the best. I was very touched as I've been here six years and it's the first time anyone's even said happy birthday let alone bought me a cake.
After I expressed how lovely the gesture was, each of the three in turn offered me a hug.
Life is better sometimes and sometimes it isn't so. It would be a sad day indeed when any genuine and spontenous offer of human warmth and contact was deemed defacto inappropriate and those that ignorantly trot this trope out, as if life is that facile and sterile are probably the ones most in need of a hug.
[img] 
[/img]
geetee1972 - MemberAfter I expressed how lovely the gesture was, each of the three in turn offered me a hug.
[img] 
[/img]
After I expressed how lovely the gesture was, each of the three in turn offered me a hug.
Reported, to be honest I would fire anyone on the spot for this behaviour.
There is no room in the workplace for such sickening expressions of sentimentality.
>spontaneity
How about this: when you find yourself thinking of doing it, just say "I was going to put my hand on your arm then, would that bother you?"
And next time you'll know.
Sheesh
just say "I was going to put my hand on your arm then, would that bother you?"
Is that something that actual people say?
[i]"So sorry to hear about your mum, Claire. I lost mine last year and I know how hard it is. Is there anything I can do? Would it be okay if I lightly touched your forearm as a sign of basic human empathy?"[/i]
FFS.
How about this: when you find yourself thinking of doing it, just say "I was going to put my hand on your arm then, would that bother you?"
You read that they hugged me right, not the other way around?
Is that something that acutal people say?
Only in North Korea
Did they get you to confirm your willingness to said hug in a video in case you chase them in 15 years time for abuse?
What's so hard about it? Why is it so difficult to come to terms with the idea?
>They hugged me
I wasnt referring to that, but it sounds nice.
>Claire.
Nuance dude, nuance. In that situation it's probably clear where the boundary lies. In another, less so. A false dichotomy isn't necessary.
Why not just ask, or, if in doubt, don't. Some people don't like to be touched, and it is comparatively more common that women have been bothered by this sort of thing in the past.
I don't state that I'm RIGHT, but that I'm prepared to challenge my own assumptions about how others may experience my actions.
[img]I was very touched
[/img]
What's so hard about it? Why is it so difficult to come to terms with the idea?
Because as covered earlier, the actions of a few are making monsters of us all.
Touch is a basic form of human communication. I am not going to avoid shaking hands, a comforting touch, or even just going to lunch with a female workmate, simply because some other bellend is completely inappropriate or a bit rapey.
I'd far rather, as emsz suggested, treat female workmates the same as I would male workmates.
I did give up on this thread as it wandered off but it came back again.
for me the key thing is emotional intelligence and empathy. I clearly failed in that regard in the situation I outlined in the OP but I learned. Unfortunately too many people especially men find the emotional intelligence and empathy beyond them
Touch and hugs are an integral part of my job. I use both frequently. The key for me is to read the intentions, needs and wishes of the other person. When you get that right you are in a good position.
For example - I have to console a lot of bereaved people often even telling them their loved one has died . A hug is often appropriate. the key is not to rush in. I will use my body language to offer a hug ( sometimes I even say " do you want / need a hug") - open arms a little, move slightly forward. Nice open stance then leave it to them to make the next move. The key in this situation is to make it obvious the offer is there but not to push it on them. I have been surprised at who takes me up on it sometimes. I had a 40 yr old man I knew fairly well spend 5 mins crying in my arms, I had an 70 yr old woman I didn't know at all but who I could see was very distressed basically cling to me for comfort.
If a hug is not appropriate or wanted I hand on the shoulder is a comforting but non threatening touch. I hold peoples hands, I hug them, I do whatever is appropriate and wanted.
colleages - I learned - no touch without consent. consent can be explicit of implicit. Read their body language and make your own body language non threatening. I would never initiate a hug or a touch with a colleague. I would always be open to them initiating
Its all about emotional intelligence and empathy
Sbob - you been stalking me 😉
Wise words TJ
But there is a [i]big[/i] difference between lacking a bit of emotional intelligence and being a sex pest.
Someone shouldn't be punished for the former just because the latter exists.
But there is a big difference between lacking a bit of emotional intelligence and being a sex pest.Someone shouldn't be punished for the former just because the latter exists.
Excellent point.
tjagain - MemberSbob - you been stalking me?
Not with your reputation.
All those in favour of changing TJ's handle to "Uncle Touchy", say aye.
😛
But there is a big difference between lacking a bit of emotional intelligence and being a sex pest.Someone shouldn't be punished for the former just because the latter exists.
I am not convinced there is. I think its a spectrum with incidents like I described in the OP at one end to Weinstein at the other wirth the handsy MPs in the middle. Look at the defense those MPs try to use " banter" "being flirtatious" etc. these guys are emotional cripples who have no understanding that what they did ws wrong
Fair enough, you're a sex pest. 😉