Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Cybran]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/...-men-and-women
People are not just pulling things out of thin air when it comes to pay wages.

You don't seem to realize that the jobs with the biggest gaps are low paid and usually part time. These are the type of jobs mothers take after they have spend 4-5 years to raising a kid. Highest paying jobs where people put career first are equal. The gap is not based on sexism, it's based on personal choices. This is why it's nothing more than a Myth perpetuated by feminists.

[DisposableHero]

You don't seem to realize that the jobs with the biggest gaps are low paid and usually part time. These are the type of jobs mothers take after they have spend 4-5 years to raising a kid. Highest paying jobs where people put career first are equal. The gap is not based on sexism, it's based on personal choices. This is why it's nothing more than a Myth perpetuated by feminists.

A lot of jobs on the list of largest gaps look like positions that would get a significant portion of their earnings from commission.

[Endus]

But can people do it without something as basic and fundamental as gender is my critique, because if you have one, you're on that "team," and given your sexism regarding unequal pay, I think you're firmly showing evidence you're on the "male" team.

Of course you can. I'm not in a wheelchair, but I can also support the need for wheelchair access ramps. I'm not black, but I can support affirmative action. Your entire criticism is without basis, and you're resorting to ad hominems (calling me sexist) because of that.

Like I said, the root difference in our arguments is that you think a male-dominated society needs to be protected and men saved from their own inadequacies, whereas I think women are fully the equals of men intellectually and are perfectly capable of handling themselves, if supported adequately which they are not able to as the same extent of men because the social structure is built against them

Only if you flat-out lie about my stated position and ignore that you literally called women "neurologically disadvantaged".

I don't understand why you're literally so dense you cannot appreciate that neurology is different and ascertaining one neurology as "superior" is what you are doing. Repeatedly. Insisting that negotiating skills makes a person "superior."

Never said that. I said that women have no neurological limitations with regards to negotiating skills. You keep deliberately misconstruing my position. You have never made any attempt to prove that women can't negotiate, you've simply stated that their brains can't handle it. Well, to not be hypocritical, I will again quote you directly; you stated they are "neurologically disadvantaged" with regards to being able to negotiate.

And I consider you dismissing the neurological and sociological evidence as support of your blatant, baseless and archaic sexism against women to support a thing that isn't needed and apparently benefits men substantially more. I think it's hard evidence against your "third path" ideology when you support men over women rather than creating an equal situation.

I find it difficult to understand an argument where I can be called a "sexist" for arguing that women are fully the equals of men, rather than agreeing that they are "neurologically disadvantaged" and need special protections and advantages to make up for those shortfalls.

[Cybran]

A lot of jobs on the list of largest gaps look like positions that would get a significant portion of their earnings from commission.

I was thinking about that... but didn't want to be called sexist for mentioning it >_>

[DisposableHero]

I was thinking about that... but didn't want to be called sexist for mentioning it >_>

I'm going to be called sexist no matter how hard I try to sound fair and balanced, so really isn't anything stopping me from pointing out the obvious. I don't know if the studies supplying those numbers evaluated the pay of people in those fields on a per commission basis or just total earnings, but I suspect the latter.

Also this:

And I consider you dismissing the neurological and sociological evidence as support of your blatant, baseless and archaic sexism against women to support a thing that isn't needed and apparently benefits men substantially more. I think it's hard evidence against your "third path" ideology when you support men over women rather than creating an equal situation.

Is comedy gold. So you think women are neurologically deficient, and those who don't think so are sexist against women.

[Ebildays]

1> Job choice
2> Differences in weekly/yearly investment in one's career (women on average work less overtime, and also take more time off for childrearing)
3> Strength of the employee's wage negotiations
4> Legacy effects from past discrimination that is no longer in effect, which has left older women in the workforce a bit behind men who started at the same time they did. Getting the sameish raises NOW doesn't change what they were getting 30 years ago, after all.

