Why does "Blind Banker" bother some people?

[Arcadia]

Arcadia, thank you for sharing that perspective.  That's what I mean by being able to explain a worldview in such a way that people can take it in.  I don't think your vision is idealized, so much as I think it comes from a different context and different experiences than I knew/know. My perspective is also from people who I think do and mean a lot of good in the world.

And thank you for saying that; usually when I come out with stuff like that, the reaction is derision "you must live in a dream world" or disbelief "nobody's like that" ... insteading of accepting that my life experience is different than theirs. Which, of course, simply serves to get my back up. :(

 

I'll take your example, quoted below:

All I can say is, the way I was raised and educated, the things the privileged were being asked to do were not considered punishment. Pay more taxes so those without can have better lives? That's patriotism where I grew up, not a punishment. Change the housing rules so a person of color can move in next door? In my world, that's only playing fair, not being punished. Send my kids to a different school ... well, I said I don't like it either, but it would never have occurred to me to regard it as a punishment, but as a civic duty. Give up my seat on a bus so an older person can sit ... even though she's a different color than I am? When I was growing up, that was just manners.

 

First, the way I was raised, changing housing rules to admit people of color (gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) and giving up a seat on a bus to an older person are no-brainers.  The latter, as you say, is manners, and the first is equal opportunity. Anyone who can do something (like buy a house in a given neighborhood) should be allowed to do it, full stop.  So, to my background, those are givens.

 

Now, as far as paying more taxes being patriotism, that's where I would disagree.  For most of my life, including now, being asked to pay more taxes could tip me or people I know off a knife edge between the ability to help their kids go to college or not, or the ability to pay for a new roof on the house versus going into debt to do so. I grew up with and am mostly surrounded by people who are one job loss or one major expense (including taxes) away from a substantial change in standard of living - making too much money to get any tax breaks or subsidies and too proud to want to ever do anything but pay their way and only their way.  I am and am from the kind of people for whom one cancelled project, one eliminated shift at the factory (not a day, but elimination of third shift for the season), or one blip in the economic landscape causes a burst of terror.  I myself have shed tears over this kind of event, wondering how we're going to make up for the loss or what kind of part time job or side hustle is going to have to be added to the mix to keep things stable.

 

I grew up with farmers who have always known their income depends on how the crop comes in this year, and people in manufacturing with crazy-intricate skills who have watched $25 an hour jobs (in the 1980s) become $12 an hour jobs while they are told to "get over" the decline in the sector and just "retool" - when that means going back to school for an additional degree in one's 50s or 60s, making retirement all but impossible. And with both of those comes the worry that your body will give out long before you have enough money put together to pay your bills, and there probably won't be a Social Security there even as a supplement.

 

I grew up with and am surrounded by a lot of people who would help your family out in an emergency - bring food, literally rebuild a barn after a fire, give rides to work while you get your ancient car repaired, but who bristle at the idea of politicians who live in 6,000 sq. foot houses in gated communities deciding when it is time for people to give more money for the common good.  I grew up with people who trust fixing these problems on a town or neighborhood level but who are increasingly suspicious of anything that happens at a governmental level.

 

At the same time, I grew up with the belief that any of us could work our way into being affluent, if we just worked hard enough, so you treat those who have "made it" the way you yourself want to be treated.  That's ingrained in me.  Hard work will get you anywhere.  I will probably die believing that if I don't get to where I want to be in life, it will be because I didn't work hard enough.  Heck, let's just stipulate I will die thinking I didn't work hard enough - that's my personality on top of my upbringing.

 

Yep, I get it. But here's the thing; that's exactly the way my parents grew up, during the Depression. My mother particularly; raised on a mountaintop in Tennessee. No, wait, that was Davy Crockett. :D She was raised on a farm in Tennessee. My dad was from an industrial city, wanted college but couldn't afford it. The Depression was actually worse for him; at least my mother's family could raise most of their own food. But the next meal for both their families was just one disaster away.

 

And then along came Big Government and saved them all (as they tell it.) My uncle found work in a CCC camp. My dad went to university on the GI bill. The family farm became profitable. Etc etc. So perhaps it's understandable why they came to see government as a force for good, and not something to despise.

 

But I agree with Carol; the problem now is money. For example; too much of it is needed to run for office, so that only people of considerable means are able to. The "regular folk" are cut out, because the system rewards cash expenditures more than it does ideas. It's a bit ... troubling.

 

However ... as much as I am predisposed to resent those million dollar homes they all seem to live in, I will say this ... if you actually get to know your politicians, most of them are, in fact, just regular people too. Of course there's a few blowhards and toadies, but that's true in all walks of life; it's not unique to politics. Most of them (well, maybe it's only the ones I've met, which isn't all that many) genuinely want to make government work for their constituents. That's why they went into the field in the first place (and I'm talking about career politicians here, not, ahem, someone else.) So even though I think my congressman is a wrongheaded, misguided fool ;) I also have met him and found him to be genuinely interested in helping the people in his district, whether they voted for him or not. I don't agree with his ideas on how best to do that, but I believe he means well. I hope he's able to. Meanwhile, I live and hope that eventually my neighbors will see the error of their ways and vote the bum out. :P

 

And finally, as to people who can't pay both their taxes and their house repair bills; I wouldn't consider them among the privileged, would you? To me, they are the ones being tromped on, and they are the ones who deserve a hand up. But if you lived, as I do, in Northern Virginia, you would see a level of privilege that is truly mind-boggling. Inherited estates worth millions on which they pay little to no taxes. Multi-million dollar homes with 20 rooms and only two people living in them. Vast acres being mowed by some guy earning minimum wage, and not a single cow or horse grazing on them; they're just front lawns. Multiple vacations a year to exotic, faraway places. Sorry, but no one has been able to show me numbers that would prove these people cannot afford to pay more taxes. They simply don't want to, imo, and I find it difficult to be sympathetic.

