Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
I agreeISH but why is it the case that people who choose caring professions are "weaker and less"... that perception seems like part of the problem, really.
A major part of the pay issue, whether the differences in interest are biological or not, is that caring / social professions are HUGELY under-valued and under-paid whereas the "big money" often lies in more ruthless / capitalism driven professions. I think people get a little hung up on the idea that "mo' money = doing better" ... I don't think women (or anyone else) should necessarily "aspire" to the high-paying jobs that are not actually morally aspirational at all and that would be a very strange path for society to go down. "Hey ladies! You get paid less than men... so what we really want is for more women to go into nasty cut-throat industries that **** over the world for profit. Why? Because you'll earn big bucks and decrease the pay divide!"
|
Oh no, I think you misunderstood what I meant by that. I don't think that carers are less than anyone, I agree, it should be a vocation because they do such an important job imo and look after the most vulnerable in society.
What I meant was, women were looked at as less than men so had to be the carers at home of the men and wait on them and then that transferred into careers as well, if you get what I mean?
I agree that carer type work should be more valued and higher paid, you never know, you may find an increase in men going for those type of careers too if that happened