I think they want to be paid equally for the work performed and be provided the same opportunities for advancement and leadership as men.

Do you mean to argue that women ought be grateful for living in a society where they can be cared for without the need to get their hands dirty and they're foolish to challenge the benefits they have? It's not clear what direction you wish your argument to lead.

You know TMF, not everything that seems goofy or hard to explain is a paradox.

You’re gonna need to clarify that one. You’re not making any sense at all.

2. Women want to work — TheMadFool

Given the realities of/for women in the workplace, I'd tread lightly with any remarks you might be tempted to make unless you are yourself a woman in the workplace.

If we're allowed to be more goofy and ignore whatever the proper context is...

Life is work, so if nobody wanted to work, we'd all be antinatalists or dead.

Woman should just refuse to reproduce and go on a sex strike to close the pay gap. Of course this is a collaborative impossibility, just like everything else in life. Unions are "evil" unless they are the unions that are allowed to be united... behind closed doors and on the boss' desk.

A war of the sexes might ensue though and we know what half of the species would enslave the other half, with their guns and dicks. Just watch the Handmaid's Tale.

Nobody wants to labor. Everybody, however, needs to be financially independent, that is, no matter the work they (need to) do (vide Hannah Arendt re: labor, work & action). Women same as men. The "paradox" results from your medieval – patriarchal – assumptions, Fool.

I think they want to be paid equally for the work performed and be provided the same opportunities for advancement and leadership as men.

Do you mean to argue that women ought be grateful for living in a society where they can be cared for without the need to get their hands dirty and they're foolish to challenge the benefits they have? It's not clear what direction you wish your argument to lead. — Hanover

Yes, you're right about all that you said. We're on the same page on that score.

What bothers me is no one really wants to work. If given the opportunity, we'd all like to laze around in a lounge like this thread which has been moved to the Lounge section of the forum. By "no one" I refer to both men and women. Most people, it seems, are forced to work - if they don't they'll end up on the streets.

The feminist spirit demands equality with men. I'm all for it but the irony is that achieving it involves, inter alia, women having to do what nobody wants to do (work). This is both absurd and tragic because both men and women have to do something (work) that neither of them want to, men to maintain their superiority and women to put an end to that superiority.

Both sexes have to do (work) what both don't want to do but for exactly the opposite reasons (for superiority & against superiority)

You know TMF, not everything that seems goofy or hard to explain is a paradox. — T Clark

Thanks for letting me know. As you might've already noticed, I like things "goofy or hard to explain" and I've gotten into the habit of labeling them paradoxes. That isn't entirely accurate but also not entirely inaccurate. I'm relying on the latter to justify my use of the word "paradox" See my reply to Hanover above.

You’re gonna need to clarify that one. You’re not making any sense at all. — Possibility

Check out my reply to Hanover above.

Given the realities of/for women in the workplace, I'd tread lightly with any remarks you might be tempted to make unless you are yourself a woman in the workplace. — tim wood

Sound advice. Thanks!

Woman should just refuse to reproduce and go on a sex strike to close the pay gap. — Nils Loc

Somehow that doesn't seem like a bad idea! :up: :clap:

The "paradox" results from your medieval – patriarchal – assumptions, Fool. — 180 Proof

:chin: My description of men & women in re work is up-to-date. It's an accurate account of the world as it was and is. The future though is unpredictable. Maybe someone will talk some sense into us, men and women, before this paradox ruins us all. Also, if you like, see my reply to Hanover above.

:smirk: No paradox, just an outdated premise.

No paradox, just an outdated premise. — 180 Proof

How can you be so sure?

1. Neither men nor women want to work (obvious).

2. Men have to work (for survival).

3. Women have to work (for surivival + for equality).

As you can see, women would be equal to men iff they too can say,

4. Women have to work (only for survival)

The point I'm trying to get across is that 4 doesn't seem to be the best of goals a woman's pretty head could think of.

To achieve status at par with men, women have to work. Once equalized with men, women still have to work. The catch is men don't want to work. That means women's idea of equality with men is to do what men don't want to do. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Just imagine yourself and me. You, let's say, are doing philosophy not because you want to but because you have to (basically you don't like philosophy). Suppose now that I look up to you as a role model. I too don't like philosophy but since I want to be your equal I take a university course in philosophy, get a doctorate in the subject. Now I am your equal (we're both philosophers) but the catch is we're both unhappy - we're doing something we don't want to do! We're equal, yes, but happy, no! Equality for women in re work comes at a very heavy price - they pay for it with happiness. Double jeopardy!

BTW: I know you love Sophia! :grin:

First of all, the premise that ‘nobody wants to work’ is false.

To work:
- to be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result;
- to be employed in a specified occupation or field.