 

Interestingly enough, though, some of them would agree with me.

 

However, let me say I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here:

 

But the world's changed and the privileged of that time are often the ones who are struggling now ... and the super privileged are so stratospherically beyond the rest of us, they get to make up their own rules, and everyone else be damned.

 

Yeah, ^^^ that.  I don't want to believe that my lot in life was determined the day I was born into a certain social class.  I don't want to believe the upper echelons of our society are forever closed to me, no matter how many degrees I get, how refined my manners are, how well-put-together I can be, or how hard I work.  It scares me that this is starting to be the conclusion in this country.

 

 

Yup.

 

Well, ideally, taxes wouldn't be "for the government" but an investment in the future and the community. Taxes payed for my education for example and I am pretty sure that during the few years I have been working so far, I haven't even come close to paying that back out of my income.

 

But of course we don't live in an ideal world and tax money is being wasted left and right. A "toilet concept" for our capitol is actually among the more sensible uses it has been put to recently.

Well, some governments are definitely more corrupt than others. But having worked in (local) government myself, I have to say I was mostly reassured the money was being spent well. On the other hand, my nephew, who is in the military, can tell nightmare stories about military spending. As could my father about the state college system. So ... yeah, you need the right people in place, and it does seem the higher up the chain you go, the more difficult it gets to control spending. Plus, we don't all agree on what's appropriate. I would double the budget to fight climate change, for example. I have friends who don't even believe it exists. Difficult to find compromise in that space.

 

But what I really meant to say was: what, pray tell, is a "toilet concept"?

 

 

 

... that really is the kind of people I grew up with. People who genuinely believed that when they were passed over for a job in favor of a minority, they weren't victims, but part of something more important than themselves; that they could accept being passed over in order to benefit society as a whole. [....]

 

But the world's changed and the privileged of that time are often the ones who are struggling now....

Cause and effect? I am all in favor of a "color-blind" hiring policy, and wouldn't mind companies using minority status as a tie-breaker, but hiring less-qualified candidates because of non-job-related characteristics is hurting not only the more-qualified candidates; in the long run it's hurting the company itself by filling it with less-qualified people.  Enough companies like that, and you're hurting society.

 

Mind you, "less qualified" doesn't mean that the person is poorly qualified for jobs in general -- merely that they're poorly suited to this particular job.  Therefore if they're hired for it, they may well be missing out on another job where they'd be a better fit, would perform better, and would be more at ease.  (Same applies to college admissions, by the way.)

 

I'm also concerned about the long-term effects of such policies, especially those enforced by government.  There are now, I believe, roughly two generations of minority young adults who have grown up being told that the only way they can hope to get a job is for the government to force a company to give it to them.  What effect does this have on their sense of initiative and self-respect?  I assume the theory is that these policies will be phased out as the need for them decreases.  But if the people that the policies were intended to help actually become psychologically dependent on them, how can the policies ever be phased out?

 

Well, having worked with these minority hires myself, I have to say that I never saw any indication of what you're referring to. I don't doubt it exists, but I have trouble believing it's inherent in the system. Of course, it's been about fifteen years now, things may have changed. But in general, at the time, if a person didn't fit their job, they moved on, so that part wasn't a problem. And although others may have done so, we never told anyone they only got the job because the government forced us to give it to them. Instead, we told them they were hired because they had the skill set we were looking for (which was true, even if another candidate might have had more skills). Bear in mind, they were not underqualified; it's just the white guys had more experience, because they had opportunities early in their careers that many minorities didn't. That was the point of the EEOC; to give opportunities to people who otherwise would be denied them, because there's always some white guy with more connections, more experience, more similar background, etc.

 

Still, I admit that it's a troubling system; something about it doesn't seem quite fair. But the system that was in place before it wasn't fair either, was it? Before, people mostly hired people who looked and thought like them; they weren't looking for diversity, they were looking for compatibility. (And now some companies have realized that diversity in the workforce is actually good for their business.) As I said before, if a system doesn't work ... in this case, the existing system largely excluded minorities, even if unintentionally ... isn't it a good idea to try to change it? And if business won't change it themselves, who should?

 

Of course, it didn't help that we also had a slump in the jobs market. Some people get burned when that happens. But it used to be the white men who were burned last, by default. Now they get to be burned equally. Still sucks, either way. I feel for them. But I'm not sure I feel for them as much as I do for someone who is never even given a chance.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Arcadia, in my opinion, it depends a good deal on how far the company or the government goes with their diversity policy.

