posted
If men and women are inherently different such that the optimal configuration of a family is a father and mother, then does it not follow that these differences might lend themselves to a society segregating men and women so that these differences may optimally be expressed? For instance, let's say that there is a very low probability that men will have character trait X that women have in abundance. Does it not follow that society, businessmen, should take note of this and tailor job roles and expectations accordingly?
I'm not sure that I'm arguing for anything. I would just like to talk about this and kind of see where it leads.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
a) Men and women are inherently different b) These differences are important
= Idea A
c) Society should segregate people based on their innate skills
= Idea B
A+B = Segregation of sexes
My main problem is with B. It seems wrong morally to me, and can be applied to every single group, racial, social, et cetra.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, how do you feel about the dystopia of Brave New World, in which people are bred to be good at their jobs and content in them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think society ought to be as gender blind as possible, allowing for the maximum degree of self-determination. People should be able to determine their own "gender roles".
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do these sort of gender roles really exist, or are they culturally constructed? And, if they are culturally constructed, then waht about people who don't fit the norm like butchy atheletic women or effeminate men. What do they say about these roles, are they just freaks or wild cards or part of the spectrum? Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem I see with your question is..
quote:society segregating men and women so that these differences may optimally be expressed
When society is making the decision to optimize the difference, you are usurping the individual right to choose in favor of a system where choices are determined by society. From reading your previous posts, I am left to assume you already agree with me that this is wrong and you are using this post to drive home that having society segregating homosexuals’ right to choose marriage is wrong.
If that is your intent, then I see 3 things wrong.
1. Homosexuals do have the same opportunity to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.
2. Society is working through the body of laws to grant the most freedoms, and there are great strides in having civil unions.
3. I think my position of the historical evolution of family law does not segregate anyone, it just calls for a different structure of laws to deal with a different structure of unity....if that is the case, please see the "On fairness" thread.
If I have misread your intent of this post, I apologize and will just stick with my assertion that state sponsored choices are evil and anti-life. Brave New World says it better then I ever could.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote in a thread about the obvious difference in sports between men and women. Take athletics for example: the majority (if not all, I'm not sure) of the world records are better for men than for women. The physical strength of men is *usually* greater than that of women.
But... If, when applying for a job, a woman performs better than any other male candidate, why shouldn't she get it ?! If a job is really better suited for men or for women, then it is most likely that they'll do better at whatever test they're given. But if someone of the other sex performs better, by all means, hire that person !
Another example from sports: in the top 100 chess players, you see 99 men, and one woman ! Of course it has to do with men generally being more interested in chess than women - due to various reasons, I won't discuss them now -, but does this mean she shouldn't have the same opportunities that men have ? She had the courage to play in male tournaments, and won. She's now a Grand Master. She earned that title. So I see no reason why she wouldn't be allowed to have it...
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
edit: I don't think that it is possible for society to be gender-blind unless people are gender-blind. Fairness and equal opportunity are good thing, but trying to be blind seems a waste of effort. Does it matter to you whether or not you are male or female? It probably does. It's a very important part of each person.
posted
Alexa, is it not your position that men and women are inherently different and that it is because of this ineherent difference, the law is constructed as it is for marriage?
posted
Of the three "hinges" that Phanto pointing out from the text of the opening statement, I would agree with (a) and (b) (although I'm not sure exactly how important the difference is -- it may not be that important).
(c) I have a problem with. Because that seems to leave a lot of free will and choice out of the equation.
posted
We need some structure in society, which means that some people will not fit. But we should shoot for the optimal majority being happy, free to be who they are, and productive. The optimal majority would be as many and as diverse as possible.
But there will always be people who don't fit.
Not enough system and civilization quickly erodes as it becomes everybody for himself.
Too much system and people lose their freedoms. This leads to a reduction in diversity and happiness. You might think that such a people could be more productive, but the history of the Soviet Bloc countries pretty much disproves this. People start doing the bare minimum acceptable. People who excel are typically stifled by their peers because it makes their peers look bad.
The difficulty is in finding that Golden Mean.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think most (or at least a lot) of life is about making up and trying to overcome for your innate shortcomings, and I wouldn't want to deny people the chance to do that.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: is because of this ineherent difference, the law is constructed
When I read that it makes me think the law is constructed to support the differences. That is not the case. The differences are real. The laws are constructed to work some sort of arbitrary equality around those differences.
