Actually, I too am all about Target. Have been for YEARS. Cool stuff, good prices, CLEAN stores, etc.
Wal-Mart is just a larger, busier version of Kmart: messy, overcrowded, packed-to-the-gills, narrow aisles, etc.
Although, I'll pick Wal-Mart over Kmart any day. The past 2 or 3 times I've stopped by a Kmart (convenience, on the way, etc.), I was shocked at how crappy and low-rent it has become. That's in SoCal as well as in the South. Something about them just reek of "we don't have our act together...sorry...".
In summary: Target. Always.
No Target around? Wal-Mart. But I don't enjoy it like I do Target. I get in, get out.
Target, I can browse the lamp or furniture section, as well as they kitchen and gadget department for a LONG time because they have pretty cool-looking stuff!
I'm a confirmed Target shopper too. Typical weekend shopping trip for me is Target for everything they have that I need and then to Cub Foods for everything left on the list.
I'm sure 72% of the applicants for Wal-Mart jobs are only women. Minimum wage jobs are no to low-skilled- they take just about anyone who applies. The issues is about gender discrimination in job duties and in advancement.
So I disagree with you on several fronts here. Basically, you're saying that gender discrimination exists and it's a good thing?...?</strong><hr></blockquote>
However the lawsuit is about jobs that aren't necessarily low skilled and where they take just anyone. It is about mamangement jobs. In those jobs women still make up 33% of the recipients yet somehow that is "discrimination." I mentioned several factors that could lead to this that are not controllable by the company.
I am saying that the inequity does not have to be caused by a company or men.
For example I cited where someone "claimed" that a man was given a promotion over a woman because "he has a wife and children to support." In otherwords the claim is sexist and worst case. I'm not saying I support it, I am saying look at who benefits and who contributes to the intentions in this supposed worst case scenario. If a man doesn't take sick days or works excessively hard it is likely because his wife helps and enables him to do that. It is literally two working against one. The enabler here is not a company, but a woman.
I assure you that if that same couple were to divorce, that same woman would make claims of the hardships she endured in order for her husband to advance when she made claims of alimony. So it isn't that men or the company are necessarily keeping a woman down. It is that you have two people working to advance in one job working againstly likely a .75 person.
I assign the woman a .75 role because if she is a single mom supporting and raising children with no support, then she is likely to work fewer hours and little overtime. She likely wants more flexible scheduling and is more likely to take leave or sick days. The fact this happens in not caused by a man or a company.
Women as a whole typically won't even move into a job until they are a protected class. The fact that a man or a company will not "protect" them does not mean that is discrimination. For example you could argue that while women complain of a "glass ceiling" men are trapped in a "glass cellar" because the ten jobs where you are most likely to die or get hurt are staffed exclusively by men. Women don't want them because there are no protections.
You mention that NOW wouldn't be interested in oil rig jobs. However the jobs are high paying and likely staffed exclusively by men. (I would bet they are 99% men) Obviously that is a serious gender inequity which NOW should seek to redress. The reason they don't is because women simply don't want those dangerous jobs. So NOW isn't really about gender equity?? In reality they are about finding favorable jobs with protections and assigning those jobs disportionately to women.
So when women are 33% of the managers that is "discrimination" because they want those jobs. When they are 1% of oil rig workers, that isn't "discrimination" because.....well they don't want those jobs.
As you said, sometimes things just turn out that way... it isn't necessarily evil or bad intentions. However in instances where it "just happens to turn out that way" and it benefits men then the motives and the methods are questioned. Perhaps the 72% of women who apply there know this information because of an "old girls network" or other discriminatory factors.
The point is to think about it, not just quickly point fingers and assign blame.
The point is to think about it, not just quickly point fingers and assign blame.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The oil rig jobs and the elementary jobs are a great analogy. In neither case is it discrimination because women aren't looking for oil rig jobs and men aren't looking for elementary school jobs.
The discrimination SPJ is talking about is "in job duties and in advancement." If 72% of the sales force is female, but only 33% can advance to management, that looks suspicious. That's not a problem of 17% possibly getting the proverbial screw, but roughly 39%. If WalMart hires from within then the 72-28% breakdown should be roughly equal in management. Apparently it's not.
It's hard to deny that there is some serious discrimination against women in the workplace, even if things are improving. Nurse salaries are increasing as more men become nurses, while vet salaries are decreasing as more women become vets. Trends like this exist and it's real, even if thigns are getting better.