 

In the company that I referred to, it is well-nigh impossible to lay off a black person.  I've heard of managers who, when a layoff came along, honestly chose a black employee simply because they happened to be the least valuable to the department.  And HR told them, no, you have to choose someone else.  I did hear of one minority employee being let go, but that was for gross misconduct.

 

When there's an opening there, the manager is allowed to interview the applicants, but is forbidden to ask any questions about their prior job experience (other than what's already on their resume) or to quiz them on how they'd handle certain situations.  But that doesn't really matter, because after the interviews are done, HR will tell them which candidate to hire.

 

If the company put these unwritten policies down on paper, they could be sued and would presumably lose.  So of course they don't.

 

******

 

As for how it feels from the other side, I can share some personal experience.  I'm not black, in fact I'm a pretty pale person, but of course I am female, and once worked in a field (software engineering) that at the time was largely male territory.  I'm reasonably certain that I got my first job (in a very small company) because I was willing to work for less than any of the male candidates.  In fact, I took a cut in pay from my temporary clerk-typist job!  But I didn't mind because they were going to train me (which at the time was what companies generally did, because the industry was growing faster than the number of computer-science graduates), so I saw it as a step up despite the pay cut.  In other words, anti-female discrimination actually worked in my favor that time.

 

I had that job for the next ten years, and then the company went out of business.  I had no idea how marketable I was, because my experience had been limited to that one company, but then was delighted to find that I soon had my pick of half a dozen offers.  Well, I thought, I must be pretty good!  Fortunately it wasn't till much later, after we moved to another state, that it occurred to me that each of those offers had come from an organization with a *lot* of government contracts.  So even though I'd been hired well before the heyday of equal opportunity, there had almost certainly been some "reverse discrimination" (the then-current term) at work.

 

I felt sick, and I was furious.  I had been so proud of all that appreciation, thinking that it reflected their appraisal of my accomplishments -- only to realize that all they'd really noticed was my two X chromosomes.  That government policy had robbed me of the opportunity to know how I actually stacked up against the other candidates.  I felt cheated.

 

Dunno what I would have done if I'd known at the time.  I'd guess that most of the companies in my field did some government work, so my only realistic options were presumably take one of those offers or go back to typing.

[Arcadia]

Arcadia, in my opinion, it depends a good deal on how far the company or the government goes with their diversity policy.

 

In the company that I referred to, it is well-nigh impossible to lay off a black person.  I've heard of managers who, when a layoff came along, honestly chose a black employee simply because they happened to be the least valuable to the department.  And HR told them, no, you have to choose someone else.  I did hear of one minority employee being let go, but that was for gross misconduct.

 

When there's an opening there, the manager is allowed to interview the applicants, but is forbidden to ask any questions about their prior job experience (other than what's already on their resume) or to quiz them on how they'd handle certain situations.  But that doesn't really matter, because after the interviews are done, HR will tell them which candidate to hire.

 

If the company put these unwritten policies down on paper, they could be sued and would presumably lose.  So of course they don't.

 

******

 

Yeah, there's bad ways and worse ways of doing everything. At our office, we screened and forwarded the applicants, the manager made the decision. But as I said, we're a relatively diverse community to begin with, so maybe diversity in the workplace is simply easier to achieve.

 

Did they tell you the only reason they hired you was because you were female? Again, I'm sure it happens, but I also think it's true that once some organizations have tried diversity, they discover they've tapped into a gold mine. Maybe you were just so damn impressive they were glad to have you?

[Boton]

Do you guys have any idea how difficult it is to edit your really cogent and fascinating posts down to something reasonable to chime in on?   :P

 

 

 

 
And finally, as to people who can't pay both their taxes and their house repair bills; I wouldn't consider them among the privileged, would you? To me, they are the ones being tromped on, and they are the ones who deserve a hand up. But if you lived, as I do, in Northern Virginia, you would see a level of privilege that is truly mind-boggling. Inherited estates worth millions on which they pay little to no taxes. Multi-million dollar homes with 20 rooms and only two people living in them. Vast acres being mowed by some guy earning minimum wage, and not a single cow or horse grazing on them; they're just front lawns. Multiple vacations a year to exotic, faraway places. Sorry, but no one has been able to show me numbers that would prove these people cannot afford to pay more taxes. They simply don't want to, imo, and I find it difficult to be sympathetic.
 
Interestingly enough, though, some of them would agree with me.

 

 

 

 

We are both self-employed.  Occasionally, we are riding high, and we save like there's no tomorrow, because there might not be; occasionally, we put off home repairs and healthcare visits to avoid tapping into our hard-won savings and retirement.  If you tally up fed taxes, employer SS match (due to being self-employed), state taxes, property taxes, worker's comp insurance (which we have to have but can never use because we are the only employees and therefore would just end up punishing ourselves if we filed a claim) and health insurance premiums (which has doubled until it costs us more than our mortgage ever did, and it is catastrophic coverage only - no Rx drug coverage, no office visit coverage, no routine coverage), we are easily paying over half our income in taxes and government-required payments.  We've even had to cut charitable contributions for several lean years so we can take care of our own responsibilities, and that breaks my heart. Yet I regularly hear people tell me that I should be willing to "pay a little bit more" so others can have whatever thing it is we are discussing at the moment.  I suppose that's where my frustration comes from -- I'd love to be feeling generous, but man, I'm tapped.  