Lets say 2 people get a divorce. Since men tend to make more money then women, and money is a major source of power, then men would have the power to take the kids and leave the mom with nothing. If we add to that example a mom who sacrificed her education and career to support the family, then we can see the need for a law to provide financial restitution/support to the abandoned mom.
We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
The laws are more in place to equalize difference that already exists, I take exception with your implication that the laws are used to govern peoples decisions because society "knows best."
Family law has developed around a very specific definition of family. Making a separate union with it's own set of laws for homosexual unions makes sense to me. Homosexual issues are qualitatively different then those faced by traditional marriages.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People are inherently different. And only the person themselves can know what is the right job or role for them. The bad part is when roles are imposed from the outside, instead of being chosen by the individual.
I wonder why all the clasically female teenage jobs like babysitting pay so much less than the classically male teenage jobs like mowing lawns? And why, since that's the case, would girls not decide to do the things that pay more? A high school kid who did my yard made $50 for around 2 hours of work, or 2 1/2 max. He did have more capital expenses (mower, weedeater, and blower) yet his parents bore almost all of those. What do babysitters make nowadays? Much less than that, isn't it?
Why would girls not flock to jobs like mowing lawns, I wonder, and away from babysitting, and therefore even up the teen job market? The only reason I can see is society's expectations. The main way I'm different from most girls is that I am not influenced much by society's expectations. I've always felt my own choices for what I wanted to do overruled society's.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: The laws are more in place to equalize difference that already exists, I take exception with your implication that the laws are used to govern peoples decisions because society "knows best."
I don't see where I said that society 'knows best' (edit: or implied it). As far as I can tell, I am saying exactly what you are saying--that laws/society are constructed because there are inherent differences between the sexes.
posted
I agree that women are inherently different than men. And I agree that these differences are important. I believe they lead to general tendencies for specific roles in life. The trouble comes, however, when someone tries to apply ideas that are true in general, but may not be true in relation to a specific person. Imposing specific consequences on general truths strikes me as a bad idea.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
Are there any experts out there who can verify the veracity of this statement? It doesn't seem true to me, but I could be wrong.
quote:Homosexuals do have the same opportunity to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Wouldn't supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex be supporting reproductively dysfunctional marriages? And, as a thought experiment, what effects, if any, would advocating such marriages do to long term divorce rates?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder why all the clasically female teenage jobs like babysitting pay so much less than the classically male teenage jobs like mowing lawns? And why, since that's the case, would girls not decide to do the things that pay more? A high school kid who did my yard made $50 for around 2 hours of work, or 2 1/2 max. He did have more capital expenses (mower, weedeater, and blower) yet his parents bore almost all of those. What do babysitters make nowadays? Much less than that, isn't it?
Why would girls not flock to jobs like mowing lawns, I wonder, and away from babysitting, and therefore even up the teen job market? The only reason I can see is society's expectations. The main way I'm different from most girls is that I am not influenced much by society's expectations. I've always felt my own choices for what I wanted to do overruled society's.
Uhhhh..... I think you're way overpaying your yard worker. I did a lot of both yard work (mowing, weeding, raking) and babysitting/day care as a kid, and they paid about the same, around $10/hour or less. $25/hour for a high schooler doing anything is insane.
And while I hated both babysitting and lawnmowing, I would have picked the former over the latter any day of the week, even if lawnmowing had paid more. Yard work sucks, especially in 100+ temperatures. Heck, you still choose not to do it yourself, by hiring the high schooler. It's not that girls don't choose to do yard work, it's that girls aren't forced to do yard work as often as boys are.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize. When I read all of your posts on this thread, including the first post, I got the impression that you were implying society should be the deciding mechanism with regards to individual choice because they “know best.”
quote: Does it not follow that society, businessmen, should take note of this and tailor job roles and expectations accordingly?
Since there are inherent differences between genders, and you were arguing that we should use these differences to determine what people should be able to do with work, gender roles, and parenting, my natural conclusion was that you were using the ridiculousness of your position (juxtaposed on my arguments against homosexual marriage), to weaken my argument that admitting homosexual unions under traditional marriage laws was not logical.
I do sometimes read people wrong. My apologies.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your argument is that all the Trait X's are variables in all people. While, in general, Trait X is higher in men than in women, there are many specific men that have it much lower than many specific women.
This is hard for some people to believe. They insist that no woman can do a job requiring high X, or that no man can do a job requiring low X.
So deciding arbitrarilly that one's gender decides your future is not good.
