So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is.
Gender-based public sector affirmative action exists to counterbalance discrimination in the private sector. I would argue that becoming trans to undermine gender-AA is penny wise and pound foolish, unless you were already tending towards that inclination.
But what I’m seeing here is “I’m changing my gender but only for the purposes of gaming the system, then I expect you to recognize me as my original gender again”. And that’s on par with carrying a pair of crutches in your trunk so you can park in handicapped spaces.
You don’t really want to take on the burden of being recognized as a woman. You just want to pocket a benefit in the public sector and then go back to your privileged position in the private sector.
I agree. The Daily Mail no doubt uses this as a way to say “legally changing your gender should be harder”, but that’s fixing the wrong problem. Gender fluidity isn’t the problem, gender inequality is.
Gender should be as unimportant as eye color in most things in life. If your system breaks from someone changing their gender, you need to fix your system.
Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.
Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.
And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.
[…], there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men.
For management its actually a quite complex problem. First of all, women themselves seem to underestimate themself more than men and so don’t apply for higher jobs(e.g. Manager) since they underestimate their skills and potential thinking, they aren’t able to suit such a role, even tho they could. At the same time the manager(etc.) Are mostly males, so the stereotypical view of a manager iis a guy, which may also lead to women not believing in themselves. When women do apply for a higher role they often get overlooked. They get judged much more critical in terms of skills, while their potential often gets overlooked. This causes female applicants to often not get accepted for said positions. This is also one of the reasons, why women are less likely(around 14%) to get a promotion. Last but not least the typical Charakter traits that a manager needs, are often associated with masculinity(e.g. Strength, endurance, rationality,…).
Source: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220222-proof-verus-potential-problem
I can only suggest that article. Its very good.
Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.
Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.
Modern problems require modern solutions
Smart
manwoman!Why tf does Argentina let women retire earlier???
Britain did until quite recently. Then a group of men went to court, I think hoping to get the men’s age lowered to that of women. But of course the government raised the women’s age to that of men.
You say that as if it was the men’s fault for trying to get equal treatment. Clearly you have no idea how the legal system works.
I don’t see how you got that from what I said.
The “of course” makes it clear you dislike the outcome. The long mention of the men who in your eyes “caused” this also makes it pretty obvious what your stance is about this and who you want the scapegoat to be in the discussion.
The “of course” makes it clear you dislike the outcome
Only inasmuch as a desirable outcome would have been the lowering of the age of retirement for men to either that of women or meeting both on the middle. The issue is that the government being the government took it as an excuse to effectively cut welfare.
The long mention of the men who in your eyes “caused” this
To be honest it probably just brought it on sooner. The government would have found it as excuse to raise the retirement age without it being highlighted to them.
also makes it pretty obvious what your stance is about this and who you want the scapegoat to be in the discussion.
No, still don’t see it.
Wow that’s some projection. You are reading deeply between the lines to find your take on that one.
I immediately got it as “why would the people in power ever make it easier for those not” but hey why bother with nuanced takes when the Internet will allow you to be angry at your specific beliefs as if they are the only truth, right?
Yeah, this seems backwards… Women tend to live longer than men.
Yeap, women retire at 60 and men retire at 65.
it’s the same in many European countries
Because women on average live longer. Strange isn’t it.
Maybe opposite? Maybe women live lomger because they retire earlier?
No because women also live longer in countries that do not do this.
Why would that mean they get to retire earlier then?
Yeah, this person’s logic makes no sense. This is a solid argument for men retiring earlier.
Personally, I’d say it’s probably best if it’s just the same for everyone.
Patriarchy oppresses us all.
Women get to retire five years earlier than men
Lemmy: Sounds like patriarchal oppression to me!
it is though. same with women getting more lenient sentences for the same crimes, custody inequality, etc.
I think a better word might be needed, to be honest.
Kyriarchical oppression.
Kyriarchy refers to the overlap of various inequalities caused by gender, race, sexuallity and disability describing overlaps of cross sectionality. It also refers to the practice of problems created by assumed superiority.
It already exists and is called misandry.
why? this is all the results of men being in power, including the odd thing that favors women sometimes, like custody battles being usually easier for women. it comes from the patriarchal view that looking after children is the mother’s job and the father barely needs to have anything to do with it.
same here: men are stronger and women are weaker, not to mention women shouldn’t be working to begin with but since they do they might as well retire early.
To me as a layman it immediately brings up a connection to feminism. I don’t think that anybody who will want to get men to think different will get very far using the word “patriarchy”, given men being more right leaning.
There isn’t much substance to my argument than “nuh uh I don’t like that word” but it is what it is. There must be some better approach “marketing wise”, despite patriarchy being technically correct.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Well why not I guess
because laws like this were made to offset the patriarchal dominance of a society shaped by men for centuries. it’s unfair to women to let men just take those offsets away from them and it’s the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address as they cheer for trans-women’s rights.
Coul be easier to just have an equal society
could it? i mean, women have been fighting for equality since at least the turn of the 20th century and we’re still not there.
I mean with the different rules based on sex/gender can cause this sort of issues, having just one retirement age for everyone for example could be easier
so then you don’t support affirmative actions laws?
What are those?
For clarification I am against Jordan Peterson and the ilk but equal opportunity y’all.
What does the first part add to your statement? Is that his selling point?