 

 

 

I felt sick, and I was furious.  I had been so proud of all that appreciation, thinking that it reflected their appraisal of my accomplishments -- only to realize that all they'd really noticed was my two X chromosomes.  That government policy had robbed me of the opportunity to know how I actually stacked up against the other candidates.  I felt cheated.

 

 

 

 

I have definitely heard "we need a woman in here" for certain jobs and certain projects.  I also know that I am much more likely to get the nod for government contracts if I can bring that XX set of chromosomes to a team.  I am pretty darn good at what I do, so I think I bring a lot of value, but at the same time, I hear the whispers among women my age.  "I have to work as much as I can; they aren't going to hire my husband, he's an old white man. I'm the one who can get the jobs."

[Arcadia]

Do you guys have any idea how difficult it is to edit your really cogent and fascinating posts down to something reasonable to chime in on?   :P

Yep!

[Arcadia]

Okay, I finally thought of how I want to respond to that. 1) I feel your pain; although my situation is rather different, income is still a deep and ongoing concern. Ain't no fun. 2) I still don't consider people in your position as privileged, at least economically. For myself, I do feel educationally privileged; I went to public schools at a time and in places when they were well funded, and college tuition was affordable even for someone (me) working part-time at minimum wage. This wasn't due to any effort on my part, just the outcome of being able to live in decent neighborhoods while growing up. 3) I'll repeat the question I asked earlier (and I'm too lazy to look up the exact wording :p) ... in a world of haves and have nots, how does a society promote justice and equality without making the "haves" feel like something is being taken away from them? Or do we just let inequality endure, because trying to change it does, as I said before, afflict the comfortable?

 

Dunno. It's a hard one. I don't like being "afflicted" any more than the next person. There are times when I'm willing to put up with it. There are times when it seems like an odious burden. There are times when it frightens me, and times when I'm proud to share what I have (which ain't much.) I wish there was an easy answer. But my gut tells me there isn't.

[Boton]

 3) I'll repeat the question I asked earlier (and I'm too lazy to look up the exact wording :P) ... in a world of haves and have nots, how does a society promote justice and equality without making the "haves" feel like something is being taken away from them? Or do we just let inequality endure, because trying to change it does, as I said before, afflict the comfortable?

 

 

 

First, let me say something I should probably have said a long time ago:  I don't hear you, specifically, calling me privileged.  So, my frustration isn't pointed at you.

 

Your question, however, is a really good one.  Although I'm not a huge fan of social engineering, I would think we could start with an idea that is already culturally ingrained: that of "the 1 percent."  What if you took that top percentage (in the U.S.) and removed tax loopholes and the like that allowed them to shelter the majority of their income, thus owing taxes on more? What if you imposed a carbon footprint tax on properties that were some ridiculous multiple of the average house size in a given zip code (like, an extra tax if your house is 10x the square feet of the average of your area.)?

 

Make it clear that "privilege" isn't "hey, congrats, you have a bachelor's degree, an income somewhere north of the median for your area, and a decent house."  Start with the very, very top.  As you have pointed out, many of those people at least publicly agree with you about paying more to support the common good -- let's give them a nudge, shall we?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Boton, I agree with your implication that the government's definition of "high income" seems to be somewhere around what a lot of people would call average income, and that's ridiculous.  But targeting any specific group (even "the 1%") seems just a bit arbitrary to me.  I get the impression that there are currently a bunch of tax loopholes, write-offs, etc., that in any practical sense apply only to people with really, really high incomes.  I would like to know what those are, and might be in favor of repealing or (more likely) modifying them so that we don't end up with people who are rich by any standard yet pay hardly any taxes.

 

Did they tell you the only reason they hired you was because you were female? Again, I'm sure it happens, but I also think it's true that once some organizations have tried diversity, they discover they've tapped into a gold mine. Maybe you were just so damn impressive they were glad to have you?

 

Nope, if I was that damned impressive, they'd have paid me more!  Of course the first of those two jobs was with a university, and those traditionally don't pay much -- but when I moved to the second job (with a private company), I actually took a pay cut!  They said it was because I had no experience in their specific industry (though in my humble opinion, the computer don't care what sign is on the door -- software is software).

 

No, neither place even hinted that's why I was hired, but as time went on, it became increasingly obvious.  At the university lab, all of the hardware engineers were male, and all of the technicians and software engineers were female.  I assume that was their way of maintaining an overall gender balance, but still, it's an awfully damned artificial way of doing it.  At the company, even though I had ostensibly been hired to replace a male software engineer, the desk that I was assigned had belonged to a female software engineer who had also left.  And I heard all sorts of stories about her, how she always came in late and left early, sometimes didn't bother showing up for days at a time (with no explanation).  And yet she wasn't canned.  Again, I strongly suspect she "had" to be kept on the books in order to maintain their gender balance for purposes of government contracts.  Or at least, she had to be kept till they were able to hire me.  :P

 

[Arcadia]

Boton, your suggestions make sense to me. Many people have proposed much the same thing over the years. Why doesn't it happen?

 

Carol, what can I say ... women are still the underclass in the workforce. How do we fix that?