To be employed:
- to be kept occupied or rendered useful, and be paid for it.

What nobody wants is to perceive reduced potential/value/significance with regards to work.

Nobody wants to be prevented from engaging in certain physical or mental activity to achieve a result, particularly based on unfounded assumptions.

Nobody wants work! Ask anybody you know. Also, children literally hate school, their abhorrence of homework being stuff of legend.

I guess ergophobia starts young!

Nobody wants work! Ask anybody you know. Also, children literally hate school, their abhorrence of homework being stuff of legend. — TheMadFool

Anyone who does work will tell you that they would choose NOT to work - IF they could still achieve the results that their work enables them to achieve.

Have you ever had to prove your worth? Have you ever been told to just stand back - that you can’t help - and known that you can? Have you ever heard that educating you would be a waste?

This is not a case of ‘nobody wants to work’. We have a natural tendency to improve efficiency and effectiveness - to achieve more with less effort and attention. Society, humanity, evolution - everything that works has this tendency. We’re not preferring to not work - this is misunderstanding - we’re preferring to work less for the same result. We want our effort and attention to have more potential, more value, more significance.

A student who hates homework fails to recognise the value of their effort. Children who hate school have lost sight of the potential it affords. Show me someone who has been refused an education, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t hate school.

First world problems.

Anyone who does work will tell you that they would choose NOT to work - IF they could still achieve the results that their work enables them to achieve. — Possibility

Exactly! So, best-case scenario:

1. Men have to work (for survival)Men don't want to work and men don't have to work (alignment of want with circumstances :up: )

2. Women have to work (for survival + equality) Too women don't want to work and women don't have to work (alignment of want with circumstances :up: )

Quite unlike how it was and is:

1. Men don't want to work but men have to work for survival (misalignment of want and circumstances :down: )

2. Women don't want to work but women have to work for survival + for equality (misalignment of want and circumstances :down: :down: because not only do women have to do what men don't want to do, they have to consider it an improvement/progress)

Have you ever had to prove your worth? — Possibility

Irrelevant.

How can you be so sure? — TheMadFool

Reread my post before my last on this thread. You only seem to understand the part you'd quoted. Sure? No, just more reasonable than your line of thought.

What bothers me is no one really wants to work. — TheMadFool

I don't really know why this bothers you or what it really means. Do I want to take the garbage out to the street for pickup? No, it's not particularly fun and I'd rather someone else do it for me, but I realize at a pretty basic level that things have to get done, from taking out the garbage, to brushing my teeth, to tying my shoes, and since @Baden refuses to be my manservant, I'm stuck doing these things on my own.

Whether I'd actually prefer to be waited on for every task, I don't know that I'd actually prefer that, meaning that at some level I do want to work and I do want to be productive. I'm not arguing some Protestant work ethic here, but I do believe there is significant emotional value for having a sense of purpose and duty.

Anyway, apples don't fall from trees into your mouth. You have to pick them. Such is the fate of man, and, as you've pointed out, woman as well. Maybe one day we'll evolve backwards into trees where the sun and rain will nourish us while we sway carefree in the wind.

Reread my post before my last on this thread. You only seem to understand the part you'd quoted. Sure? No, just more reasonable than your line of thought. — 180 Proof

Will do!

Nobody wants to labor. Everybody, however, needs to be financially independent, that is, no matter the work they (need to) do (vide Hannah Arendt re: labor, work & action). Women same as men. The "paradox" results from your medieval – patriarchal – assumptions, Fool. — 180 Proof

1. "Nobody wants to labor" :ok:

2. "Everybody, however, needs to be financially independent" :ok:

The catch is if 2 is true,

3. Everybody has to labor

Then 1 & 3 form the contradictory pair. Hence the paradox.

I still don't get why my assumptions are medieval/patriarchal? They reflect modern views people have of work. Plus, who says some things wouldn't stay the same.

there is significant emotional value for having a sense of purpose and duty. — Hanover

These are not to be found in work. That's why we don't want to work - it's just something we do to not starve to death, not end up under a bridge somewhere, not have nothing but rags to wear, you get the idea.

That said, there are a fortunate few who, as they say, have found their calling - they love their work, even then they have to work for the same reasons cited above, the love they have for their work simply being a bonus point.

By the way, I really like your writing style. :up:

1. "Nobody wants to labor" :ok:

2. "Everybody, however, needs to be financially independent" :ok:

The catch is if 2 is true,

3. Everybody has to labor

Then 1 & 3 form the contradictory pair. Hence the paradox. — TheMadFool

I don't see even an apparent paradox. E.g. children don't want to take unpleasant medicines yet the ones who recover from illnesses do. No paradox. WTF are you talking about, Fool? Comparing "wanting" and "doing" is a category mistake.

