Not bringing up boys and girls in the same way is a matter of old wisdom, or common sense. We can discuss that, but we risk to fall into discussions about transgendering and homosexuality, which are very delicate, and where I wouldn't want to go.
Otherwise, girls and boys are educated in the same classes and with the same programs today, they are more and more aware of opportunities available, and the borderline between teaching girls "girl stuff" or boys "boy stuff" and pressuring them into doing that and blocking anything else, this borderline is much more fluid and fuzzy than you seem to imagine. It's not 100% relevant to generalize your own experience, or that of all people discriminated against, to the whole of the society.
I do certainly not assume all women would be better carers than all men. What I said, was that not all women carers are forced into it, it is not all social conditioning: many prefer it, many show inclinations too. And I agreed with you that while genders are different, this should not automatically force someone into pre-defined roles. Education (which today is neutral and quite comprehensive) changed that already, adults do have a good degree of free will, and people with rigid, 19th century principles are less and less.
When you say overwhelmingly caring responsibilities land on women, I said that I suspect there is more than just imposed gender roles. I never said anything else, and I did not see something opposing this suspicion.
It is very well that you detailed what you understand by compensation for loss of earnings. In the case you state, I would be absolutely for counting those 10 years for pension, just as they do for superior education, if I'm not mistaken.
By the way, I've been myself many times in situations like the one you told about - supervisors arbitrarily preferring someone, with no reason related to work competence or performance. I reject any claim that for women would be different. At the same time, I saw many women refusing certain types of studies and jobs for others more into communication, care, or art, in spite of great work conditions and warm welcome from the guys.
Asking me whether I have been in that situation myself is irrelevant, btw. This is precisely why I told you before that all citizens, basing on their wider life experience, are entitled to give an opinion on social issues. Social debates belong to everybody, not just those who had gone through that, and who might lack a certain distance, sometimes necessary for a proper judgement to be made.
I never said it would be simple, but I did get the impression here and there, for instance when I read your phrase about gender gap monitoring, or your quite established opinions about socially imposed gender roles. I'm not contesting Left ideology, or your own opinions, and I'm not here taking it on progressives or propagating my ideas. I'm just outing my doubts about this or that issue, when I feel there is quite clear place for doubt to be acknowledge. Far from that being done against any one, or to convince any one my own ideas would be better, I honestly doubt some of these approaches are ok and I'm open to discussion, because I think social policies should be discussed rationally, by people of all sensibilities. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
And it seems like we say many things that broadly mean the same but we are saying them from a different direction as though in opposition to each other. Where I generalise, I am usually referring to established evidence that shows how proportionally one group may be more likely to experience a certain type of disadvantage than another. That proportionality is an important thing. It doesn't mean that I make assumptions but I seek to deconstruct and find a cause if there is one. And where inequalities are concerned, societal attitudes, institutional discrimination, gender roles etc are frequently shown to be part of the cause. That doesn't mean there is no element of genuine choice on the part of some of that group but we can't just assume that this is what women generally prefer to do and that is ok, we won't look any further into it.
It is not irrelevant to ask you what your personal understanding through experience of a situation is because I know from experience that even if people try to understand, there are some things you have to experience to really 'get'. I'm not trying to be patronising or dismissive when I say that. And if I am trying to get my message over to you then I need to tap into something you can identify with and if I don't know what that might be, then I'm never going to be able to show you what I mean so that you 'get' it.
You think the left generalises, but the right does, with no evidence very often. This is where prejudice stems from - reinforcing stereotypes about groups whether they are true or not. Are all young black boys vicious thugs? No, but the media likes to portray them that way, and when that is the dominant message about young black boys, the drip drip drip effect really takes hold. And nobody is saying where is all the evidence that makes it ok to hold these negative attitudes about black boys and young men?
The left have to provide the evidence to prove what they are trying to raise awareness of, all the right ever seem to need to do is keep saying it and if they say it often enough it becomes the truth.
You also demonstrate some misconceptions about where some of these opinions of the 'left' come from and why we discuss them with the framing that we do and that is why I've tried to break things down in my discussions with you.
I've always been well aware that my personal experiences do not represent any whole group but they do provide insight and anecdotes are a really powerful way of demonstrating the real life impact of inequality on people. There is plenty in my experiences that can be translated across to highlight key points about discrimination and inequality in wider society. Ad astra per aspera
Btw I do think the right exaggerates just the same, my post on ideology was giving examples from all directions, from left to right to neoconservatories and economical libertarians. My whole point was that all ideologies tend to behave a bit like religion, and rational debate (fueled by a search for the factual truth) and pragmatic measures (for the debate to not go sterile, but to end by addressing the real life situation) seem to impose themselves today. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