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Carol, what can I say ... women are still the underclass in the workforce. How do we fix that?

 

In some areas, I'm not sure there's anything to be fixed.  For example, I'm remembering the brouhaha over the gender disparity in tenured faculty at Harvard, and I'd guess there have been similar alarms over the scarcity of female executives in large corporations.  In my opinion, a good bit of that "problem" is due to women simply having more sense than to eat, breathe, and sleep their job, the way one must do in order to get ahead in their career.  I think women in general are more likely to have a life outside of their workplace -- and I think the world would be a happier place if more men were the same way.

 

That doesn't cover everything that you're talking about, of course.  There are plenty of jobs that are just jobs, but women may still have trouble being seriously considered for them.  I don't know what the answer is.  Time, perhaps.  I was just reading that a woman from my home town (who passed on a few years back after having lived in three centuries) had been the first female math major at Indiana University.  That would have been circa 1915.  By the time I was in college, nobody seemed to think it was odd for me to study math, and I had lots of company.  Of course, they assumed we'd end up teaching high school, but even that was a big improvement over the options open to women in the past, and that change had come about without any government quota systems.  Nowadays young women are studying all sorts of things that used to be male monopolies, so I can only imagine things continuing to improve.

 

I'm also remembering what I heard from a female engineer back around 1980.  She said that when she first started representing her company at meetings with prospective customers, she'd see surprise when she walked in, followed by a look that she interpreted as "Wow, she must be really good, for them to send a woman!"  But after a few years of government quotas, that second look had been replaced by something like "Darn, we know they had to hire her, but why didn't they send us one of their good engineers?"

[Boton]

Boton, I agree with your implication that the government's definition of "high income" seems to be somewhere around what a lot of people would call average income, and that's ridiculous.  But targeting any specific group (even "the 1%") seems just a bit arbitrary to me.  I get the impression that there are currently a bunch of tax loopholes, write-offs, etc., that in any practical sense apply only to people with really, really high incomes.  I would like to know what those are, and might be in favor of repealing or (more likely) modifying them so that we don't end up with people who are rich by any standard yet pay hardly any taxes.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not completely sure of my proposal or that looking at a set percentile is the way to go, but I think there must be a way of targeting the people who, by virtue of power (which is increasingly linked to birth and has always been linked to money), are able to vote or lobby themselves into less tax burden rather than most.  Maybe just closing the loopholes.  A flat tax with very few deductions would help that (and could be given a floor, or it automatically has a floor at zero income). 

 

What I want is a cultural redefinition of what it means to be privileged, and what that requires.  As you say, we seem to have this definition among the government and some of the cultural elites that "high income" is something like 150% of the median for your area.  That may be comfortable, but it is comfortable along the lines of "can buy some veggies at Whole Foods fairly regularly" or "can go out to a mid-priced restaurant once a week."

 

We need a sense of noblesse oblige to come back.  To whom much is given, much is expected.  These upper echelon types who have multi-thousand square foot houses with helipads on the roof should be congratulated for their success, but they should also shoulder more of the burden of the causes they support before castigating me, as part of the public, for having too big of a carbon footprint in my 2400 square foot house.  When I want to hear that kind of message, it goes down a lot easier if it comes from a person with a roof covered entirely in solar panels, who flies coach, and who sends in a few thousand in extra taxes.

[bedelia1984]

The pay gap issue a really interesting topic which is in the media here more often lately- an Irish journalist (male) was recently sacked from the Sunday Times for a piece he wrote about why women in the BBC has no business complaining about that pay gap.

 

It has been a real eye opener for me to hear from my family and peers about whether they think his firing was justified- (there were also comments relating to religion that he brought into play as well, which probably did not help his case). For my own part, the fact his headline contained the words 'Sorry ladies...' already had me disposed to feel less than charitable towards the man.

 

I can't help thinking one of the major causes in the pay gap is the way certain kinds of work are valued by society. The roles that more women opt to fill- in healthcare, as nurses and teaching, especially nursery and primary, are just not valued in the same way that roles more men opt to fill are valued. Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that these roles are so necessary that there is a greater abundance of opportunities for them than other more specialised jobs that men may outnumber women in- and the lack of specialisation is what is leading to the lower value?

 

Nursing for me, must be one big factor in the pay gap- I'm not a nurse but there are two in my family, and it is in my opinion such a gruelling job in no way reflected by the pay, conditions and hours nurses are expected to live with. I wonder would most men put up with those conditions for the length of a career? And yet society would likely grind to a halt without nurses.

 

There is so much talk about how feminists won't acknowledge the differences between men and women, but I don't think that's really the issue. For me, it's that we all, both men and women, as a society still expect women to do a lot of the 'caring' that makes the world function- both at home and in workplaces, but that they should never expect that to be valued in any financial way.

[Arcadia]

 

That doesn't cover everything that you're talking about, of course.  There are plenty of jobs that are just jobs, but women may still have trouble being seriously considered for them.  I don't know what the answer is.  Time, perhaps.  I was just reading that a woman from my home town (who passed on a few years back after having lived in three centuries) had been the first female math major at Indiana University.  That would have been circa 1915.  By the time I was in college, nobody seemed to think it was odd for me to study math, and I had lots of company.  Of course, they assumed we'd end up teaching high school, but even that was a big improvement over the options open to women in the past, and that change had come about without any government quota systems.  Nowadays young women are studying all sorts of things that used to be male monopolies, so I can only imagine things continuing to improve.

