EricHiggin said:
I've had more than a few woman tell me over the years that they would never hire a man to babysit their kids, aside from a well trusted family member that is. Growing up, my parents never let a man babysit my brother and I. It was always a woman, and fairly young woman sometimes. I have little doubt that was mostly mom's decision, as she hardly trusted our own father, and for no good reason really. The difference with dad is that you just weren't pampered constantly, which apparently was oh so horrible as far as she was concerned. Not only that, but my close friends who have kids, have never asked me to babysit, or the other guys, yet our female friends always do. If I were an idiot, or untrustworthy, or the guy who fails at anything he attempts, then that would be a no brainer, but the only thing that makes any sense is they also believe it's in their child's best interests to have females taking care of them. Not like it matters personally because not having to babysit isn't a loss for me at all, plus I myself don't necessarily disagree, as I personally feel woman are much better at taking care of children in general. I wouldn't see the logic in complaining that there's a gender gap in taking care of kids, and if men were doing a worse job when they were, then they would deserve to be paid less. If they don't want to accept less, then they likely won't end up getting hired at all. |
| Chrkeller said: Comparing a high paying STEM job to babysitting.... wow. Some people are just special. I especially like the "sexism doesn't exist and it is ok to purposely not hire based on gender" argument. That isn't a paradox in the slightest. |
I don't see where I said sexism doesn't exist. I did say some people clearly exhibit sexism, and based on the case, I don't see the problem at times.
Are you suggesting STEM workers are more important or better than babysitters? That sounds an awful lot like woman are better than men, or vice versa. I take it part of a STEM interview is being asked if you've ever babysat, and if so, you won't be getting hired because you're clearly not part of the elite? What good is a future in the STEM field as a gifted child, if your babysitter is incompetent and causes you serious harm that jeopardizes that future?
You are right about it not being a paradox though.
PS1 - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.
PS2 - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.
PS3 - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.
PS4 - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.
PRO -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.
PS5 - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.
PRO -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.







