NationStates

Galloism wrote:

New Edom wrote:
Do you have some other strategy to propose?

Well, I pursue equality always.

Of course, while that has yielded SOME results, it has been neither quick nor universal. However, at least I have a clear conscience.

Well, about that anyway.

I don't oppose equality. What I oppose are ideologies insisting that theirs is the only path to it while insisting that other approaches are againsts equality. Feminist propagandists every few weeks or so denounce egalitarianism as an ideal generally or humanitarianism and insist that these ideas are too vague and that they don't deal with women's issues at all. So the idea that used to be feminism--that it was a pluralistic movement that had a lot of different ideas in it--has become eclipsed by a general approach that includes the following ideas:
- patriarchy theory
- rape culture theory
- the wage gap
- the Duluth Model
- objectification theory

Today nearly any article, academic proposal, policy approaches or activism labeled feminssm include these ideas. The divisions among this mainstream are just by degrees--how radical you are, how liberal-ish you are, but really this is like comparing one denomination fo Christianity today with another. They may carry things out differently, but they generally have the idea that you have clergy and the regular congregation, the Nicene Creed and so on.

So for example with the wage gap idea, the question is not 'do you agree with this economic theory' but 'do you support women's rights'. I have a problem with that always being the question, because sometimes that is not the issue when it comes to being dubious about feminist policies.

New Edom wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Well, I pursue equality always.

Of course, while that has yielded SOME results, it has been neither quick nor universal. However, at least I have a clear conscience.

Well, about that anyway.

<snip stuff that has nothing to do with what I said>

You're not listening. I'm dealing with one very particular statement you made - that you will oppose feminists at every turn because they won't give you the time of the day when it comes to men's issues.

Given feminism's very complicated relationship with equality, this means you will be opposing equality SOMETIMES. The proper course (in my mind) is to oppose feminists when they propose things that actually work against equality, but when they (accidentally) are doing something for equality, either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Don't stand in opposition, because if you do, in those instances, you will be working AGAINST equality, and you become like them.

Galloism wrote:

New Edom wrote:<snip stuff that has nothing to do with what I said>

You're not listening. I'm dealing with one very particular statement you made - that you will oppose feminists at every turn because they won't give you the time of the day when it comes to men's issues.

Given feminism's very complicated relationship with equality, this means you will be opposing equality SOMETIMES. The proper course (in my mind) is to oppose feminists when they propose things that actually work against equality, but when they (accidentally) are doing something for equality, either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Don't stand in opposition, because if you do, in those instances, you will be working AGAINST equality, and you become like them.

Alright I think I understand you now. Yeah I don't disagree with that. I am also capable of quickly changing my mind about how to handle things as necessity dictates. A good example is this wage and education issue: if feminists were proposing policies which were actually egalitarian--ie examining disadvantages to both males and famels in the workplace rather than a blanket assumption that men have all the advantages, then sure, I'd support that.

Okay, time for a recap.

The wage gap figure of 23% or so currently given by feminists can be legitimately argued to be too high. However, all of the legitimate reasons given for it don't explain the gap completely. No study trying to account for these reasons has resulted in a 0% wage gap. This is because the remainder is the result of discrimination, either direct or indirect, and primarily against women. There is ample evidence for this.

"Men negotiate more" when being interviewed for a job doesn't work as a non-sexist explanation, because women are penalized more for negotiating.

"Men network more" isn't a non-sexist explanation, because men benefit from networking more than women do.

"Women need job flexibility in order to take care of family responsibilities" doesn't really account for the gap, because women don't actually work jobs with more flexibility than men have.

"Men work different jobs than women do" isn't entirely a non-sexist explanation, because employers sometimes discriminate against women to keep them out of jobs. This can be because of customer preference, such as in this study, or it can be because of employer preferences, such as discovered during this survey.

The social expectation that women will take time off to raise children is relevant to the wage gap and can't be dismissed a separate issue. The survey above shows how employers will assume that women will take time off, based on this social expectation. Also, this belief seems to be corroborated in this study.

As I said in my initial post in this thread - the wage gap myth is a myth.

Jello Biafra wrote:The wage gap figure of 23% or so currently given by feminists can be legitimately argued to be too high. However, all of the legitimate reasons given for it don't explain the gap completely. No study trying to account for these reasons has resulted in a 0% wage gap.