For the most part. Most studies that claim a 20% wage gap don't control for ANY of these. The more reputable ones do, and show that the gap is almost nonexistent, like the US Dept. of Labor study that controlled for age (factor 4, basically), and demonstrated a less than 10% difference for under-35s, a factor that was easily explained through different employment choices and time investment in that age range (which were NOT factored in for that study).

1. I don't see how job choice factors in when comparing two people doing the same job which is what the link I provided does. I am not talking about comparing people doing two different jobs but the same job, so job choice is to a factor.
2. This does effect a person's career which is a punishment for married women or working moms who are unable to make the same time commitments that married men and working dads do. If all things where equal married men and working dads would also work less overtime and take more time off for childrearing.
3. This is only something that women can work on for themselves but does explain some of the wage gap but not all of it.
4. It is your opinion that it is no longer in effect but we are still seeing lawsuits about discrimination against women. 30 years is not really that long of time to say that a way of thinking is no longer in effect. Yes, it is not was wide spread as it once was but there are still a few hold outs that can cause damage.

Because they're not the same person. Lawyers aren't hired because they meet the qualifications. They're hired on the strength of their past work history and their achievements. If you've got two applicants for positions, and one's fresh out of college but the other has 5 years of experience and a perfect win record at court, the second employee is going to get offered more money, or at least will likely expect more and will walk if they aren't offered enough. That's why salary negotiations are a "thing"; because people aren't all the same, and most companies want to hire better people, not just anyone who meets the bare minimum qualifications.

Which would fall under part of the qualifications for a job, just look at any job application, you see those sections listed or any resume. No one is talking about someone who is more qualified getting better pay that makes sense. That is just a red herring to move away from the issue of two applicants being of equally good standing but one being paid at a higher rate than the other. If you have two applicants and both of them have 5 years of experience and a perfect win record at court they shoule be offered the same amount of money. Even with negotiations there should only be a small wage gap between the two.

You don't seem to realize that the jobs with the biggest gaps are low paid and usually part time. These are the type of jobs mothers take after they have spend 4-5 years to raising a kid. Highest paying jobs where people put career first are equal. The gap is not based on sexism, it's based on personal choices. This is why it's nothing more than a Myth perpetuated by feminists.

No, I can read quite well and my reader comprehension has always been very high. I would assume that being an education administrator, physician, surgeon or manager would be jobs were people put their career first and be high paying. I am sad to know they are low paid and usually part time jobs that mothers reentering the job field take.

I'm going to be called sexist no matter how hard I try to sound fair and balanced, so really isn't anything stopping me from pointing out the obvious. I don't know if the studies supplying those numbers evaluated the pay of people in those fields on a per commission basis or just total earnings, but I suspect the latter.

There is a note at the bottom stating they used full-time wage workers and salaried workers, I don't think they used people who worked on commisson. I think that women, at least, on the retail part would out earn men on that front. Because one I mainly see females working those types of jobs and two women tend to have more big price items in the retail world.

[Endus]

1. I don't see how job choice factors in when comparing two people doing the same job which is what the link I provided does. I am not talking about comparing people doing two different jobs but the same job, so job choice is to a factor.
2. This does effect a person's career which is a punishment for married women or working moms who are unable to make the same time commitments that married men and working dads do. If all things where equal married men and working dads would also work less overtime and take more time off for childrearing.
3. This is only something that women can work on for themselves but does explain some of the wage gap but not all of it.
4. It is your opinion that it is no longer in effect but we are still seeing lawsuits about discrimination against women. 30 years is not really that long of time to say that a way of thinking is no longer in effect. Yes, it is not was wide spread as it once was but there are still a few hold outs that can cause damage.

On point 1; most studies which claim a 20-30% wage gap do NOT control for job choice; they are NOT comparing people in the same job, they are collecting average salary info on everyone and averaging it all out.