I like things "goofy or hard to explain" — TheMadFool

As we say here in Massachusetts, "So don't I," which, for some reason means the same as "So do I."

By the way, I really like your writing style. :up: — TheMadFool

Then up vote my posts. I'm currently in a competition with Baden, and I'm trouncing him.

1. Nobody wants to work

2. Women want to work (to close the gender gap)

WTF? :chin: — TheMadFool

I am a woman who willingly left the workforce to raise our family when my husband said if I stopped working he could double his income.
At the time it was a no-brainer as he was already making double what I was in money but deficient in other meaningful ways. Ways that I can not put a price tag on but in ways that are also drawing me back into the workforce today now that our youngest has graduated college.

So maybe it has to do with what each gender considers "wealth" at different stages in life?

I graduated Spring 2021 with dual Associates Degrees and am continuing onto ASU for my bachelor's degree. I began my college degrees in 1988 and will demand a higher income when I graduate.

And may I reflect back to those on this thread that suggest that women want to be treated as equals.
I am the lady who opens the door for either gender who also appreciates it opened for me.
But when it comes to equal pay?
I don't expect for mine to be equal to my male counterpart, I plan on making more than him.

I don't see even an apparent paradox. E.g. children don't want to take unpleasant medicines yet the ones who recover from illnesses do. No paradox. WTF are you talking about, Fool? Comparing "wanting" and "doing" is a category mistake. — 180 Proof

Medicine isn't the same thing as work - the former improves the situation (you become whole again) but the latter no matter what else it does, definitely can't be consideres an improvement (you have to work still). Your counter-analogy fails.

The paradox is clear as clear can be. Nobody (men & women) wants to work but, now that I think of it, women want to work. Women have an agenda (equality) over and above the real reason why people work (survival) and that makes them want to work. Women perceive work as part of the feminist struggle. That makes them blind to the fact work is not some kind of privilege or mark of superiority that men possess; instead it's actually a heavy burden, such a heavy burden that men would like nothing better than to get rid of it asap.

I don't expect for mine to be equal to my male counterpart, I plan on making more than him. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's the spirit! :clap: :up:

What you said here is germane to the issue I raise in this thread. Work isn't just about survival then, it also has the added feature of empowering people through money. If women earn the same/more than men then they (women) level the playing field in a manner of speaking - they can enter into relationships with men on an equal footing, not as a dependent but as a partner, even a boss :smile: . This makes a huge difference to women who are probably fed up of being under men's thumbs.

Thus,

1. Everybody wants to work (for power/money)

2. Women want to work (for power/money)

The power money gives, the effect work has, comes from its power over survival. The more/better you work, the more money you earn, the more independent you become, the more assertive you can be, in short equality.

However, if there were alternative means, a way other than having to work, to achieving what some governments call self-sufficiency...and more, men and women would grab them like their life depended on it, and actually it does.

The paradox is clear as clear can be. — TheMadFool

Like mud. :sweat:

What you said here is germane to the issue I raise in this thread. Work isn't just about survival then, it also has the added feature of empowering people through money — TheMadFool

I do things to entertain myself, like posting here, coming up with crazy ideas at work, trying to get the most up votes, stuff like that. I don't think you're going to come up with a comprehensive list of motivations for any task, including work.

Up vote please!

The paradox is clear as clear can be. Nobody (men & women) wants to work but, now that I think of it, women want to work. Women have an agenda (equality) over and above the real reason why people work (survival) and that makes them want to work. Women perceive work as part of the feminist struggle. That makes them blind to the fact work is not some kind of privilege or mark of superiority that men possess; instead it's actually a heavy burden, such a heavy burden that men would like nothing better than to get rid of it asap. — TheMadFool

You’re not getting it. The ‘feminist struggle’ has nothing to do with obtaining some value, potential or significance that work offers in itself - it’s about the value, potential or significance of work that women do.

2. Women want to work (to close the gender gap) — TheMadFool

This is a ridiculous misinterpretation. Women want equal pay for equal work, and they want to NOT be discouraged or bullied out of career choices because they’re female. But they work for the same variety of reasons that men do. That a gender gap (in some industries and positions) still needs to be closed has nothing to do with why women enter the workforce. I don’t get why you feel the need to make this distinction.

If you’re talking about the workforce level gender gap - the fact that fewer women are working overall than men - then this isn’t about wanting to work. It’s about overcoming disincentives.

