Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 10:41:49 AM   
somethndif


Posts: 136
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Hi Dan

I would suspect to be honest that no woman would want to work for this employer! Given the total prejudicial discrimination directed at them during application it would be reasonable to suppose that such a company had an entire culture of such attitudes which could be expected to be directed at any woman taking a job there even post court ruling.

The only real solution to the situation would have to start with a total replacement of the management board that had either encouraged or practised or permitted such a culture - including the appointment of a proportion of adequately qualified females to that board. Following on from that the board should have a standing item on their agendas related to the subject of fair treatment, to follow the progress of a programme to instil such fair treatment attitudes throughout the organisation in order to change the culture. If any existing employee does not like it, they can always try to find a job where they can feel more comfortable.

Only once such a programme were in place and effective would it be reasonable to expect any woman to venture into such an environment. Workplace bullying and harassment of females by males is not something that has come up much so far in this thread, but it is an important factor to consider.

To be honest, I would not venture down a path to recruit those previous "failed" female applicants - by the time a programme as described had come into full effect, it would be more than likely that they had found other jobs with more reasonable employers anyway. As long as the employer mended his ways, such an action would not be practical. In addition I dont believe it would be profitable either as it would simply add to any resentment in existing male employees about women in general and interfere with the mending of ways.

It takes time to change a culture and in this, evolution is far superior to revolution which has a nasty habit of being unpredictable and unreliable by comparison.


Ellen,

Just a couple of quick comments, since we have ventured far from the OP and we seem to just be talking among ourselves. 

First, under the laws in the U.S., we cannot change the Board of Dirctors, or the company's culture, as you suggest.  The courts can only order the employer to remedy the discrimination by hiring those who were discriminated against, paying them back pay and by revising hiring policies in the future.

As for your suggestion that the "failed" recruits would have found other jobs with more reasonable employers, I expect that they would have found other jobs.  But what if they are earning less than they would be earning at the employer who discriminated against them?  Shouldn't they have the choice to get the job they applied for and should have gotten with that employer years before?  If they don't want to work for that employer, that's fine.  But the choice should be theirs.

Finally, I have to disagree with what seems to be your suggestion that we should not try to remedy past discrimination, but only fix things as we go forward.  If we do that, what kind of message does that send to employers who are now discriminating?  They will not be motivated to fix their problems, if the only thing that will happen once they are caught, is that they will be told that they have to comply in the future.

Dan

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 11:04:20 AM   
LotusSong


Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline
This situation really dove the point home. 

A trans-sexual aaquaintence of mine took leave for "his" reasignment surgery.

Upon healing and returning to work  to pick up where he left off... they hired him back at less pay because “He” was now a “She”.  The same exact job and able to do the same exact work.

Upon her lament, all I could say was “Welcome to the club”.

< Message edited by LotusSong -- 8/3/2006 11:06:23 AM >


_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.


(in reply to somethndif)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 2:15:14 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Hi Dan

Sorry - I'm in UK and unfamiliar with US labour laws - but in my opinion the law needs to be changed if my suggestion were impossible at the moment; maybe by forcing the company to hold an EGM where the entire board had to step down and could not be re-elected, and where by court order they had to select a more appropriate board to introduce remedy to the culture.

I didnt mention the compensation issue as that ought to be a given, by the way! Equally as a given should be a substantial fine for each instance, levelled individually and vicariously at the departing management board rather than the company as the buck as is said, stops with them- this should be sufficient to force them to sell any stock they had in the company, whilst not necessarily crippling or destroying the ability of the company itself to continue. Such a law would also make it extremely unattractive to management to promote or permit such cultures ever to arise.

As for the choice to go and work for the company - yes of course the women should have the choice; I just dont think they would take it (I certainly wouldnt).

Sorry I didnt make those matters as clear as I might have!


(in reply to LotusSong)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 2:39:17 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Hi Lotus

Re your friend - have come across exactly the same situation over here! As a guy he was deemed suitable to run his department and to warrant the provision of a company car and significant benefits. As a gal, "he" was demoted and required to give up the car and benefits - and given (yes you can guess!) a male supervisor!