 

I read somewhere an idea that the difference is, women were encouraged to go into the work force during WWII to replace the men who were off fighting, discovered they liked it, and didn't like being expected to give it up when the men came back. So they started demanding equal opportunities. I.e., it changed because they demanded change, not because men spontaneously became more accepting. Personally, I suspect it's more complicated than that; most things are. WWII seems to have been one of those watershed moments in history, though; a lot changed after that.

 

And I would argue that it still took government action to make the change really happen; it had to become illegal to discriminate in order to actually force the issue. Just waiting around for those with power to decide to give some of it away ... I guess it happens, but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't happen too often.

 

What I want is a cultural redefinition of what it means to be privileged, and what that requires.  As you say, we seem to have this definition among the government and some of the cultural elites that "high income" is something like 150% of the median for your area.  That may be comfortable, but it is comfortable along the lines of "can buy some veggies at Whole Foods fairly regularly" or "can go out to a mid-priced restaurant once a week."

 

I realized I sort of shifted my definition around as I was going along; sometimes I meant privileged as in "wealthy", other times I meant what I think is probably more significant; the privilege of ... well, race. It's changing, but there's still a considerable advantage to be had simply being born white. You're statistically more likely to be in a stable family, to be in a decent neighborhood, to have a higher income, better education, better health care ... etc. I.e., it's easier get a step ahead because you're born a step ahead. I think if it were simply a matter of increasing everyone's incomes, inequality would be a fairly easy fix. But it's not.

 

I can't help thinking one of the major causes in the pay gap is the way certain kinds of work are valued by society. The roles that more women opt to fill- in healthcare, as nurses and teaching, especially nursery and primary, are just not valued in the same way that roles more men opt to fill are valued. Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that these roles are so necessary that there is a greater abundance of opportunities for them than other more specialised jobs that men may outnumber women in- and the lack of specialisation is what is leading to the lower value?

I seem to remember something about that, too. Not so much that those things are less valued by society, but they are less valued by men; i.e., the people in power. Boy, this sounds like a real rant against men, doesn't it? I don't mean it to be; but part of this conversation included a reference to white men having trouble finding jobs because minorities were being favored. Doesn't seem fair, does it? But it didn't feel fair to be passed over simply for being a minority either. That's why society, via government, tried to take steps to change it. Assuming equal opportunity is a goal we can all agree on, I'm just wondering how it can be achieved without also stripping all advantages away from those who traditionally held them.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I read somewhere an idea that the difference is, women were encouraged to go into the work force during WWII to replace the men who were off fighting, discovered they liked it, and didn't like being expected to give it up when the men came back. So they started demanding equal opportunities. I.e., it changed because they demanded change, not because men spontaneously became more accepting. Personally, I suspect it's more complicated than that; most things are. WWII seems to have been one of those watershed moments in history, though; a lot changed after that.

 

And I would argue that it still took government action to make the change really happen; it had to become illegal to discriminate in order to actually force the issue. Just waiting around for those with power to decide to give some of it away ... I guess it happens, but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't happen too often.

I've read about the WWII connection myself, and it makes a lot of sense.  And as I've said before, I have no quarrel with making it illegal to discriminate (especially making it illegal for governments to discriminate).  I just don't want to see that defined as making it mandatory to discriminate.  It's no more fair than the old way, and it's pissing off a lot of decent people so it's bound to lead to backlash, a bit like the government's Reconstruction policies did.

 

It's changing, but there's still a considerable advantage to be had simply being born white. You're statistically more likely to be in a stable family, to be in a decent neighborhood, to have a higher income, better education, better health care ... etc. I.e., it's easier get a step ahead because you're born a step ahead. I think if it were simply a matter of increasing everyone's incomes, inequality would be a fairly easy fix. But it's not.

 

Good point.  It's not gonna be easy.  I think that's part of the problem, a lot of politicians are looking for an easy fix (perhaps hoping that things will improve dramatically during their administration, so that they'll get the credit).  So there's been a lot of time and money wasted on Not Making Things Better.

 

I would seriously like to see more effort put into stabilizing black communities -- e.g., encouraging kids to take advantage of free education, encouraging families to stay together, etc.  (By the way, did they ever fix that asinine welfare policy whereby a person was not eligible for welfare until age 18 -- unless they had a baby, in which case they were eligible at 16 -- so of course(!) a bunch of 16-year-old girls of all colors deliberately got pregnant so they could move out of their parents' house and get their own apartment?)   But I think most of that encouraging will need to come from within the black community itself -- or it will quite understandably be ignored as more meddling.

 

I seem to remember something about that, too. Not so much that those things are less valued by society, but they are less valued by men; i.e., the people in power. Boy, this sounds like a real rant against men, doesn't it? I don't mean it to be; but part of this conversation included a reference to white men having trouble finding jobs because minorities were being favored. Doesn't seem fair, does it? But it didn't feel fair to be passed over simply for being a minority either. That's why society, via government, tried to take steps to change it. Assuming equal opportunity is a goal we can all agree on, I'm just wondering how it can be achieved without also stripping all advantages away from those who traditionally held them.