On point 2; it's not a "punishment", it's a recognition that choices have consequences. If you choose to focus on family over career, your career will suffer. If you focus on career over family, your family will suffer. If you try to balance both, they will both suffer a little. In Canada, paternity leave is just as much a "thing" as maternity; the main difference is that maternity leave can start 8 weeks prior to birth, while paternity (and adoptive parental leave for that matter) can't start before birth (or date of adoption). It's not a gender issue, it's a career vs family time investment issue.

On point 4; of course there are lawsuits. It's illegal to murder people but people still do it. You can't ever completely eliminate these things, you can only provide legal protections and push for social recognition of equality on the whole. There will always BE sexists, just like there will always be racists. That doesn't mean they're still a systemic problem. Law is not meant to prevent illegal activities, it's meant to reduce and limit them, so that they are the exception rather than the rule and when those exceptions are brought to light, they can be punished.

Which would fall under part of the qualifications for a job, just look at any job application, you see those sections listed or any resume. No one is talking about someone who is more qualified getting better pay that makes sense. That is just a red herring to move away from the issue of two applicants being of equally good standing but one being paid at a higher rate than the other. If you have two applicants and both of them have 5 years of experience and a perfect win record at court they shoule be offered the same amount of money. Even with negotiations there should only be a small wage gap between the two.

That's how it is, in practice. The wage gap for under-35s is less than 10%, and that's without accounting for job choice.

Linking this again; http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ller-wage-gap/

2009 US Dept. of Labor study that does NOT account for job choice, simply averages out wages by age group. Under-35s, about a 10% difference, that likely comes down to job choice and women taking time out for childbearing (since 20-35 is the prime age for that). It's the over-35s that see a 25% pay gap or so (again, without accounting for job choice). So we really are talking about a small wage gap among the newer generation, one that can likely be completely explained as being due to job choice, time off for childbearing, and negotiation confidence, since none of those were eliminated for that study.

The goal on the wage gap isn't to make sure women are, on average, making as much as men. It's to ensure there is equality of opportunity. If women make different choices than men, on average, and those choices mean they see different results, that's not discrimination, and it's not something we should be worrying about, necessarily. Equality of opportunity is what we need. If women end up having different priorities than men and, in general, make different choices, that's fine.

[DisposableHero]

There is a note at the bottom stating they used full-time wage workers and salaried workers, I don't think they used people who worked on commisson. I think that women, at least, on the retail part would out earn men on that front. Because one I mainly see females working those types of jobs and two women tend to have more big price items in the retail world.

Depends on how many positions they lump into each category and if they examine them case by case or in aggregate. Physicians and Surgeons is the classic one. Heart and Brain Surgeons get paid more than pediatrics specialists and family doctors for obvious reasons. If the surveys conducted take these vastly different positions and merely take the average among men and women across them to compare then they could easily arrive at the numbers presented without any discrimination. Men favor high risk high reward in their jobs moreso than women do, its pretty easy to observe, and surgeons are an obvious example.

Retail Sales could easily include store level, regional, and national managers and find similar distributions. Even salaried workers can often have lucrative bonus packages based on performance, especially for positions like personal financial consultants. Salary usually reflects performance in some fashion, so as I said, it is a measure of outcomes. Equal outcomes is not the standard of equality our anti-discrimination laws are based on nor should it be. Equal opportunity is what should be provided, and no study of outcomes is going to indicate that the opportunity was not equal, because it is by definition, a study of outcomes, not opportunity.

[Freia]

Bullshit. Ask most men, and they would tell you they prefer a more curvy women. There is nothing attractive, or healthy about being overweight, or underweight.

You just proved their point. They never stated what body type was preferred but you stated that curvy is preferred and overweight and underweight isn't attractive. And btw you can be not curvy and be neither overweight or underweight. There is not just one healthy body type. And the media isn't saying everyone should be skinny, it is actually saying curves are in. The fashion industry picks tall lanky models to model the clothes not because they find them the most attractive but because they don't want curves and otherwise to overshadow the clothing. Society in general says women should be curvy as well as trim. If sticks were so focused on like you are implying no one would be getting chest or butt implants.