The beauty of the situation for employers in such instances is that the person concerned is at a very vulnerable juncture in their life when they are not likely to be able to fight back, and given that the person concerned wants to maintain a low profile she is unlikely to take legal action and thus bring publicity to their situation.

Why is publicity a problem? Because our more pathetic media producers wouldnt be interested in the court case - its far more marketable to report on the "trannie" "she-male" "sicko pervert" (etc) and give her name and address out to all and sundry, at which point cue the dickheads of society to go round and make her life a misery.

This isnt imaginary by the way. I work with the local police over here, picking up the pieces of these peoples' lives when this sort of thing happens to them for no fault of their own. There's nothing imaginary about dogshit through your letterbox, being spat at in the street, sleeping with a fire extinguisher after having your house set ablaze during the night, being run down, bricks through your windows etc. And thats just the lower end of the spectrum.

Why is it that transsexuals draw such antipathy I wonder, when all they want to do is get on with what are already difficult lives and dont harm anyone?

Could it just be that they have "betrayed" their biological sex and therefore are seen to have dismissed the perceived superiority of masculinity - so betraying all males everywhere to the female rival by breaking ranks? Is it because of the supposed castration anxiety that men are meant to suffer, and which is reminded to them by a man choosing that? Or is just that transphobia is felt to be the appropriate stock response if one is a "real man"?

Fuse lit, now standing well back to watch the fireworks. Aren't I naughty (giggle)!
E

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 2:45:44 PM   
amastermind


Posts: 54
Joined: 1/13/2006
Status: offline
Dan,

With all due respect, repeating a invalid points in a condescending tone doesn't make them any more cogent.  And please don't be so self assured so as to mistake refusal to accept your phony distinctions for lack of understanding them.  Your shaky references to tilted and  level playing fields don't make any distinction that I don't grasp.  Rather they are completely meaningless and serve only to appeal to emotion rather than logic.  In fact, your supercilious tone belies the fact that you do not accept the much simpler concept entailed in the meaning of the word "discrimination". 

I don't know the status of affirmative action but if it is in fact dead, one reason is that the federal courts in the United States have rejected your silly concept of "qualified but less qualified".  Perhaps you can explain better than the pro affirmative action lawyers why membership in a "identifyable group" is relevant at all to the application process.  To put it in simple terms for you and carry on with your example, should one job candidate score 80 and another score 90 on an exam, say, which is intended to weed out all candidates that score less than 60,  why should race, gender, or any other "identifyable characteristic" be a deciding factor?  The obvious answer is that it shouldn't.  That is exactly what the courts have ruled.

But affirmative action is/worse than that.  What you call "tilting" the playing field is in fact rigging the tests.  As an example, the University of Michigan affirmative action admission policy (shot down by the US Supreme Court) gave a member of an "identifyable group" 20 points whereas perfect SAT scores gave an applicant only 12.  This example alone should shoot your "qualified but less qualified" pseudoargument out of the water.

But let' for a moment assume I accept your "qualified but less qualified" concept.  Why should the less qualified (by your definition, the candidate with the lower score) be given the job?   

In conclusion, I stand by my original claim. And that is that all your hogwash does is try to finesse cheating; i.e., giving some people preferential treatment over others and falsely claiming that failure to do so is what is unfair. 

But I am probably overanalyzing your post.  Upon second reading, I am not even sure what point you are trying to make.  If it is to do anything other than give meaningless jutification to affirmative action, a meaningless definition of discrimination, and pervert the definition of qualification, it wasn't very well thought out.

(in reply to somethndif)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 2:53:16 PM   
Theslavetrainer


Posts: 75
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
I would bet, ellen, that if perpetrators were caught in the things you mentioned, a fair number of them would be women.

The reason these things happen is because people lash out at the unknown and unfamiliar.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 3:08:15 PM   
LotusSong


Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline
To get back on topic:  Does anyone think that the difference in wages between the sexes is way to continue to control women by continuing to keep them dependant on males? 

_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.