Does that include job performance?

Novorobo wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:The wage gap figure of 23% or so currently given by feminists can be legitimately argued to be too high. However, all of the legitimate reasons given for it don't explain the gap completely. No study trying to account for these reasons has resulted in a 0% wage gap.

Does that include job performance?

Are you suggesting that women inherently or on frequently perform worse than men across all fields?

Jello Biafra wrote:Okay, time for a recap.

The wage gap is a myth. I've already shown you the evidence of this. You refused to accept it.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:Okay, time for a recap.

The wage gap is a myth. I've already shown you the evidence of this. You refused to accept it.

I've already explained why your evidence is faulty. I've also provided significantly more counter-evidence. You've addressed neither my response nor my counter-evidence.

Jello Biafra wrote:I've already explained why your evidence is faulty.

Your "I don't like this therefore it's wrong" counter argument? Seriously?

I've also provided significantly more counter-evidence. You've addressed neither my response nor my counter-evidence.

You basically went on Google, threw a bunch of articles together and then said "the wage gap exists" when everyone else says it doesn't. That's not an argument.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:I've already explained why your evidence is faulty.

Your "I don't like this therefore it's wrong" counter argument? Seriously?

I've also provided significantly more counter-evidence. You've addressed neither my response nor my counter-evidence.

You basically went on Google, threw a bunch of articles together and then said "the wage gap exists" when everyone else says it doesn't. That's not an argument.

Well, it technically does exist. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

The wage gap thing is extremely misleading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU :)

Kravanica wrote:The wage gap thing is extremely misleading.

Politics. Who knew.
This issue is circumstantial, not conspiratorial, and the circumstances are not "correctable" without altering the sexes to be completely physiologically and psychologically identical.
Though even then, equality of outcome is not guaranteed.
And that is what we are really talking about here, isnt it?
The rather foolish idea that the circumstantial efforts of individual people can somehow be made universal. Tsk, tsk, when will people learn that coerced mass conformity is counterevolutionary?
Then there are those crying parity, but want special treatment for special circumstance inherent to some of the workforce.
All in all, deliberate or not, the conversation is not entirely honest.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:I've already explained why your evidence is faulty.

Your "I don't like this therefore it's wrong" counter argument? Seriously?

No, my "Your evidence is invalid, therefore it's wrong" argument.

I've also provided significantly more counter-evidence. You've addressed neither my response nor my counter-evidence.

You basically went on Google, threw a bunch of articles together and then said "the wage gap exists" when everyone else says it doesn't. That's not an argument.

If "everyone else" said it doesn't exist, I wouldn't have been able to throw articles together showing the fact that it does exist.

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
Your "I don't like this therefore it's wrong" counter argument? Seriously?



You basically went on Google, threw a bunch of articles together and then said "the wage gap exists" when everyone else says it doesn't. That's not an argument.

Well, it technically does exist. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

Except for the discrimination that it does have to do with.

Jello Biafra wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:Well, it technically does exist. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

Except for the discrimination that it does have to do with.

Hahahaha. You make me laugh. You are a very funny person.

Jello Biafra wrote:Except for the discrimination that it does have to do with.

Like against short people.

The Wage Gap isn't direct in the west, and I think most people here understand that. Trying to push that idea is not just factually inaccurate but actually incredibly damaging for the feminist cause. Despite this the wage gap does exist, and claiming otherwise is just as wrong, and foolish as claiming it's direct.

What I think most people don't seem to understand is that just because something is indirect, it's somehow wrong to fight against it. The problems causing the Wage Gap are structural problems within out society. Reacting against people who try to solve these structural problems helps nobody, and increasingly radicalises sections of the feminist movement. The main issue of contention around feminism is the misunderstanding between what feminists really want - structural change to bring equality indirectly as well as legally - and what others seem to perceive feminists wanting - which is generally caused by failing to understand inequality can exist alongside legal equality.

I kinda get it, but I kinda don't, if that makes any sense.

