by Australian rePublic » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:09 am
by A Humanist Resurrection » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:07 pm
Australian Republic wrote: Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter
by A Humanist Resurrection » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:11 pm
by Australian rePublic » Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:53 am
A Humanist Resurrection wrote:Australian Republic wrote: Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter
Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.
Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:58 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:28 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:46 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Scientific evidence is fairly thin on the ground here. Did a literature search:
Unsurprisingly, men do seem to perform more strongly with upper body strength related work than women. However, I think your issue could use a little nuance and more awareness of the complexity of this ethical question. You've got the basics down, but it's worth noting that the very parameters of performance are being defined in a masculine fashion - how many boxes can you shift, how heavy a box can you move?
If you were to redefine the parameters - for example, what is the all-point effect on a company's economic output of workers of a given gender? How likely is this worker to accept additional tasks without complaining or demanding increased treatment? How likely is this worker to engage in workplace bullying or poor teamwork? Well, you start to get different answers. Also, of course, there's the wider societal picture of whether judging people by productivity is the best way to determine their earnings.
It's a good topic, but could use some subtlety and nuance.
by Caracasus » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:56 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:10 am
Caracasus wrote:An idea, broadly based on a conversation I had with a union rep regarding manual handling etc.
Basically, their take was "If you're spending a significant amount of your work day carrying/doing manual labour that is so strenuous that a woman couldn't do it then you shouldn't be doing it either". They were getting at the serious cumulative harm to your health done by strenuous manual labour day in and day out.
You could tie it in to the automate everything option quite nicely.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:36 am
Australian Republic wrote:? What has science gotta do with it?
by Australian rePublic » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:40 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Australian Republic wrote:? What has science gotta do with it?
Seriously?
Science has got to do with everything. Science =/= technology. Science is a methodology of forming beliefs on the basis of evidence rather than assertion, and always testing and challenging those beliefs. It's also absolutely vital to creating issues that have any sense of balance of verisimilitude. Making an issue like this (or indeed any good issue topic) demands research of what the situation in reality is, and the only way to look at the situation in reality is to do research.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:42 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:46 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Science comes in because the assertion that men should get paid more for moving more is based on a belief, that belief being that men move more.
Step one is to examine that belief and see if it's true, which it turns out it probably is.
Step two is to examine whether that's the right question to ask, which it may not be.
Doing this less us formulate what the real argument is, and to life the nuances from the real life debate and put them into our balanced narrative.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:21 am
by Australian rePublic » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:17 am
by Mississippabama » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:57 pm
by Australian rePublic » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:20 pm
Mississippabama wrote:In option one, it should be: “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair.
by Mississippabama » Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:41 pm
You're welcome. By the way, I replied to your comment on Confusion with Chemicals.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:14 pm
A Humanist Resurrection wrote:Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.
Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.
by Katalaysia » Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:11 am
Australian Republic wrote: Title: Unequal Work for Equal Pay
Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting I think prompting would be a better word here you to act on the matter.
Validity: Must allow women labourers, must have wage equality
Options:
[option] “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair "I come in day in day out, I bust me gut lifting heavy things, as well as making the couches, whilst the women only have to make the couches, but we take home the same pay. This ain't fair. I should be paid more!"
[effect] gender pay gaps have been legalisedI feel this one could be edited to make the effect a bit more interesting, but then that's just opinion
[option] "I'll tell ya' what ain't fair!" says @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a woman who works at the same factory, "These men think we're lazy, when we work just as hard as they do. We might not do no liftin' or carryin' stuff, but we do the same amount of work behind the machines. We have the same bills, we have the same expenses, and should have the same pay! or ."
[effect] employers often fear paying commissions due to allegations of sexism
[option] "Why do we still have human factory workers?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a robot enthusiast "Robots are superior to humans in every manner I'd consider changing the word here, but that might just be me, and are moreeffective than human beings, can tolerate almost every operation, and do not request payslips, much less start disputes about what defines the arbitrary phrase "equal pay". Fully automatic factories are the way
There was one too many spaces here of the future. Why not start today?"
[effect] people often buy "Made in @@NAME@@" products to bring jobs back to @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ robots
by Kesshite » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:00 am
A Humanist Resurrection wrote:Australian Republic wrote: Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter
Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.
Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.
by Australian rePublic » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:25 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement