PinkShinyRose wrote:rmsgrey wrote:PinkShinyRose wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.
This is nonsense, the power dynamics analogy is correct for someone asking someone out, but it is ridiculous it exists romantically between men and women. The power dynamics on the employment side are usually caused by an extreme oversupply of labourers (for positions that require rare qualities these dynamics are entirely different, although, for some reason they often still include a pay-gap). In the romance field there is no such asymmetry, the only asymmetry arises during the confession, as one person has opened up while the other person has not. Moreover, while the employer is expected to choose on qualities and expected results of an employee, the confessee is expected to answer based on their feelings rendering a persons objective qualities moot.
Employers may be expected by some to choose an employee purely on their objective qualities, but (and I base this on conversations with friends/acquaintances who are employers as well as my personal experience as an employee) they base their hiring decisions as much on subjective impressions as on objective qualities, and rightly so - provided a prospective employee can do the job, their interactions with co-workers and, indeed, their employer are at least as important as their actual skills. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck when you keep getting passed over for jobs you're capable of doing, but that's as much part of applying for jobs as it is applying for relationships...
And it still sucks when someone says they wish they could find someone with all your qualities, but, y'know, who they actually find attractive too (that last generally being implicit rather than stated outright).
What I mean is: in choosing a partner only your feelings for the other are expected to be taken into account, at least initially. It is mostly based on chemistry. With finding an employee chemistry is also important, but to a much lesser extend (you only have to be able to have a good work relationship, whereas you're expected to be more intimate with your partner) and there are other important factors that are not as important for partner choice. I think finding an employee would be more like finding a room mate: it's definitely a problem if you constantly annoy each other, you want to be on friendly terms, but you don't need to share intimacies. It goes further in that more practical things are more important than in a romantic relationship: careful with your stuff, can be present when receiving guests/customers, helps cleaning/working etc.
EDIT: Wait, or do you ask for a CV when asking someone out on a date?
Maybe that's where I've been going wrong? Do you think I should offer references too? Being a guy, I'm the potential employee in this analogy...
More seriously, I have known a couple of women where, it just so happens that the chemistry and feelings only ever seem to be there in the presence of a fat wallet - and I've had one friendship with a girl who, once she realised I was safe, was quite open about the fact she screened potential dates based on their projected ability to support her in the lifestyle to which she would like to become accustomed.
Maybe in an ideal world, "I find you attractive, want to go on a date?" would be answered purely based on how the askee feels about the asker, but, in practice, that's only one consideration - social pressure is another - it's a lot easier to date someone if you think your friends will approve/be envious...
Kit. wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:I'm talking specifically of the subset of men who do not find themselves easily meeting and falling into romantic relationships with women. For men to whom that comes easily and naturally, none of the problems we're discussing apply, and so there is no problem to analogize to anything else in the first place.
There is one issue in your analogy that bothers me. Let me put it this way: while man's right to live (and to earn money for living by selling his labor) is generally recognized, no one owes man the right to procreate.
So who owes a specific person the right to sell their labour to them?
The right to sell one's labour is empty unless somewhere there exists a corresponding duty for your labour to be purchased. If Fred has the right to sell their labour, but for all 7 billion people on Earth, each person has the right to not buy Fred's labour, individually and collectively, then Fred doesn't actually have the right to sell their labour - merely to try to do so...