I mean, if two people are working the same job, and performing at the same level, it makes sense that they'd get paid the same amount. When you start comparing different jobs, in different industries, that doesn't seem nearly so clear cut. As others have pointed out, there are a myriad of reasons for the differences. Anything from risk level, to demand, to education, to physical ability, to attendance requirements - what have you. Also, as others have pointed out, men and women already don't have the same considerations in the workplace, and a number of them are in the woman's favor. Granted, in the US, there's now the Family Leave thing, but in practice? It still doesn't pay, it certainly doesn't help a man who wants to spend time with his newborn and wife, it doesn't cover gay couples who've adopted that I'm aware of, there's a stigma when it comes to men taking time off for family issues as opposed to a woman for whatever reason, etc. It also gives special consideration to people with families, children, all that - singles who aren't engaging in reproduction don't have those same perks.

The best way would be to have all that laid out regardless of gender, regardless of all the rest. We already, over here, have one of the most ridiculous time off setups out there, from what I've read - we have unreasonable expectations of performance in many areas, we have unscrupulous practices pressuring people to overwork themselves or as seen recently, engage in unlawful or questionable practices in order to meet those expectations. Equality in the workplace? Set standards, and stick to them for the various fields. Bonuses? Standards for those as well. If a person meets them, voila - shouldn't matter what gender they are. Time off? Same thing. I'm not opposed to the gradual increase of it due to time spent within a company - it's a nice perk, it shows they have faith in your ability to do the work required even if you take more time off, because in that time you ought to have become more proficient.

But we really ought to figure out a way to increase sick leave across the board, and stop the ridiculousness of getting fired over something you can't control like that. Daughter just went through it - I was right there in the emergency room with her, I can attest she was in no shape to be going anywhere, let alone work, and even though she called ahead, had all her paperwork done, turned in, signed, etc for doctor's excuse, they still let her go. And as we all know, as a temp, or going through an agency - something all too common these days, with businesses looking for any way to cut costs, especially at the expense of workers - you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to addressing these problems. Anyways, back to topic.

Yes, we ought to have things more standard, for everyone, and more fair to all workers, regardless of their gender - but we have to consider all the variables in doing so, and recognize that there are pros and cons to both sides of it (without further complicating it with the rest of the gender discussion), and all of those need to be taken into account as well.

tl;dr - Men and women face different challenges in the workplace, and this 'gap' people talk about isn't as big or clear-cut as some might have us believe. It ought to be fair to everyone.

Galloism wrote:

New Edom wrote:<snip stuff that has nothing to do with what I said>

You're not listening. I'm dealing with one very particular statement you made - that you will oppose feminists at every turn because they won't give you the time of the day when it comes to men's issues.

Given feminism's very complicated relationship with equality, this means you will be opposing equality SOMETIMES. The proper course (in my mind) is to oppose feminists when they propose things that actually work against equality, but when they (accidentally) are doing something for equality, either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Don't stand in opposition, because if you do, in those instances, you will be working AGAINST equality, and you become like them.

"Fuck, I accidentally did something for equality. Going to have to fix that mistake, and try to not do anything like it again."

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:Except for the discrimination that it does have to do with.

Hahahaha. You make me laugh. You are a very funny person.

There is ample evidence of discrimination against women. I've linked to some of it.

Des-Bal wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:Except for the discrimination that it does have to do with.

Like against short people.

It's true that taller people do make more money than shorter people, so there may be discrimination against short people as well as women.

Another serious wage gap is for all current earners with relation to what similar earners brought home three decades ago, relative to inflation.

In other words, wage stagnation.

Pope Joan wrote:Another serious wage gap is for all current earners with relation to what similar earners brought home three decades ago, relative to inflation.

In other words, wage stagnation.

While CEOs wages have grown, workers wages have stayed relatively level. While CEOs get massive compensation packages for failing to increase their companies earnings beyond a certain percentage, workers get dick all for failing to meet increasing quotas for production impacting the CEOs ability to increase company earnings.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Another serious wage gap is for all current earners with relation to what similar earners brought home three decades ago, relative to inflation.

In other words, wage stagnation.

While CEOs wages have grown, workers wages have stayed relatively level. While CEOs get massive compensation packages for failing to increase their companies earnings beyond a certain percentage, workers get dick all for failing to meet increasing quotas for production impacting the CEOs ability to increase company earnings.

Right. Meanwhile, those workers are gulled into complaining about government and taxes, instead of about their real oppressors.