Hell, I remember a story from a year or so ago about a study done that showed how taller men were more likely to have larger, ahem, salaries, than shorter men. Should short people sue? Or should the discrimination continue?
People are weird. They'd rather hire a tall white guy as a manager even if he's a dunce.
The oil rig jobs and the elementary jobs are a great analogy. In neither case is it discrimination because women aren't looking for oil rig jobs and men aren't looking for elementary school jobs.
The discrimination SPJ is talking about is "in job duties and in advancement." If 72% of the sales force is female, but only 33% can advance to management, that looks suspicious. That's not a problem of 17% possibly getting the proverbial screw, but roughly 39%. If WalMart hires from within then the 72-28% breakdown should be roughly equal in management. Apparently it's not.
It's hard to deny that there is some serious discrimination against women in the workplace, even if things are improving. Nurse salaries are increasing as more men become nurses, while vet salaries are decreasing as more women become vets. Trends like this exist and it's real, even if thigns are getting better.
Hell, I remember a story from a year or so ago about a study done that showed how taller men were more likely to have larger, ahem, salaries, than shorter men. Should short people sue? Or should the discrimination continue?
People are weird. They'd rather hire a tall white guy as a manager even if he's a dunce.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might look suspicious until you look at the plaintiffs and the likely reasons they might not have advanced.
It is important to note that it is not just that women or men don't look for a certain type of job but why they don't. When women typically didn't become firefighters, it didn't matter that it was a lot of men who lived in a firehouse together, it was a societal obligation to insure equity. (or so we are told)
Likewise when you look at an elementary school and see that 95% of the teachers are women. Then you look at behavior referrals, special education referrals, drop out rates and even college enrollment rates and you see that men suffer there at every turn. College enrollment rates are 55% women and 45% men. Special ed and discipline referrals are 10 to 1 in favor or men. (Means they are failing)
If there were a field that was 95% male and all the women were referred for problems and failing, I assure you we would be asked to look into it.
If the only factor to consider in managment hiring was, are they currently working here, then you are right that the numbers look odd. However if it has anything to do with committment to job, overtime worked, willingness to work weekends, odd hours, go on business trips, etc. Then those factors should be considered as well.
Comments
Wal-Mart is just a larger, busier version of Kmart: messy, overcrowded, packed-to-the-gills, narrow aisles, etc.
Although, I'll pick Wal-Mart over Kmart any day. The past 2 or 3 times I've stopped by a Kmart (convenience, on the way, etc.), I was shocked at how crappy and low-rent it has become. That's in SoCal as well as in the South. Something about them just reek of "we don't have our act together...sorry...".
In summary: Target. Always.
No Target around? Wal-Mart. But I don't enjoy it like I do Target. I get in, get out.
Target, I can browse the lamp or furniture section, as well as they kitchen and gadget department for a LONG time because they have pretty cool-looking stuff!
<strong>
I'm sure 72% of the applicants for Wal-Mart jobs are only women. Minimum wage jobs are no to low-skilled- they take just about anyone who applies. The issues is about gender discrimination in job duties and in advancement.
So I disagree with you on several fronts here. Basically, you're saying that gender discrimination exists and it's a good thing?...?</strong><hr></blockquote>
However the lawsuit is about jobs that aren't necessarily low skilled and where they take just anyone. It is about mamangement jobs. In those jobs women still make up 33% of the recipients yet somehow that is "discrimination." I mentioned several factors that could lead to this that are not controllable by the company.
I am saying that the inequity does not have to be caused by a company or men.
For example I cited where someone "claimed" that a man was given a promotion over a woman because "he has a wife and children to support." In otherwords the claim is sexist and worst case. I'm not saying I support it, I am saying look at who benefits and who contributes to the intentions in this supposed worst case scenario. If a man doesn't take sick days or works excessively hard it is likely because his wife helps and enables him to do that. It is literally two working against one. The enabler here is not a company, but a woman.
I assure you that if that same couple were to divorce, that same woman would make claims of the hardships she endured in order for her husband to advance when she made claims of alimony. So it isn't that men or the company are necessarily keeping a woman down. It is that you have two people working to advance in one job working againstly likely a .75 person.