I know this is a response to a post on the first page but I don't get how someone can be that clueless.

[Eroginous]

On point 2; it's not a "punishment", it's a recognition that choices have consequences. If you choose to focus on family over career, your career will suffer. If you focus on career over family, your family will suffer. If you try to balance both, they will both suffer a little. In Canada, paternity leave is just as much a "thing" as maternity; the main difference is that maternity leave can start 8 weeks prior to birth, while paternity (and adoptive parental leave for that matter) can't start before birth (or date of adoption). It's not a gender issue, it's a career vs family time investment issue.

When my son was born, I had been working for Fred Meyer for just over 3 years. I was allowed to take 6 weeks off (paid) and stay home with my son and his mother. My GF at the time worked right up until his birth (cuz she's a champ) and she was allowed to take 3 months off. That was almost 10 years ago.

So yes, I agree completely.

[Zhangfei]

Of course you can. I'm not in a wheelchair, but I can also support the need for wheelchair access ramps. I'm not black, but I can support affirmative action. Your entire criticism is without basis, and you're resorting to ad hominems (calling me sexist) because of that.

You're calling me sexist, so hypocrisy is fun. My criticism is that you are a gender. It's a social, political and ideological construct. How can you approach this topic not being a man. This is not about race, which is far weaker a construct. It's not about disability, another weaker construct. You have yet to demonstrate this apparently amazing ability to be "agendered" and approach things from this "third path."

Only if you flat-out lie about my stated position and ignore that you literally called women "neurologically disadvantaged".

How does that determine inferiority? Do you think disabled people are inferior?

Never said that. I said that women have no neurological limitations with regards to negotiating skills.

Of course they do: women have larger sections of their brain devoted to peacekeeping, emotion-controlling and non-aggressiveness.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/feature...-brains-differ

They are less likely on average to seek out confrontation and go through the process of negotiating considering it requires some of those skills. Women "choose" not to negotiate and cause a fuss because they're hard-wired to. It doesn't mean they "cannot" do it, or that they won't ever seek it out, but they're just less likely to.

You keep misunderstanding my position by implying I'm saying all women are incapable. I will make it once again akin to physical strength; on average, men are stronger. If we had a job requirement of lifting X bales of hay to determine your pay, I'd call that sexist too. Some women can lift bales of hay. Some men can't. But we all know where the advantage lays.

You keep deliberately misconstruing my position. You have never made any attempt to prove that women can't negotiate, you've simply stated that their brains can't handle it. Well, to not be hypocritical, I will again quote you directly; you stated they are "neurologically disadvantaged" with regards to being able to negotiate.

And they are. And you keep insisting they're not. It's not "inferior" to be poor at something unneeded in an extremely limited sense. A baseball player isn't "superior" because their hand-eye co-ordination trumps mine.

I find it difficult to understand an argument where I can be called a "sexist" for arguing that women are fully the equals of men, rather than agreeing that they are "neurologically disadvantaged" and need special protections and advantages to make up for those shortfalls.

Because you're wallpapering the cracks with ideology and pretending a problem doesn't exist, which ends up significantly benefiting men and harming women. If I were teaching a class and designed all my coursework to appeal to a female mindset, I could use your excuse: "all girls and boys are equals." While most of the boys struggle I could say "all girls and boys are equal." And at the end, despite my knowledge of neurology and learning patterns and seeing these discouraged boys failing and all the girls succeeding, I can be proud of creating a classroom of equality.

Or I can just learn some basic neurology and psychology and figure out people are different and have different skills and we should be focusing on that?

[DisposableHero]

Because you're wallpapering the cracks with ideology and pretending a problem doesn't exist, which ends up significantly benefiting men and harming women. If I were teaching a class and designed all my coursework to appeal to a female mindset, I could use your excuse: "all girls and boys are equals." While most of the boys struggle I could say "all girls and boys are equal." And at the end, despite my knowledge of neurology and learning patterns and seeing these discouraged boys failing and all the girls succeeding, I can be proud of creating a classroom of equality.