(in reply to amastermind)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 3:09:11 PM   
amastermind


Posts: 54
Joined: 1/13/2006
Status: offline
Dan an Ellen,

You know the right answer even though you try to deny it  You should be able to hire whomever you want for whatever reason you want.  You shouldn't have to give a test at all or should be able to do whatever you want with the results.  Any employer should have his job or income on the line based on his employees performance.  Thus, he/she should be able to make completely discretionary decisions.

Let me pose this question?  What if I have a theory that women are incompetent, untrustworty, and bad employees?  Do I have a right to refuse to hire them?  I suggest yes.  If I am right I make a lot of money.  If I am wrong, I go broke.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 3:14:49 PM   
amastermind


Posts: 54
Joined: 1/13/2006
Status: offline
Dan

An employer has a history of discrimination.  Therefore, the remedy is to force him to discriminate more, with qualified innocent people being the victims.  Sounds like the appropriate remedy to me.

"You can't be serious". How about just punishing the employer?  Fines, denying business licences, etc.  Doesn't that make more sense?

Keep trying to defend affirmative action.  I doubt you will come up with anything.

(in reply to somethndif)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 3:19:20 PM   
Theslavetrainer


Posts: 75
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
It's interesting, lotus, how you keep wanting to go on and on about this or that is being used to control women but in this thread of your own making you state how much better it was being raised in the 50's:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_514863/tm.htm

The irony is, in the 50's, women were more stringently controlled then today. And yet you assert that it was such a better time in the 50's. Duality of the beast? Or are you just a hypocrite?

(in reply to LotusSong)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 3:22:43 PM   
LotusSong


Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline
WHERE did I say it was BETTER!!!!

I was basically painting the picture the neuvo subbies drool over and hoping to wake them up to the fact that today's submission is so voluntary.. and how it was when it was mandatory.

_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.


(in reply to Theslavetrainer)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 3:55:32 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
amastermind -

I really dont understand your attack on Dan - he was explaining and expanding on a point made by me. Equally I dont really understand it for a second reason in that we two seem to be saying the same thing, albeit from different perspectives in relation to affirmative actions.

However, your rejection of action to combat prejudice in the recruitment process I cannot endorse in any way. In that regard, I'd like to know what you'd think if you applied for a job with me and were the best candidate and I then rejected you for no other reason than your ethnic heritage? Or if I didnt want to fall foul of discrimination laws and employed you, but then harassed you with nazi imagery in the office and bullied you by choosing to wear SS uniform for a one sided performance appraisal that was more of a put down session? Or failing those options if I employed you and treated you like everyone else, but chose to pay you less for the same job because of your origins? That would all presumably be OK with you, since you seem to think its OK to do similar things in relation to women?

E


(in reply to LotusSong)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:00:55 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Hi Lotus

I'm not sure if lower wages for women is used to keep women dependant on men and thus under their control - I tend to believe that its more of a symptom of the underlying ethos of male dominated society than a deliberate tool. However that said, it does tend to have that effect.

E

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:05:19 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Hi theslavetrainer

If women were found guilty, then the penalty should be exactly the same.

However it remains a fact that most employers are businesses owned and/or operated by males and so for the moment at least, it is far more likely that males would be the culprits, even discounting that women are treated as second class candidates and employees in this current society by those males.
E