I assign the woman a .75 role because if she is a single mom supporting and raising children with no support, then she is likely to work fewer hours and little overtime. She likely wants more flexible scheduling and is more likely to take leave or sick days. The fact this happens in not caused by a man or a company.
Women as a whole typically won't even move into a job until they are a protected class. The fact that a man or a company will not "protect" them does not mean that is discrimination. For example you could argue that while women complain of a "glass ceiling" men are trapped in a "glass cellar" because the ten jobs where you are most likely to die or get hurt are staffed exclusively by men. Women don't want them because there are no protections.
You mention that NOW wouldn't be interested in oil rig jobs. However the jobs are high paying and likely staffed exclusively by men. (I would bet they are 99% men) Obviously that is a serious gender inequity which NOW should seek to redress. The reason they don't is because women simply don't want those dangerous jobs. So NOW isn't really about gender equity?? In reality they are about finding favorable jobs with protections and assigning those jobs disportionately to women.
So when women are 33% of the managers that is "discrimination" because they want those jobs. When they are 1% of oil rig workers, that isn't "discrimination" because.....well they don't want those jobs.
As you said, sometimes things just turn out that way... it isn't necessarily evil or bad intentions. However in instances where it "just happens to turn out that way" and it benefits men then the motives and the methods are questioned. Perhaps the 72% of women who apply there know this information because of an "old girls network" or other discriminatory factors.
The point is to think about it, not just quickly point fingers and assign blame.
Nick
<strong>
The point is to think about it, not just quickly point fingers and assign blame.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The oil rig jobs and the elementary jobs are a great analogy. In neither case is it discrimination because women aren't looking for oil rig jobs and men aren't looking for elementary school jobs.
The discrimination SPJ is talking about is "in job duties and in advancement." If 72% of the sales force is female, but only 33% can advance to management, that looks suspicious. That's not a problem of 17% possibly getting the proverbial screw, but roughly 39%. If WalMart hires from within then the 72-28% breakdown should be roughly equal in management. Apparently it's not.
It's hard to deny that there is some serious discrimination against women in the workplace, even if things are improving. Nurse salaries are increasing as more men become nurses, while vet salaries are decreasing as more women become vets. Trends like this exist and it's real, even if thigns are getting better.
Hell, I remember a story from a year or so ago about a study done that showed how taller men were more likely to have larger, ahem, salaries, than shorter men. Should short people sue? Or should the discrimination continue?
People are weird. They'd rather hire a tall white guy as a manager even if he's a dunce.
<strong>
The oil rig jobs and the elementary jobs are a great analogy. In neither case is it discrimination because women aren't looking for oil rig jobs and men aren't looking for elementary school jobs.
The discrimination SPJ is talking about is "in job duties and in advancement." If 72% of the sales force is female, but only 33% can advance to management, that looks suspicious. That's not a problem of 17% possibly getting the proverbial screw, but roughly 39%. If WalMart hires from within then the 72-28% breakdown should be roughly equal in management. Apparently it's not.
It's hard to deny that there is some serious discrimination against women in the workplace, even if things are improving. Nurse salaries are increasing as more men become nurses, while vet salaries are decreasing as more women become vets. Trends like this exist and it's real, even if thigns are getting better.
Hell, I remember a story from a year or so ago about a study done that showed how taller men were more likely to have larger, ahem, salaries, than shorter men. Should short people sue? Or should the discrimination continue?
People are weird. They'd rather hire a tall white guy as a manager even if he's a dunce.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might look suspicious until you look at the plaintiffs and the likely reasons they might not have advanced.
It is important to note that it is not just that women or men don't look for a certain type of job but why they don't. When women typically didn't become firefighters, it didn't matter that it was a lot of men who lived in a firehouse together, it was a societal obligation to insure equity. (or so we are told)
Likewise when you look at an elementary school and see that 95% of the teachers are women. Then you look at behavior referrals, special education referrals, drop out rates and even college enrollment rates and you see that men suffer there at every turn. College enrollment rates are 55% women and 45% men. Special ed and discipline referrals are 10 to 1 in favor or men. (Means they are failing)
If there were a field that was 95% male and all the women were referred for problems and failing, I assure you we would be asked to look into it.
If the only factor to consider in managment hiring was, are they currently working here, then you are right that the numbers look odd. However if it has anything to do with committment to job, overtime worked, willingness to work weekends, odd hours, go on business trips, etc. Then those factors should be considered as well.
Nick