Besides, you leave out the question of how we determine what jobs X is required for. Besides siring children, no job comes to mind that men are specifically designed to do.
No job, besides birthing babies, comes to mind that a woman is specifically designed to do.
There are many loving, caring, motherly men out there, and if they want to be "Stay At Home Moms" then their children are very lucky.
Even if that man is in love with another man.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think society ought to be as gender blind as possible, allowing for the maximum degree of self-determination. People should be able to determine their own "gender roles".
I totally agree with this.
I guess I'm unusual in this thread in not being convinced of Phanto's premises A and B. Beyond that, if I grant that they are generally true, I don't see the relevance of it. So what if one gender often outperforms the other in some specific role? In what way does it benefit society to codify this? You wouldn't hire a drug-addicted 17-year-old stripper to abysit your kids just because she was female. So clearly, we still exercise discretion. It is in this discretion that things like exceptions to the norm can be taken into account.
Create a system that allows people to do what they are best suited for, and happiest doing, regardless of whether or not they are typical of their gender.
-o-
quote:We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
I disagree with this quite vehemently.
When did we determine this? I missed the memo.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there any experts out there who can verify the veracity of this statement? It doesn't seem true to me, but I could be wrong.
Wouldn't supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex be supporting reproductively dysfunctional marriages? And, as a thought experiment, what effects, if any, would advocating such marriages do to long term divorce rates?
Saxon75
After work, I will get the references that show women tend to get custody because they gave birth to the children. I was thinking anecdotal evidence would be enough support that claim. If you want expert opinion or references, I will try and oblige. UofUlawguy...do you know where I can research Saxon75's concern?
Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite sex. I am not sure it would affect divorce rate. Heterosexuals have already done a dandy job of taking out the sanctity of marriage. lol
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I apologize. When I read all of your posts on this thread, including the first post, I got the impression that you were implying society should be the deciding mechanism with regards to individual choice because they “know best.”
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does it not follow that society, businessmen, should take note of this and tailor job roles and expectations accordingly?
Since there are inherent differences between genders, and you were arguing that we should use these differences to determine what people should be able to do with work, gender roles, and parenting, my natural conclusion was that you were using the ridiculousness of your position (juxtaposed on my arguments against homosexual marriage), to weaken my argument that admitting homosexual unions under traditional marriage laws was not logical.
I do sometimes read people wrong. My apologies.
Alexa, if it is logical that society constructs marriage law in such a way as to recognize the inherent difference between the sexes, as it seems you have been arguing and citing, is it not, therefore, logical to extend this to the work place?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:the references that show women tend to get custody because they gave birth to the children.
I don't dispute that this us the way the system is. Because the system is sexist. I dispute that this is automatically the way the system should be, or that we have anything like consensus on the issue.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
is causing.
I stand by it is true. I don't stand by it is right or that there is a memo, but mothers traditionally have had an easier time of getting custody then fathers. And it makes sense to me that it is easier for mothers to get custody then fathers due to the fact that they give birth and society tends to honor mother-rights over father-rights.
Does anyone think it is as easy in America for fathers to retain custody of children as it is for mothers?
This ties back into my original argument. There are heated debates and changes happening in family-law. Mothers’ tendency to get custody is one of those debates. Fathers do spend more to keep the children, unless the mom is grossly incompetent. Now we are seeing an evolution where fathers are getting more custody rights, this evolution of family law is based on male-female unions and perceived inequalities that have either existed or do exist.
The issues of heterosexual unions are qualitatively different then those faced by homosexual unions, and so it makes sense we can not apply heterosexual laws to homosexual unions.
If gay people want heterosexuals to not just accept/tolerate their lifestyle, but embrace homosexuality, they can have a campaign for heterosexuals to abandon traditional marriage and opt for civil unions.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I'm trying to talk about, Icarus. Is the system sexist because the sexes themselves are different, and the law reflects this, or is it sexist because of 'artificial' reasons?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, y'all need to be less sneaky in disguising gay marriage threads as gender role threads.
Did I say, yet? I am in favor of allowing gay marriage. I don't think there's any danger of it perverting anyone's children or that it damages other marriages or society in any conceivable way. People who love each other and want to marry should marry. I believe one day the revelation will come to the LDS church, as well, to embrace gay couples in our wards and to marry them in the temple. I pray for that day.