It's that part about "stripping all advantages" that worries me.  It sounds downright punitive, and I fear that a lot of the current enforcers tend to take it that way.  I don't think it's fair for anybody to be automatically passed over because of their color.  You're absolutely right, it doesn't seem fair -- and I think that's because it isn't fair.

[Arcadia]

Oh, I can't agree that things aren't better ... for minorities. That's the whole point of affirmative action, and there's evidence that it's working, but slowly. 

 

Is affirmative action simply reverse discrimination? I can see why some people choose to look at it that way. I can also see why other people (like me) don't. I do know that civil rights laws were intended to create a more level playing field; to remove the hurdles blocking the forward progress of minorities, not to put up hurdles to hinder the progress of anyone else. If some people are finding that they're no longer winning the race because the other guy no longer has to jump hurdles, yeah, I can see why they'd blame the system. They'd be right, because that's what the system was intended to do; make it possible for the other guy to win too. Not guarantee it, just make it possible. What I have to wonder though, is ... if those hurdles had never been erected in the first place, would the majority have been winning the race to begin with? Would they view a path that was hurdle-free as "reverse" discrimination if it was the only system they had ever known?

 

But I get that some people think that instead of removing hurdles, the laws simply moved them out of the path of minorities and into the path of white males. I just don't agree. I think the problem is, again, far more complex than that, and has more to do with a changing world than any other factor; the changes brought about by automation, globalization, all those other -ations that I can't think of right now .... And again, I can understand the desire of many people to stop the world from changing. I'm just one of the ones who thinks that isn't possible. Or even desirable. I do think change can be directed, though ... to some extent. We shouldn't give up. But we may have to adapt.

 

Anyway, to get back to the subject of whether the Blind Banker is racist or not ... all this other discussion at some point caused me to look up the actual definition of the word. Here's one: "showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another" I always thought of that last part as the definition, and the first part as the result of the last part, I think. So this definition kind of broadens out the meaning of the word for me a little bit. But I still wouldn't apply it to TBB.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly, but I certainly didn't mean to say that I don't think things are getting better. They're clearly better, at least in some ways, than before. What I did mean was that I think a lot of time and effort has been wasted on attempts that have not been part of that improvement. I believe I was agreeing with what you said about it not being easy.

 

Also, I believe you're taking what I say about the blatantly anti-white-male system that's in place at a company in my area and applying it to what may well be a far more sensible system that you're familiar with. I seriously doubt that you would be in favor of, as an extreme example, firing all the white males so their jobs could be given to black females. And if I'm right about that, then you agree with me that it's possible to take things too far (even though we may disagree about exactly where the line is).

 

I agree with you on TBB.

[bedelia1984]

 

I can't help thinking one of the major causes in the pay gap is the way certain kinds of work are valued by society. The roles that more women opt to fill- in healthcare, as nurses and teaching, especially nursery and primary, are just not valued in the same way that roles more men opt to fill are valued. Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that these roles are so necessary that there is a greater abundance of opportunities for them than other more specialised jobs that men may outnumber women in- and the lack of specialisation is what is leading to the lower value?

I seem to remember something about that, too. Not so much that those things are less valued by society, but they are less valued by men; i.e., the people in power. Boy, this sounds like a real rant against men, doesn't it? I don't mean it to be; but part of this conversation included a reference to white men having trouble finding jobs because minorities were being favored. Doesn't seem fair, does it? But it didn't feel fair to be passed over simply for being a minority either. That's why society, via government, tried to take steps to change it. Assuming equal opportunity is a goal we can all agree on, I'm just wondering how it can be achieved without also stripping all advantages away from those who traditionally held them.

 

 

My first experience in the full-time workforce was a civil service position, about 15 years ago and my first day of the job, in a male-dominated office, a giggling fifty year old man handed me a picture of a women-only car park, which had cars piled up on top of each other/ crashed etc. And I'd love to say things in the workplace have changed, but I've heard jokes about women drivers in my canteen by higher-up male professionals as recently as about a month ago. It's not that I don't like a good joke as much as the next person, but some jokes are getting really old.

 

There are just so many ways that minorities and women get pushed down- some of them, like hiring policies, you can see, and others, like workplace atmospheres, choices for promotion, and favoritism are invisible. Then, there are all the things that have to happen to get someone an opportunity to begin with- college, networking, family connections and the biggest thing of all, the people in power who hold all the cards and pick the next person to get that chance- and how often they seem to think the best person is as close to them as possible- in gender, race etc. 

 

I don't know it women can be let off the hook in terms of what happens to other women in the workplace though- I've only read the most popular books on the issue- like 'Lean in', for example, but what I got from that book was that women who want to succeed have to play the game a different way to get ahead- like a man can ask for a raise and people  (the men and women in charge) think that's fair, but a woman asking for more will be judged and disliked, and to succeed you have to say you're asking on behalf of all women and future female candidates- so asking for yourself will make you disliked by both male and female bosses. So Sandberg, the author, is saying based on studies she'd read, forget equality, and act this part if you want to succeed, because expecting equal treatment will just end in your own failure.