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:06:28 PM   
marcpiery


Posts: 12
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline
LotusSong,
The last news reports that I've seen accually indicate that hour for hour, women make more than men. The reason that women appear to make less on paper is that they tend to choose working less hours, i.e., part time. Also, since these pay amounts were averaged out over the year, women's greater absenteeism factored into less overall pay. On the other hand, the majority of women are more likely to earn a higher salary, more likely to get pay raises and more likely to move into management. The reason for this is the overwhelming corporate fear of litigation, whether it be harrassment or discrimination.
Right now, the vast majority of college students are female--affirmative action. The majority of middle management is female and, since middle management does most of the hiring, affirmative action hiring plus anti-male discrimination. These are not bullshit. This is the reason that men have an unemployement rate, yet women's unemployement is nearly non-existant.
Besides, these new revelations tend to coincide with figure from the automotive and real estate industries: the vast majority of new automobiles (>80%) are purchased by women, and the vast majority of homes (>70%) are purchased by women.
Really, if women were making so little money, where would they get all the money to make such large purchases?
Feminists have been manipulating statistics for decades, and until recently, everyone just went along. But women's spending habits have thrown up some red flags, and as news agencies are starting to look at non-manipulated data, the truth is coming out. If there is no anti-male discrimination, then why has my old alma mater --Cal State Univ. Northrige-- consistantly had freshmen classes of 75% female for the last 10 years? And my old school is not alone. In this country, men are getting screwed. A friend of mine is in Nursing school, a traditionally female profession, and he has had a miserable time in the class rooms and in the hospital rotations. He is constantly bombarded with statements that women are superior and that men are incapable of multi-tasking and logic and reason, and therefore, any great thinking. Needless to say, I'm trying to get him to change his major, but he attracted by the outrageous nursing salaries --the reason the healthcare industry is falling apart.
Women need to stop playing victom and start taking responsibility for their actions. I also believe that women should start serving in the military. Not the way that they do now, but for real. As it stands now, a woman can be fast-tracked up the chain of command and lead men into combat without ever seeing it themselves. The draft should be re-introduced and only draft women. Then, to prevent the deaths of too many male soldiers who are trying to protect women, make female only combat battalions. Let them for once shed blood for their freedom. IF women are able to prove themselves on the battlefield, then and only then should they be considered truly equal and fit for such things as running for president. When women start signing draft cards, they will be taken more seriously.
So, all you feminists out there, and you know who you are, write your senators and congressional representatives to demand the right to die in battle, just like the men!!!!!!!!

(in reply to amastermind)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:12:57 PM   
mstrj69


Posts: 295
Joined: 5/27/2004
Status: offline
re:  I'd like to know what you'd think if you applied for a job with me and were the best candidate and I then rejected you for no other reason than your ethnic heritage? Or if I didnt want to fall foul of discrimination laws and employed you, but then"..." for a one sided performance appraisal that was more of a put down session?"

That is called the US Givernment

(in reply to marcpiery)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:22:47 PM   
Theslavetrainer


Posts: 75
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
I think we're talking about two different things, ellen. My last post to you was in regard to  Post #: 84. Specificly this section:

quote:

Why is it that transsexuals draw such antipathy I wonder, when all they want to do is get on with what are already difficult lives and dont harm anyone?

Could it just be that they have "betrayed" their biological sex and therefore are seen to have dismissed the perceived superiority of masculinity - so betraying all males everywhere to the female rival by breaking ranks? Is it because of the supposed castration anxiety that men are meant to suffer, and which is reminded to them by a man choosing that? Or is just that transphobia is felt to be the appropriate stock response if one is a "real man"?


I would have to apologize for any confusion seeing as I didn't quote what I was replying to in the first place. "My bad", as they say.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:29:36 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Hi slavetrainer

Sorry! Yes - lost the plot a bit there (but then I'm female LOL!) - no harm done though I think!

Yes - I'd agree that many women have a problem with TS women, although I have to say that from my experience its usually men that make up the majority of the abusers / harassers / attackers.

In addition, I have to confess it was one of my "firework" posts, the bit at the end - written more to provoke reaction than as an assertion, in the spirit of mutual bashing we have on this thread LOL! That it failed is a disappointment, but thank you for picking up on it at least!

E

(in reply to Theslavetrainer)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 4:43:09 PM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

To get back on topic:  Does anyone think that the difference in wages between the sexes is way to continue to control women by continuing to keep them dependant on males? 

Nope.  It's just good business.  If they can get away with paying less, they will.  They'd do the same with males if they could.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to LotusSong)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 8/3/2006 5:02:46 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

To get back on topic:  Does anyone think that the difference in wages between the sexes is way to continue to control women by continuing to keep them dependant on males? 

Nope.  It's just good business.  If they can get away with paying less, they will.  They'd do the same with males if they could.


LA, you are one of the most reasonable human beings on this site; kudos to you.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125