My sister made me laugh when she pointed out how touching it is that many gays feel so strongly about marriage. All her straight professional married friends, she said, seem to feel much less respect and honor toward the institution of marriage than that. So she was touched. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... because there are inequalities in our current system we shouldn't let homosexuals marry because those inequalities won't be present and the system can't handle that?
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this one.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: is it not, therefore, logical to extend this to the work place
It is completely logical to level the playing field in the work place. Remember, the laws in marriage are *trying* to make the inequalities more fair.
The laws in marriage are not delegating roles based on gender, but rather, if there are distinct roles individuals have assumed that have caused inequalities The laws are in place to level the playing field.
I go back to the mom who sacrificed her career and education for her family. If the husband leaves, we have made arbitrary laws to compensate for her family support and sacrifices.
In the workplace we have laws in place to keep the playing field more equal with regard to gender. The laws at work are different then marriage laws because the issues at work at qualitatively different then marriage issues.
Just like work laws are different then marriage laws (because of the difference in issues being faced), homosexual laws will need to be different then heterosexual laws.
I have no where supported that laws delegate what role you can assume.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is completely logical to level the playing field in the work place. Remember, the laws in marriage are *trying* to make the inequalities more fair.
This is the first that I"ve heard you use the word 'fair' as to what the marriage laws are trying to accomplish. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention. I thought your contention was that
quote: Just like work laws are different then marriage laws (because of the difference in issues being faced), homosexual laws will need to be different then heterosexual laws.
Are the issues faced not different because you have two people of the same sex in a relationship rather than two people of the opposite sex? That is, isn't the law, your belief of what the law should be, ignoring the individuals involved in the relationship in favor of the sex of the individuals and, therefore, making an assumption about differences?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument against homosexual marriage is founded on two contentions.
1. The family laws in place have developed to accommodate male-female unions. Homosexual unions OR traditional marriages will need a new set of laws to apply to a new type of union.
**Yes we can add new laws to traditional marriage or we can add new laws to. I am just saying that allowing homosexuals to marry will not give the legal support they are looking for any more then civil unions.
2. The other reason to marry is for the social status. If the majority of Americans feel uneasy with homosexual marriages, then it should not be legislated that homosexual unions are embraced.
If homosexuals have such a problem with traditional marriage (and the bias within), then I encourage homosexuals to have homosexual-unions or civil unions, and then they can have a campaign to get heterosexual couples to forgo the outdated traditional marriage and get civil unions themselves.
Why force a change in traditional marriage if it will not offer any legal incentive?
Is there anyone who supports my position here on Hatrack? I am feeling a little lonely.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there are few marriage laws remaining that continue to distinguish on the basis of gender. The few I can think of (such as the presumption of the husband's paternity for children born of a married woman while the couple reside together. It's residual from the days when paternity could not be established medically.
Property laws in most states have been explicitly changed to remove gender-specific classifications (dower right, etc.). In those states they haven't been changed, they have generally been reinterpreted to have that effect. Any states where this is not true need to change their laws to keep up with the times.
Dagonee
Edit: What aspect of the family laws in place would have to be redesigned to accommodate homosexual unions?
quote:Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite sex. I am not sure it would affect divorce rate. Heterosexuals have already done a dandy job of taking out the sanctity of marriage.
Allow me to clarify what I meant when I was asking this:
quote:Wouldn't supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex be supporting reproductively dysfunctional marriages?
To be slightly less oblique, is there no logical flaw or hypocrisy in using both the statement "Same sex marriages are reproductively dysfunctional" and the statement "Homosexuals are already allowed to marry people of the opposite sex" as arguments against same sex marriages? I posit that since marriages between a woman and a homosexual man or a man and a homosexual woman are arguably reproductively dysfunctional in the general case, using both statements as arguments for the same ideal constitutes a logical flaw.
As for my second question, while I have no data to substantiate my opinion, I believe that should opposite-sex marriages involving one or more homosexuals become more common, divorce will become more common. This, arguably, further erodes the traditional family/marriage that so many people are trying to protect by preventing same-sex marriage. It's also not a huge leap to say that this would cause more single-parent households.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have always contended that the laws are trying to level the playing field of inequalities. Isn't that the nature of fairness?
Anyways,
I am not saying what I think the laws should be, I am just pointing out that the laws have been built around male-female unions. Same gender unions will face different issues. Do you disagree that the laws have been developing to work out issues not of just individuals, but also of gender inequalities? I am not saying what is morally right, I am saying what has legally developed and why.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I will see. I started this arguement to explore a new angle to look at the marriage debate. I will do some research.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak - I think you paid your teenage worker more than we would. If we have a kid mow our lawn, he gets about 10 dollars. Once he wacked the weeds too for a spare computer part. The computer part might be worth more, but this typically isn't a desirable thing for the girls, and it was no real expense for us since it was a leftover from upgrades.