Or I can just learn some basic neurology and psychology and figure out people are different and have different skills and we should be focusing on that?

This would assume that the goal of a business is to provide value to its employees, the way a teacher provides value to their students. The goal is in fact the opposite, the business compensates the employee for value the employee provides to the business. Fix this reversal of roles in your analogy and the truth of the matter should become obvious.

[Endus]

My criticism is that you are a gender. It's a social, political and ideological construct. How can you approach this topic not being a man. This is not about race, which is far weaker a construct. It's not about disability, another weaker construct. You have yet to demonstrate this apparently amazing ability to be "agendered" and approach things from this "third path."

The same way I can have an opinion about why women need the right to abortions, despite not having a uterus myself. You're acting like this is some kind of impossibly complex concept, but it's not. People divorce themselves from their own bias all the time. I'm not at the mercy of my gonads and hindbrain. I'm perfectly able to rationalize independently, as pretty much everyone is.

How does that determine inferiority? Do you think disabled people are inferior?

So you think women are disabled by virtue of being women? Seriously, dude. That's not making your argument "better".

Because you're wallpapering the cracks with ideology and pretending a problem doesn't exist, which ends up significantly benefiting men and harming women.

Because it's not a problem, and you've given absolutely no evidence that it is. Your own link argues otherwise; it states that women tend to have stronger abilities with language, controlling their emotions, are better with relational aggression (which is exactly what negotiation involves). Those are all the skills required for negotiations. Your own link is suggesting their brains are more capable in this regard than those of men, not less. When your own evidence is supporting my argument, I'm perfectly comfortable dismissing yours.

[Zhangfei]

This would assume that the goal of a business is to provide value to its employees, the way a teacher provides value to their students. The goal is in fact the opposite, the business compensates the employee for value the employee provides to the business. Fix this reversal of roles in your analogy and the truth of the matter should become obvious.

Society is meant to be gender-neutral though. Otherwise you're just tacitly admitting that the system set up is sexist (which I agree with) and has no bearing on the quality of work (which is true.)

The same way I can have an opinion about why women need the right to abortions, despite not having a uterus myself. You're acting like this is some kind of impossibly complex concept, but it's not. People divorce themselves from their own bias all the time. I'm not at the mercy of my gonads and hindbrain. I'm perfectly able to rationalize independently, as pretty much everyone is.

Do you know the difference between sex and gender? Do you know what the concept of gender entails? Gender influences your conscious and subconscious; saying you can "step out of it" is just bizarre. It shapes how you think.

So you think women are disabled by virtue of being women? Seriously, dude. That's not making your argument "better".

So you think disabled people are inferior? Seriously, dude. That's not making your argument "better" either.

Because it's not a problem, and you've given absolutely no evidence that it is. Your own link argues otherwise; it states that women tend to have stronger abilities with language, controlling their emotions, are better with relational aggression (which is exactly what negotiation involves). Those are all the skills required for negotiations. Your own link is suggesting their brains are more capable in this regard than those of men, not less. When your own evidence is supporting my argument, I'm perfectly comfortable dismissing yours.

Interesting interpretation. We shall have to agree to disagree. I would say controlling their aggression means they're less likely to cause an upset; ability with language in relational terms is useless and controlling their emotions better is slight. I would say being more aggressive, being better with math and being able to ignore manipulative emotional work would benefit men. I'd also suggest that men being more likely to be in positions of power gives men a social advantage.

Therefore it's a problem, it shows in the statistics (7%) and the neurology, and I'll maintain your argument with its lack of evidence is equally dismissable.

[Sorrior]

You're calling me sexist, so hypocrisy is fun. My criticism is that you are a gender. It's a social, political and ideological construct. How can you approach this topic not being a man. This is not about race, which is far weaker a construct. It's not about disability, another weaker construct. You have yet to demonstrate this apparently amazing ability to be "agendered" and approach things from this "third path."



How does that determine inferiority? Do you think disabled people are inferior?