It’s about the notion that women ‘aren’t working’ when they don’t have employment outside the home - the work they do is devalued, a ‘life of leisure’. Yet if they do go to work, they have to factor inflated childcare and housekeeping costs into that decision, sometimes to work for lower pay than if they were male in the same position. It’s about the unspoken reluctance to hire a woman over a man because she either has children or ‘will probably be pregnant soon’. It’s about the notion that when a child is sick the mother stays home with them. Or that if a woman returns to work soon after childbirth (probably because her job does pay better than his), she’s abandoning her baby, but her house-husband is a saint. Or that shift work is the ideal job for women, so she can take care of the kids, get all the daily household chores done and still work (while everyone else gets to sleep). Or maybe a service role - but not a career that might raise her profile or bring her personal or professional satisfaction in itself....

All of this conceals a general disparity: the physical and mental activity of women is socio-culturally worth less than men. This is because the value, potential and significance of work is determined relative to the perceived capacity of the average male. Let me break down the ridiculousness of this for you.

“Men should earn more because they are physically stronger on average.” This is a common argument for physically demanding work, and on the surface it makes sense because yes, men typically are physically stronger. But this results in the stronger men earning what they’re worth, and the stronger women earning less than men they could out-work any day of the week. Less pay because of their gender, not their capacity. Hmm.

This doesn’t work the other way, though. Skills and capacities where women perform better than men on average don’t warrant the same kind of pay disparity. In fact, service, teaching and healthcare industries, where women are typically considered more capable than men, pay less even for physically or mentally demanding work compared with male-dominated industries. The value of work here is determined relative to the perceived capacity not even of men who choose to work in these industries, but of the average or typical male.

So, work where the average male achieves more pays more, no matter what the work is or who is doing it. It seems like equality, but it isn’t.

1. Nobody wants to work — TheMadFool

Eh?

I suppose there are people who indeed prefer to lounge around all day and be waited on. But is everyone like that? I doubt it.

Many people probably hate working in lowly positions in a capitalist system, where they are pushed to work at the edge of exhaustion for very little pay and always under the threat of losing their job.

In contrast, working on a traditional farm is far more evened out in terms of strain and far more rewarding, even though on the whole, it's hard work.

Women want equal pay for equal work — Possibility

But often, they're not doing equal work. They're probably doing equal work in, say, a factory setting working at a conveyor belt. But in many other places, they aren't. Some types of work are such that only one gender is better suited for it, and also where (good) looks and age matter. Gender/appearance is often a part of the job description and job performance, even if it is not directly stated as such. This is a cultural given. Imagine an elderly fat man working as a kindergarten nurse, or a young poor looking woman selling luxury items for men. It just doesn't compute. In many lines of work, a person's qualifications matter not if they don't look the part.

Part of the pay is also the prospect of the employee being consistently available for work over a long period of time. Generally, men are in this regard more reliable than women, for men don't typically take maternity leave, nor do they miss work because they need to attend to the children, such as missing time from work when the children are sick. This is why men are payed more for what seems like the same work: they are payed for their prospective availability. Of course, this is not specified on a person's employment contract or paycheck, it's a cultural assumption.

Of course, this is not specified on a person's employment contract or paycheck, it's a cultural assumption. — baker

~pounding my head against the wall :shade:

After all you said in your above post, it is fully cancelled by your last line, which is often a summary of the point.

Up until now I didn't like the "cancel culture" to the point I would debate it's impact to the nth degree, much to the dismay of my offspring but I will be dipped if you didn't just score a BIG old point for them. Well done :brow:

What does the word "assumption" also mean?
Anyone?

Let me put it more clearly: my adult children are just as interested in "paternity" leave as they are maternity leave. In fact one of my boys fully intends on being a stay at home parent.

I am amazed at the old school of thought being as present as you suggest in today's workforce but then again I am only on my way back onto the highway that pays in dollars and for me: sense.

:cheer: :clap: :sparkle: To the youth and beyond :100:

one of my boys fully intends on being a stay at home parent. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Theoretically men can breastfeed, though it may require hormonal injections of some kind.

Theoretically men can breastfeed, though it may require hormonal injections of some kind. — praxis

I stockpiled my milk so I could return to work at 8 weeks after birth and our baby had 6 months of my milk.
Yes the milk is a supply and demand function.

And let me just say that we found out that my pregnancy was going to be induced on a Tuesday, my husband NicK worked my two remaining shifts of the Thursday and Friday before. :strong:

Oh and we never used child care outside of our immediate family. My boss allowed me to bring our son with me to the office two days a week and my husband did two days at his office and the last day was picked up by a Grandparent.

If you are good at what you do and are loyal, you would be surprised how accommodating people can be. :flower:

Eh?

I suppose there are people who indeed prefer to lounge around all day and be waited on. But is everyone like that? I doubt it. — baker

Nobody wants to work. :point:

hard work. — baker

:point: I wish I could make the finger point up.