It does take less time, but we are paying him for the job, not the time.
We pay our babysitter, when we have one, about 1.50 an hour per child. That is 4.50 an hour. She typically makes 15-20 dollars. We are paying her for the time, rather than the job.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a relation between StormSaxon and Saxon75? I just noticed the similarities in the name.
note: Does that smiley face look like the Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffanys?" What a horribly racist movie. Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Girls don't need computer parts? Wow, that's an odd thought.
I'm paying market rates, maybe plus 10%. I like to find good people and pay them a little more than they could get elsewhere so they are motivated to stay with me and make me a priority.
So the job of managing small children, caring for them and interacting with them, is not as big a job as whacking weeds and grass, even though it takes more time? I don't get that either.
All I know is that traditionally male jobs pay a lot more per hour than traditionally female jobs. My theory is it has nothing to do with the job at all, (from all I can see it does not) but rather with the testosterone or lack thereof of those who traditionally did it.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: Heck, you still choose not to do it yourself, by hiring the high schooler.
-Ayelar
Just to make it clear, I don't hire out my yardwork because I'm a girl. I do it because it's not a job I enjoy, and I can work an extra hour at my engineering job which I DO enjoy and more than pay for the yardwork. I also hire out housework for the same reason. I'd rather work a little longer at my real job, and then be able to play and be off when I'm off.
Sometimes I do my own housework and yardwork too. It's according to how I feel, how broke I am, and if I've currently got someone good to do either.
[ April 05, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there a relation between StormSaxon and Saxon75? I just noticed the similarities in the name.
You know, I was going to make a crack about Storm and I being gay lovers, but I didn't know if you'd realize it was a joke or not. No, there is no relation.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stormy, corollary to the above (I was headed out the door when I posted), sometimes it is worth imposing general restrictions based on general truths, that may unfairly restrict specific people who do not fit those general truths. Why? For the good of society in general. Standardized testing might be an excellent example of this -- we apply a general exam to rate the general competency of a group of children. The test, however, is applied individually, and for some it may be grossly unfair.
I think it is reasonable to apply greater weight to a mother when deciding on custody, especially when the child is very young. It is reasonable, because in those early years the mother generally plays a much larger role in the child's life than the father. That's not to say the father has NO role, or that the father's role is unnecessary -- I believe small children *need* fathers in a huge way. But if we must choose one or the other, generally, I believe the child is better off with the mother. But what a sucky choice. I'd prefer to see them figure out how to stay together instead.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Standardized testing might be an excellent example of this -- we apply a general exam to rate the general competency of a group of children.
Given the extreme controversy of standardized testing in both the education community and at large, I'm not sure if that's really the best example to be using.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:in those early years the mother generally plays a much larger role in the child's life than the father
Would you say that this is because fathers have an inherently different role in parenting than mothers, or is it more due to cultural influences and inertia?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dan_raven in the on fairness thread has gotten me to re-examine my potential voting stance on gay marriage.
I have always maintained that civil unions are good and perfectly capable of deeling with same-sex unions, but he is right, if all states don't honor the union, it really is inferior.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak - when my girls were very young, we only had family or very close friends watch them, and we traded. At this point, a babysitter is almost more like a playmate. She is only two years older than my oldest. My youngest is six. They play games and watch movies. Often the babysitter gets a meal as well.
You are paying teenagers what is usually paid a business that does need to recoup the costs of gas and machinery maintenance, plus pay workers comp insurance, taxes, and pay their workers enough to live on, plus ten percent. This money may very well be luxury money for the kid (or not, they might need to be helping their family). If that is what the teenagers are charging in your area, then they've got quite a thing going.
I pay the kid what he would get, probably more since it doesn't take two hours to do our lawn, if he were working for such a business.
I understand it isn't because you're a girl. I can fix our car and change the oil in it, but we pay others to do it because I don't like to. But if this were a luxury we couldn't afford, it would be me doing the car work. I installed our garbage disposal. In general, I'm the handywoman of the house.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
If a job is really better suited for men or for women, then it is most likely that they'll do better at whatever test they're given. But if someone of the other sex performs better, by all means, hire that person !![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