He actually supports Jordan Peterson but feels bad about it
Looks like some weird hoop thinking advocating men’s rights (equal retirement age) is only done by Petersen and other nutcases
To be fair, the men’s rights movement is absolutely characterized as alt-right by the mainstream media. People tend to assume all sorts of things about you when you bring up any kind of men’s issue. Most people (including other men) have difficulty empathizing with grown men, and thus they subconsciously expect that men’s advocates are motivated by something else, such as misogyny. It’s hard to move past our biological and cultural tendencies and view men as vulnerable and in need of support.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Depends on the approach. In a lot of queer friendly spaces men’s issues are generally accepted as incredibly valid as gay and trans men tend to get pretty hardcore beat down by failing to pass the bar of the expectations of cultural masculinity and on average they require more outside help from services or others because they are less likely to be able to return to their families to escape abusive relationships and face addictional precarity.
But the difference tends to be a general understanding that while women definitely get it and can absolutely sympathize they also aren’t in a particularly great position to change things in a general sense because women also have to regularly fight against social power of systems that depower their autonomy that are fronted by men and they generally have to see to their own needs before being able to do the administrative work on men’s behalf.
It’s emergency airplane crash logic. Put your own supply of air on before you help the person next to you. If your job, legislature, judicial system and potential funding structure is only made up of a minority of women you are asking a lot of people who don’t have institutional power to flex even on their own behalf and a lot of women have deep seated anger regarding that disparity so when someone tries to pile more on their plates the gut reaction is to throw it back. Women might be willing to assist, but they aren’t going to accept doing the lions share of the required admin for another group when they have other priorities. The same goes for queer groups, racial minority groups, religious minorities, disability affected groups and so on. They might have room on their plate to show up to your protest… But usually that requires you to you show a willingness to reciprocate and show up to theirs.
I don’t think anybody is expecting women to do administrative work on behalf of men’s rights. It’s more that women tend to react with outright hostility when men advocate for other men.
It’s actually the feminists who frequently argue that men need to be fighting for women’s issues. I haven’t seen the reverse from male advocates, partially because it’s quite obvious that such a request would be summarily denied. Men generally just want:
-
funding for men’s shelters
-
sympathy & aid for male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault
-
solutions for the growing educational achievement gap
-
a discussion about various legal discrepancies when it comes to conscription, marriage, and parental rights and responsibilities.
None of this requires women to assist or flex their institutional power. But when men are systematically denied access and funding for various forms of governmental aid, it seems like certain women are flexing some of their institutional power to prevent men from having access to the same kind of social safety net that women enjoy.
It’s emergency airplane crash logic. Put your own supply of air on before you help the person next to you.
This is a faulty analogy, because men’s issues are women’s issues and vice versa. It’s impossible for women to actually solve their own problems without also solving men’s problems. How are women ever going to keep their oxygen masks on if they are surrounded by men who are suffocating and trying to rip the mask from their face? In order to help anyone, you need to help everyone.
-
generally have to see to their own needs before being able to do the administrative work on men’s behalf.
Same logic applies to men as well. And I don’t like your perspective of said groups always being enemies of each other. If this perspective was uniformly adopted, queers will never have their rights because they are a minority. While the majority groups only fighting for theirs. IMHO we need to look at all these as human rights and human values. Not gay rights, trans rights, women’s rights or men’s rights. Otherwise we don’t get anywhere.
Dumb idea: it feels bad being second class in things like retirement, empathy, and mental health, etc., right guys?
Well, that’s how our sisters on the other side feel about literally everything else. If we want to fight so hard for the few things us men lack, let’s use that same energy to fight for women too.
Republicans: They’re degenerates coming for our children!
This guy: To hell with that, I’m coming for your retirement benefits.
Because I’ve been conditioned to never question laws, and never learned to mentally deal with contradictions in society I’m mad at the pronouns now! Those darn pronouns!
What?
Is this an actual question or are you being indignant? If you have actual questions can you please try to articulate them? If I try and answer you without knowing what questions you are asking, we are more likely to get frustrated.
Hopefully you aren’t just being indignant.
Your original comment is incoherent
I see. Well, i hope we never meet in person cuz this is just the way I tell jokes, and I’m always half joking. Watching you get irritated would probably only encourage me to keep doing it too
I don’t use pronouns and I don’t think you or they should either.
Yeah I’ll say I’m a goddamn elf if it means I get 5 extra years of not having to work
Nope you get to work in a toy factory 364 days a year GG
ggs
God damn legend status
Can’t wait to see that happen in Poland as well.
Why from that side of beaver curve?
Men retire 5 years later than women there as well.
It’s the Daily Mail, it’s most likely total fiction as they do this all the time.
Not this time, it’s real. Source: am argentine
Ah, good source, thanks! That weighs up everything!
Look in this thread: https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/12482757
Thanks, but that was not the point of my comment. I’m just happy about that post, because finally I learned women get more privileges than men and I can ignore everything I heard about wage gaps, glass ceilings, and sexism at work. What a relief!
Do you live in Argentina??? Hahaha
People gonna make this a trans thing and not a gender equality one… in most things women get the shitty treatment but with retirement and mental health its men
i’m going to make it both. we really do need to advance women’s equality before we let men take their identities in order to dilute the few offsets women have had legislated for them.
just like how many affirmative action band-aids are being ripped off before poc have actually gotten equal footing in society, we are pushing women’s advances backwards by pretending that we live in an equal society and allowing men to take advantage of the mechanisms meant to promote equality.
And office clothing in summer
You could always follow in the footsteps of these bus drivers:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/22/french-bus-drivers-skirts-dress-code-nantes