Of course they do: women have larger sections of their brain devoted to peacekeeping, emotion-controlling and non-aggressiveness.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/feature...-brains-differ

They are less likely on average to seek out confrontation and go through the process of negotiating considering it requires some of those skills. Women "choose" not to negotiate and cause a fuss because they're hard-wired to. It doesn't mean they "cannot" do it, or that they won't ever seek it out, but they're just less likely to.

You keep misunderstanding my position by implying I'm saying all women are incapable. I will make it once again akin to physical strength; on average, men are stronger. If we had a job requirement of lifting X bales of hay to determine your pay, I'd call that sexist too. Some women can lift bales of hay. Some men can't. But we all know where the advantage lays.



And they are. And you keep insisting they're not. It's not "inferior" to be poor at something unneeded in an extremely limited sense. A baseball player isn't "superior" because their hand-eye co-ordination trumps mine.



Because you're wallpapering the cracks with ideology and pretending a problem doesn't exist, which ends up significantly benefiting men and harming women. If I were teaching a class and designed all my coursework to appeal to a female mindset, I could use your excuse: "all girls and boys are equals." While most of the boys struggle I could say "all girls and boys are equal." And at the end, despite my knowledge of neurology and learning patterns and seeing these discouraged boys failing and all the girls succeeding, I can be proud of creating a classroom of equality.

Or I can just learn some basic neurology and psychology and figure out people are different and have different skills and we should be focusing on that?

..You're school analogy actually IS happening LOL.

And overall the point is that yes we're different we just have to live with that and take advantage of what we're good at. The pay gap isn't really there anymore. It;s just that as YOU yourself have stated men and women work differently.

[Zhangfei]

..You're school analogy actually IS happening LOL.

It certainly was in the 80s and 90s. Only now that we have a lot more statistics and evidence in the educational sciences do we know a lot more about what "works" for each gender. Nowadays it's all about differentialised methodology and applying a variety of techniques and levels designed for individual or clusters of students. Teaching is really hard and in America, we're treated like dogshit. People learn in such dramatically different ways. I have had, at times, four different types of exam to gauge how much my students understand, to avoid falling into the kind of pitfalls we made in the past.

And overall the point is that yes we're different we just have to live with that and take advantage of what we're good at. The pay gap isn't really there anymore. It;s just that as YOU yourself have stated men and women work differently.

It's still there and it's not that they "work" differently (there are tens of thousands of types of work,) it's that the idea of "negotiation" being a legitimate skill for determining pay rather than... the actual work... is grossly fucking stupid, let alone sexist.

[Sorrior]

It certainly was in the 80s and 90s. Only now that we have a lot more statistics and evidence in the educational sciences do we know a lot more about what "works" for each gender. Nowadays it's all about differentialised methodology and applying a variety of techniques and levels designed for individual or clusters of students. Teaching is really hard and in America, we're treated like dogshit. People learn in such dramatically different ways. I have had, at times, four different types of exam to gauge how much my students understand, to avoid falling into the kind of pitfalls we made in the past.




It's still there and it's not that they "work" differently (there are tens of thousands of types of work,) it's that the idea of "negotiation" being a legitimate skill for determining pay rather than... the actual work... is grossly fucking stupid, let alone sexist.

As a kid who had alot of issues in school yet loved to learn trust me man i understand..also helps that BOTH my parents were educators...

[Eroginous]

Anyone else here convinced that Zhangfei the feminist is actually about as sexist and gender biased as it gets?

[Sorrior]

Anyone else here convinced that Zhangfei the feminist is actually about as sexist and gender biased as it gets?

Ummmm if you dig deeper into feminism it's kinda rooted in self hating sexism....

I mean things like always trying to get ahead makes ALOT more sense if they even subconsciously see themselves as inferior.

[Titan2k10]

Modern feminism is so far from what the movement was initially about. Its just a bastardization now and provides people trying to further their agenda. Feminism came about as a movement that women could act independently. You could all do with a bit of honesty.