Feminism and Gender Equality

[Sinbi]

To avoid any further misunderstandings, my position is largely the same as Christina Hoff Sommers', which can be viewed in the following video. It's a little simple, but the point gets across. Also, pretty animations.​

 

[Ferre]

To avoid any further misunderstandings, my position is largely the same as Christina Hoff Sommers', which can be viewed in the following video. It's a little simple, but the point gets across. Also, pretty animations.​

Shortsighted, but good to have your views cleared up.

Now that we cleared up the topic of the Wage Gap. Let's return to the goal of this thread, which I'll post just in case anyone missed giving an answer.

"How is it in your country? Do you think IWD is still needed? Do you consider yourself a feminist?"

 

[BLADE]

I have gained the ability to read that shit.

The prophets say my longwindedness is part of my charm.

Joking. Alright, we in this..

You state that the study done by the AAUW holds the gap at around 7 - 15% when taking all of the factors stated into account. The study is a farce. Allow me to explain why:

The AAUW's 6.6 cents, that is, an 83 (buried deep in the report they state it's actually 92, which is still wrong.) percentage in earnings, is predicated on their broad occupational categories that go into "Other white Collar". For example, they include "social sciences". Know what social sciences include? Both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors have a median income of 70,000 boonbucks, and 66% of them are men. Sociology majors? 40,000, and 68% of them are ladies. They include a whole slew of skewing occupations, like male athletes vs. female librarians. These are not comparisons between people who do the same work, brochacho. Want a link? It's the one you posted.

I know. As I noted above, we have a dearth of longitudinal and granular data with which to make sweeping pronouncements on the nature of the wage gap. What we do know is that once controlling for the data, anywhere from 7ish to 15ish percent of it remains (and unexplained.) You can play around with the data or sectors to get slightly smaller values, but even a 5 percent value (as you list below) is several thousand dollars a year. Hardly insignificant.

I should also point out I got that range by playing with the data (my degree finally pays off!) so nothing you've noted is news or contradictory to me.

In reality, the adjusted percentage is 4.8 - 7.1% gap in wages, which if you do the math (because I'm bad at it) is peanuts, leaves little room for "discrimination", and is steadily shrinking over the years. Also, if that article from above is factual at all, we can add the possibility of women being less likely to negotiate salaries to that every shrinking narrative space.

Sure. And the ability to negotiate salaries can be tied to any number of things, including the death of unions, the power of late capitalism, etc. I prefer not to tip my hand as I think the wage gap --such as it is-- exists because of material factors and not necessarily the Patriarchal eidolon of bourgeois feminism. With that being said, there's no way to outright dismiss it, and some of the circumstantial evidence certainly points to it. As I've noted in previous posts, I am comfortable attributing at least some aliquot of that gap to sexism.

Or if we are simplifying my stand: sexism certainly exists, improvement (pace that Atlantic article) has been uneven, but what pressures women do face can also be attributed in great part to their status as exploited workers (like men too.)

You insinuate that women being in poverty "--sometimes on the order of 37% more(!)-- than men." has something to do with the pay discrepancy (which it technically does, but you imply it is also a sexist issue), but it's like you forgot, even though you stated it at the beginning of your arguments, that women go into lower paying fields than men on average, and many more women than men are
stay-at-home parents, so the poverty percentages are bound to be skewed in their direction.

Sure and as I noted at the beginning of my post, some portion of this discrepancy is explained by relatively more innocuous factors such as "choices" but again my friend, I am a Marxist. I do not believe in market autonomy. Certainly my experience as an attorney has deepened my understanding of what is called disparate impact where institutions shrouded in the penumbra of dizzying complexity, market secrecy, etc. may discriminate without an overt mandate or intention to do so. Again whether this is aimed at women as superexploited marginal workers or at their gender is or some combination of the two (my position) is somewhat harder to clarify. The best we can do is be thoughtful.

It strikes me, given the historicity of Western sexism and the other evidence cited here as somewhat telling that circumstantial evidence (like the poverty rate) points to material conditions for women as continuing to be suboptimal.

You also neglect to mention the usual percentage if that discrepancy per state is somewhere between 4 to 10%. Hell, in Wyoming, they're equally impoverished. Might be wrong on those last percentages, but the average is much lower than the buzz statement that was slipped in.

