It used to be the French Revolution when I was in my 20's, but I've always liked talking about musicals. I'm not musically talented in any compacity, but I enjoy the stories and picking out repeating motifs, digging into the source (if there is one).
I think both sides are often looking for the top percent, but with men usually concerned with looks, since women aren't typically raised to be the breadwinner. Just look at memes about men and their ideal women â it's all about how attractive the cashier is, or the prettiest girl at school, etc. There arenât that many stunning women in the world, and those who are, are aware that for, many men, their value is often based on their appearance â but that value is fleeting before they're "too old." Powerful men donât usually end up with regular people, and itâs a common trope that once a man settles down, heâll "upgrade." When men have money and options, they can afford to be picky, often seeking out someone gorgeous, and if there's a deeper connection, that's just a bonus.
Of course, memes arenât a scientific reflection of reality, but itâs interesting that you rarely see memes like "model vs. woman I vibe with" instead of "pretty woman VS woman I think is prettier."Itâs not that men shouldnât have standards â there are definitely some wild women out there. But I don't think it's as simple as women just chasing the richest, most handsome men for no reason other than greed. For a long time, marriage was a womanâs only form of security â finding someone who could support her, possibly offer freedom, and ensure safety, all while staying within a timeline before she was seen as 'bargain goods.'" I think that mind set still lingers with a lot of women because there are always worse things for a woman than being single. As women gain more financial and societal freedom, they start getting picky because now no one really needs a partner. Women are now free to choose on looks, charm, sexual prowess, like men have in the past, but some women still hold that standard of the man being the main backbone of the house. So now, men have the same standards they put on women, plus the burden they (culturally) have put on themselves by being the head of household and main provider.
That's true. But I think that idea kind of... Lingers over a lot of western countries. Like you said, a lot of women have it baked in that whoever they marry needs to be daddy 2.0, but I think some of that comes from the fear of "messing up." Not that divorced dads are out there dodging đâ⏠on the daily, but women get a lot of "You picked the wrong guy, so you deserve it" so they panic about picking the "right" one.
The men are also very picky. Women outnumber men, (Wrong. Men outnumber women by, like, a lot. Don't ask where I got that from) but they are also looking for a certain age, body type, and background. People are even buying/kidnapping little girls to raise as brides for their sons so they can mold them versus just finding a bride. Half of the time, they don't want the women available. They're too old, too fat, too ugly, divorced, have kids, outspoken, and all the other things that they've been conditioned to dislike. Also, a lot of women have rough married lives over there.
Women also belong to the groom's family in a way. If you "only" have a daughter, you really have one shot (and a clicking clock) for both you and her to pick the "best" family. Society has made it to where a woman is expected to serve her household and handle whatever they throw at her, but then punish them for wanting to pick the cage they're locking themselves into. Like, yeah, if it's super hard to get divorced, let alone marry again, and the man/family I'm marrying has a lot of power over me, and I'll be under the households thumb, I'm going to at least make sure I'm take care of. If their society was more equal, I think they'd be able to marry more for love/desire/want than security. But women over there don't get a lot of agency so they take it where they can.
Bith sides are saying "fuck it." Men don't want to be wage slaves and women don't want to be indentured bang maids.
I don't think you need to do it purely on technical ability, but I think the question seems to align too much with your personal opinion of how the employee should be and that makes it seem like you're looking for a duplicate of yourself/another employee versus just a good fit. I think "tell me about yourself/what you do outside work" is a question that could get you the same information without it being so pointed. Asking about a specific genre, show, etc. automatically puts anyone with a different genre, hobby, etc. at a disadvantage based off of something that doesn't appear to corelate to their talent or fit. I think even without knowing it, you could make assumptions if you don't like the answer, or if they just don't enjoy reading.
low key in my feelings cause I don't read Sci fi lol
You say that a lot of people applying feel alien to you. Why not attempt to bridge the gap instead of forcing them into your persecption of what a software designer should be like in their free time. I'm sorry that you don't work with people who have the same passion, but people shouldn't be punished because they're just trying to make money. It's a job, not their family or friends. Wanting to climb the ladder is not a bad motivation to work.
Try and take a step back, maybe even put the shoe on the other foot. Would you feel okay if you weren't hired because you didn't partake in a certain hobby? What if the person hiring you thinks you should be a Star Trek fan of the highest order, or that they think you need to be up to date on philosophy. That's just not a reason to deny someone a job imo and it's not fair. I low key see it as boomer behavior to include something like a hobby as a factor in hiring.
I see it as a "I don't see color" kind of thing. You may be able to see it as "just" a class war, but people who may be a different race, or disabled, etc., can't do that because those factors can change how you're treated. Saying we should ignore it or rebrand it as a class war is disregarding the reprocussions that race plays in the class war. What communities get funding? What communities have good schools? What communities have food deserts? Who gets promoted to leadership?
Before these things came to be, America was very much class-war only in my opinion, which is why boomer white Americans did so well. They were all seen as the same community, so raising them up was raising them all up. So they had Veterans benefits and programs after the war to help them get housing and education. Unions protected their members. But those programs didn't always extend to POC, if at all. That's why we have to keep an eye on it. It's not just class that affects people, and not talking about it allows the majority to pretend it isn't happening, or is a minor issue. I think it also facilities the silencing of minorities as their issues seem "fringe" or like complaints.
The system was not built for a lot of people, and we have to keep reminding people of that. Because what's going on in the US is showing that. They're worried about anti-Christians and immigrants, transgenders, etc. Even if those people are also poor, that won't save them if we just see class. A middle class, transgender woman who may have been a "good guy" is now an enemy be cause of their gender identity alone. A black man being followed in a store is not being followed for class reasons. People with disabilities having trouble just existing are not having that trouble (solely) because of class.
Getting rid of DEI/CRT makes the loudest voice everyone's voice. And that person is usually not looking out for us.
Thank you so much!