 

I haven't read how that sort of thinking can apply in other situations- like race issues. In Ireland, we have great social welfare, so a lot of the same Irish people complaining about having their jobs taken by foreign nationals tend to also prefer not to apply for lower paid jobs when the welfare payments plus rent allowance and other benefits outstrip the minimum wage. Likewise, conditions for nurses are so poor that Irish citizens go abroad and we have more minorities in these roles too.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Regardless of how things are set up, people will play the system. They'll do whatever is in their own self interest.

[Arcadia]

Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly, but I certainly didn't mean to say that I don't think things are getting better. They're clearly better, at least in some ways, than before. What I did mean was that I think a lot of time and effort has been wasted on attempts that have not been part of that improvement. I believe I was agreeing with what you said about it not being easy.

 

Also, I believe you're taking what I say about the blatantly anti-white-male system that's in place at a company in my area and applying it to what may well be a far more sensible system that you're familiar with. I seriously doubt that you would be in favor of, as an extreme example, firing all the white males so their jobs could be given to black females. And if I'm right about that, then you agree with me that it's possible to take things too far (even though we may disagree about exactly where the line is).

 

I agree with you on TBB.

 

You're right, I wouldn't find that acceptable. I strongly suspect it would also be found to be highly illegal and easily prosecuted by the EEOC. But I also agree that no system is perfect, that's why they need to evolve. But too often the desired solution appears to me to be to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Personally, I think the employment future's going to involve a lot of sacrifice; such as career changes, postponed retirements, long distance moves ... the works. I guess that doesn't bother me as much as it might some people because it's been that way for me all my life; job (and location) changes have been the only constant. Not always in the job that I have, but also in what I do in any given job; it's constantly morphing. Ten years ago I would never have imagined I would spend as much time on a computer as I now do, for example. But I like learning new things, so it works for me. (Although it's sure taking me longer to learn new things; ak!)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Change is the order of the day, that's for sure!  A few years back, I got the definite feeling that the future had arrived -- and now we're way past even that point.  There's no way I could get a job with the software skills that stood me in good stead just a few years ago, and I imagine a whole lot of people are in similar boats, in all sorts of fields.

 

I'm sitting here trying to think of a job that hasn't changed recently and isn't likely to change in the near future.  Haven't come up with one yet.  Home health care, maybe -- though I wouldn't bet money on it.

[T.o.b.y]

It sure bothers me... Not having to keep learning new stuff, I like that part, but all the uncertainty, insecurity, being required to move around a lot, short term contracts, fear of the family being torn apart or hard pressed financially because both parents couldn't find work in the same area, no real sense of home...

 

I am a Hobbit at heart. I want my little cave-type cottage in a quiet little village with most of my friends and relatives in walking distance and one peaceful day like the next until I die. No idea why I am not a political conservative :-D

[Boton]

At least in the US, I think we are slowly moving toward more of a self-employment economy.  Rightly or wrongly, companies are shifting the burden for health insurance premiums onto employees (smaller ones, by keeping their workforce under 50 people), and it is a savings for the company also to hire contractors so the company doesn't have to pay the social security match.  Employees, for their part, are demanding more flexibility of schedule and more telecommuting options, which is good.  So, as these things happen, it is natural to have a dispersed, contingent workforce. 

 

The relationship with affirmative action is that, unless you are dealing with government imposed quotas/goals, a contingent workforce has less pressure to be crafted into a visibly diverse picture because it is always shifting.  There is less pressure to worry if this project has all women on the team or that one has less visible diversity, because the team will break up and another will form, and maybe the next one will be all old Latino men or something.  That structure, to me, would feel fair -- construct the team you need, and let more control come back to the employees.

 

(I also agree with Carol above that another important way to address diversity issues is to improve schools and access to education.  But politicians hate "pipeline problems" because any solutions don't really show results for 20 years.)

 

TBB?  Yeah, TBB.  I really like TBB, honestly.  I like it even more now that it sparked a really robust discussion we all can learn something from.

 

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Since I realized, back a few pages, that since the athletic intruder with small feet was apparently based on a character in Conan Doyle's "Sign of the Four," he had presumably killed Van Coon and Lukis for his own reasons rather than on Shan's orders, I like the episode considerably better than I did, because that fills in what I've considered the biggest plot hole (namely, why would Shan have those two men killed if one of them was the only person in the world who knew where the jade hairpin was).

 

Now what other plot holes can we tackle? :D

[Arcadia]

It sure bothers me... Not having to keep learning new stuff, I like that part, but all the uncertainty, insecurity, being required to move around a lot, short term contracts, fear of the family being torn apart or hard pressed financially because both parents couldn't find work in the same area, no real sense of home...

 

I am a Hobbit at heart. I want my little cave-type cottage in a quiet little village with most of my friends and relatives in walking distance and one peaceful day like the next until I die. No idea why I am not a political conservative :-D

 

Because that is not a political ideal, but a personal one? The older I get, the more pleasant that sounds to me, too. But even a few years ago the thought of it bored me silly. Actually, now that I think about it, I have a life pretty similar to that when I'm on vacation in Maine ... and a few more weeks of it and I'd be going out of my mind with boredom. Ok, never mind, I'd still rather be an elf. :d

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think I'm a Took. I like to stay at home -- except when I feel like traveling!