Sure. And that would be interesting to look at the differences why. Again, I think what we call sexism is more or less class discrimination and the mechanics of late capitalism writ large, but vulgar class reductionism is not really my thing and I do believe sexism is still an issue (I think you do too; you just disagree with how overblown the wage gap is.)

Also the statement was chosen on an average of the US (I promise I'm not trying to clickbait you) though as I noted geographical differences would also be interesting to look at. The case of Wyoming might even be counterintuitive to the "higher paying field" theory as Wyoming's economy is based on extractive, etc. fields which tend to be male-dominated. But that's an argument for another day and frankly adding another thread to this will hardly be edifying.

Are you seriously arguing that women not being paid for taking care of their homes and families is sexist? Cleaning is not hard work, it is time consuming work.

It can be both. Getting on your hands and knees to clean grout. Repetitive motions that stress your vertebrae, etc.

And yes I've always thought there should be a universal basic income (for men and women) at least predicated not only on fairness but on the importance of invisible social reproductive work.

Changing diapers isn't even that bad as long as you aren't scared of piss and shit and wear gloves, and wash up afterwards.

Sure. It can still be time consuming and gross though (and I love my kids.)

Also, "feminine work"? The reason why when a man and a woman live together, the woman ends up doing most of the cleaning a good majority of the time, is that men have higher tolerance for messes in comparison to women.

You obviously haven't seen my carpet. But as anecdotes are not the singular form of data and as I don't wanna out myself as the clean freak I am, do you have any data to back up these assertions? And again, assuming you do, does the preponderance of data itself prove an explanation or merely descriptive? If you've read your Butler, etc. there's an element of gender performativity and constructed identities to what are stereotypically male or female preferences.

Thus, women choose to clean up. Why more women don't ask their husbands/boyfriends to clean up a little more is beyond me. Have you been to a bachelor's flat? Gross.

My wife and I share the work equally. I can't speak to other relationships nor do I want to speak for the women on the site. If I had to speculate, I would imagine there is more social pressure on a woman to be the good girlfriend/partner/spouse and societally reproduce the function of the mother. But that's getting a bit pseudo-Freudian and I don't have data to back that up, so we'll leave that to apophasis.

Managing children during newborn (sleep deprivation) and toddler (constant vigilance) phases can be stressful, but nowhere in your link does it state that men are not along for that ride.

It states a difference of roughly half an hour between men and women (without clarifying the nature of intensity of the domestic work) per day which works out to roughly 180 hours a year. Or nearly a month's worth of working shifts. Significant.

They split the work. Raising a child is a joint-effort, they share the headaches and laughs, unless they're a single parent then it's just kind of terrible until they're teenagers and then it gets worse. but regardless, it was left out. These jobs should be appreciated, but more so because they cause a woman to be less flexible if she has an occupation or wants to do something with her free time, than the oh so terrible drudgery of vacuuming.

See above. Agreed otherwise.

This by no means is the sole reason why women have inflexible schedules. Speaking of being less flexible...

Women do not (on average) have more flexible schedules than men. Elaine McCrate, who is cited as a source to a final report on the wage gap defines flexibility in the workplace "as an arrangement that permits workers to leave work temporarily without informing their supervisors, and allows flexible work hours (e.g., undefined arrival or departure times)." Many posit (and you imply, and yes I realize I'm taking a lot of implications, feel free to correct me) women are "crowded" into lower paying jobs because they want more flexibility. Based on McCrate's definition, however, those with more authority have higher pay and more flexibility. Women are autonomous and free to choose what they want.

Again I think "choice" is the byproduct of softminded liberal ideology. It also sounds as though some of the arguments you're having with others here, are bleeding over into our discussions. I am sympathetic to some of their positions (particularly GABA's --hi Ruth!) but again, I am a Marxist. They are largely liberals. Our positions are different.

I don't really know to what extent women (or men for that matter) have a choice in the workplace, especially with the twilight of labor unions. What I can say is that reproductive and child-rearing issues certainly seem to present another cross-pressure on women. Good source though.

Women having a harder time, as you put it, getting promoted in private sector establishments (In... Norway. Wait, are you Norwegian? This is Norwegian. We might have some conflicting information if so, but I'll go on), but apparently have an easier time doing so when there is female representation in executive positions, can be seen in two lights:

I am not Norwegian. I chose Norway as it tends to be on the high-end of equal representation for men and women in the Western World.

Two, and this is using the logic one would follow by glancing at the first view in regards to the woman bringing "diversity and a less discriminatory environment" to a place where men are more prominent (and thus obviously super sexist), the woman discriminates and chooses more females to promote based on favoritism.

