It seems to me the live-work balance thing is really a matter of discrimination in the home. If the workplace treats men and women equally (Those who put in more time and energy get rewarded, those who put in less time and energy because of other commitments, don’t), then the problem is the “discrimination” that causes more women than men to be primary carers. As most of the women I know, including me, have made their own choices in this regard, they are also the source of the remedy.
I can’t believe I didn’t see the NYT article saying requiring hard work was discriminatory. Oy vey. I hate whiners who want rewards without work. I suspect that these people have no idea what it takes to run a big store.
I used to work for a grocery store chain. I reached the point that in order to be promoted, I needed to move into the stores (I was corporate HR). I knew that would mean crazy hours, so I switched industries.
Let’s get rid of this whole concept of equality of outcome.
The NYT writer states “For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination” in reference to a Walmart policy that new managers change stores. However, this policy is also more likely to be just an inconvenience for young women in a hurry, and a bar to middle-aged men caring for families.
Most men have always felt they had to adapt to the workplace. I suspect that more and more women, influenced by the feminist doctrine “women should have whatever they want,” are demanding that the workplace adapt to them. They do not want to give up options that most men have never believed were available to them: work full-time, work part-time, or work according to “my schedule.” Compare these options to men’s “options”: work full-time, work full-time, work full-time with overtime.
I have always wondered about the fairness of , effectively, forcing single and/or childless males and females to do more than their share of work in order to give special consideration and privileges to their colleagues who elect to have kids. In biglaw firms, it is well known that because of the onerous billable hour requirements imposed on associates females who want to have a baby are essentially knocked off the partnership track because they cannot put in the hours needed to be considered for partner. Remember, these are highly intelligent women who are well aware of what is expected so, in my opinion, they have a hell of a nerve to think the requirements should be lowered for them.
5 Comments
It seems to me the live-work balance thing is really a matter of discrimination in the home. If the workplace treats men and women equally (Those who put in more time and energy get rewarded, those who put in less time and energy because of other commitments, don’t), then the problem is the “discrimination” that causes more women than men to be primary carers. As most of the women I know, including me, have made their own choices in this regard, they are also the source of the remedy.
I can’t believe I didn’t see the NYT article saying requiring hard work was discriminatory. Oy vey. I hate whiners who want rewards without work. I suspect that these people have no idea what it takes to run a big store.
I used to work for a grocery store chain. I reached the point that in order to be promoted, I needed to move into the stores (I was corporate HR). I knew that would mean crazy hours, so I switched industries.
Let’s get rid of this whole concept of equality of outcome.
The NYT writer states “For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination” in reference to a Walmart policy that new managers change stores. However, this policy is also more likely to be just an inconvenience for
young women in a hurry, and a bar to middle-aged men caring for families.
Most men have always felt they had to adapt to the workplace. I suspect that more and more women, influenced by the feminist doctrine “women should have whatever they want,” are demanding that the workplace adapt to them. They do not want to give up options that most men have never believed were available to them: work full-time, work part-time, or work according to “my schedule.” Compare these options to men’s “options”: work full-time, work full-time, work full-time with overtime.
See “An In-depth Look at the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” at http://www.battlinbog.blog-city.com/a_male_matters_response_to_the_ledbetter_fair_pay_act.htm
I have always wondered about the fairness of , effectively, forcing single and/or childless males and females to do more than their share of work in order to give special consideration and privileges to their colleagues who elect to have kids. In biglaw firms, it is well known that because of the onerous billable hour requirements imposed on associates females who want to have a baby are essentially knocked off the partnership track because they cannot put in the hours needed to be considered for partner. Remember, these are highly intelligent women who are well aware of what is expected so, in my opinion, they have a hell of a nerve to think the requirements should be lowered for them.