Both of these are heavily biased views. Neither of them are concrete. Flexibility is also something executives look for in prospective promotees. Is that a word? Eh. This is why many female CEOs or any high ranking woman within any company almost always had hired help dealing with all domestic matters.

I don't really subscribe to either theory and I think you are indulging a bit in false dichotomy. I mostly adduced the report as ancillary data on why some sections of women --particularly the upwardly mobile middle class (of which desgraciadamente I am one)-- tend to be at a disadvantage on the work place. I must admit though that the plight of the petty bourgeoisie, such as it is, does not move me o'ermuch. It does strike me as interesting frictional data for our meta-narrative though.

If I had to proffer my own narrative, I think women are disadvantaged in a capitalist sense --they do not have access to the same human capital (networking, etc.) as their male counterparts do and this is what (and not overt or subrosa sexism as understood in the Jezebelian sense) drives some of that inequality.

Men are still in the majority of victims of violent crime. What I stated was not incorrect. But, genuinely, thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Simply putting things into perspective and I find fear mongering to be very distasteful.

Sure. And women are still the majority of victims of domestic violence. It's also worth noting that even if we buy into the narrative driven by some here that the West is now Sexism-Free™ it still disproportionately kills a lot of women in the Darkest Third World™ (I won't go into the weird Kiplingisms of some of the people talking about Saudi Arabia, etc --doubtless backwards and reactionary places.) Is that intentional sexism? Does it matter?

I think society has failed both genders, but has it failed both equally? Is that what we should be talking about?

Your grandad sounds cool. You're pretty cool too.

Thanks. He's a lovely man. Certainly cooler than I am.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

I guess after heated debate and very active involvement in this thread I should state my closing thoughts. Then get the hell out of dodge.

How is it in your country?

I started off the thread with an attitude that was pretty close minded and narrow. I believed women were just "bitching" and trying to make excuses and the such. I felt like men and women are pretty equal and in a way women had an advantage over men. I had the attitude that not all men were problem causers and if a woman found a man who was harassing her and treating her unfairly then by all means the woman should confront him. I felt as if this feminist movement was trying to make women equal, but in turn, it made men unequal by labeling us and throwing us into stereotypes.

However, throughout the course of this thread my opinion has changed significantly. After reading through the personal stories some of our members have posted and listening to what my mother thought of the topic. My attitude has changed for the better. I realize now that women do face barriers and some of them are natural and some of them are 100% preventable. The harassment, physical abuse, slandering and sexism of American society is wrong. And it is wrong if it happens all over the world, such as @Marf 's Australia and @Kiro 's Norway.

I believe women do face challenges in american society. And I believe myself, and my fellow man, can help make the world a better place. All we have to do is treat women right. That's as simple as it is. If every man would just treat women right then I believe we could all make this Feminism movement work. What do I mean by treat women right? Honestly its open to interpretation but basically its "treat others how you want to be treated."

Then we have this Wage Gap issue which has been beat to death and then some. I honestly have no opinion on this simply because I have not researched it enough. I think @Sinbi has made an excellent defense for it and I also believe @BLADE has as well. But regardless of anything if it does exist it is completely and incredibly wrong. I see absolutely no reason why a woman can not get paid equal to a man if they are completely equal across the spectrum. Same education, same ability and training, same hours, same attitude, work equally hard and all that.

Do you think International Woman's day is needed?

Yes. But schedule it on a Saturday and make it a holiday so everyone can get off work and do some cool shit.

Are you a feminist?

I don't know. I hate being labelled things such as an "Atheist" or "Republican" or "teen" or "trouble maker."

So I don't know.

But I do know women should be treated better and respected by their male counterparts.

BossMan out.

 

[Sinbi]

Alright. So it looks like our views differ more politically than socioeconomically, (I either missed or you failed to mention you being a marxist) which is totally okay, and that's an entirely different discussion. It does wrap a lot of stuff up in a nice bow though.

Not wrong a out the false dichotomy now that I look back on the post.

The west is certainly not sexism free. It would be stupid of anyone to think there aren't people that have a prejudice and discriminate against groups of individuals based on anything as irrelevant as your hair color, clothes or sex. It isn't nearly as prominent as many (feminists) tout it to be, however, so it bothers.

Sexism is certainly an issue, and feminism or a movement similar to it is very much needed in many parts of the world. I'm just sayin', it's not that useful in the west anymore, since there isn't that big of a difference between how men and women are treated and thus I feel movements more appropriate (like egalitarianism, humanism, etc.) should be the primary means of uplifting everyone, not just women. Feminism is still very mainstream, and many followers of the ideology try to stomp out any opposing ideas. I don't like that.

Posting from a phone so it's not going to be the highest of quality, but I'm getting the feeling we're pretty much at a point where we're nodding our heads. We agree on some points, and disagree on others but those are mostly opinion-driven and politically colored which is fine.

All good, Dhampir.

 

[Kiro]

http://restaurant-junkie.tumblr.com...finery29-male-restaurant-workers-wore-dresses

It's relevant.

 

[Outlander]

http://restaurant-junkie.tumblr.com...finery29-male-restaurant-workers-wore-dresses

It's relevant.

I actually really respect that the servers where up for that, somewhat literally walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

Not to say the dress code thing doesn't matter, but I'm honestly a lot more concerned with the stuff in the post right below it. No one should be punished for trying to take care of their baby, in an agreed upon unpaid leave for good measure. How can they do that?

 

[Jax Vos]

Spoiler

We want to think it is, but trust me. This is a thing.

Actually the picture was photo shopped. If you look at the women in the video you'll notice that their breasts fill the cups of their bikinis while the woman in the picture has pecs that do not even get close to filling the cups. So, yeah I can tell the difference between real and photo shop.

 

[Nor'baal]

I think we should repeal universal suffrage and make it so that woman cannot vote. The 1867 act can also go, so that the feckless poor and the working man are also denied the vote. only the landed Gentry should be allowed the privilege of participating in Democracy.

*poker face*

 

[Officiant]

I think we should repeal universal suffrage and make it so that woman cannot vote. The 1867 act can also go, so that the feckless poor and the working man are also denied the vote. only the landed Gentry should be allowed the privilege of participating in Democracy.

*poker face*

Oh poor Lord Salisbury, all that superb foreign policy work and he's remembered as being an aristocratic, elitist (expletive) .

 

[JollySailorBold]

1. I live in Midwestern U.S.A., so you all probably know how it is here already.

2. Yeah, i think it's pretty cool to have a day that celebrates women.

3. This one is a bit trickier because of the views of those around me. Ideologically, yes, I am a feminist. However, I do often times struggle with identifying as one because of some hostility I have received. My thoughts and actions in public are largely influenced by the thoughts and actions of the general masses, which isn't a great thing, but it's just how I act. When people give me shit for calling myself a feminist, I tend to not label myself as such around them anymore.

And as a bonus, Jaylor's rules of engagement;
1: Don't initiate a fight. Just don't hit people, mmkay?
2: If you must fight don't discriminate. If a woman attacks you, fight back, or de-escalate the situation. Same with a man. Races, genders, etc. don't matter. Defend yourself when the need arises.

Sorry if I'm a little late but it felt good to have my opinion out there, and I am welcome to any opposing ideas.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

When people give me shit for calling myself a feminist, I tend to not label myself as such around them anymore.

Do you my man and be proud of that. If someone doesn't like it, tell them to go fuck themselves and just do you.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Do you my man and be proud of that. If someone doesn't like it, tell them to go **** themselves and just do you.

Or have a confident conversation about differing opinions without the name-calling.

 

[Nor'baal]

Punch them.
Shoot them.
Then take their oil.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Punch them.
Shoot them.
Then take their oil.

 

[Nor'baal]

Ghastly Colonials.​

 

[JollySailorBold]

Thanks guys. I try to do that, but my confidence isn't the best, and I try to avoid conflict if I can.

 

[Kiro]

Well, the latest issue of the official Star Wars comic was a pretty solid swing for feminism in a genre that's been... less than exemplary, and the next one promises to be much the same. Check the spoiler for details, if you don't mind spoilers for issue #17

Spoiler: Spoilerino

Leia and two other ladies, Sana & Dr. Aphra basically have to fight off an entire prison's worth of convicts and crazy killer droids led by a mysterious bounty hunter/mercenary.

 

[Sinbi]

That sounds more like a giant swing for the Mary Sue Crew. It's probably fine, but that sounds like "GurlPowah" filler crap from the little snippet spoilered.

Man, I gotta catch up with the comics. I'm stuck reading capeshit when there's laser swords happening.