Feminism's many branches
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
Do you read french? If so I could direct you to some of the papers publsihed by le conseil sur le statut de la femme (i think you might also find it in english under the title women status council, but I am not certain about the translation. The UN has a branch dedicated to women's rights and status which of course consititute the most important feminist organisation in the world and houses a lot of statistic on men vs women lifestyle. You can also access national statistics on employments, maternity/paternity leave, sports and health, etc. I must warn you it may cost you a few dollars to download the pdf (in my country it's two dollars).

If you want an feminist who talk and write about those issue, has well as many others, well you are in contact with one right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
14-08-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 04:22 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)jennybee Wrote:  You are right, discrimination is not the only potential reason for the pay gap. I also said that in one of my posts. I also would agree that the 78 cents is a bit of a broad brush. However, there is a disparity in pay between men and women for doing the same exact job. From CNN Money:

Male teachers earn a median of $1096 per week, while women earn $956

Retail sales, women earn 70 cents to the dollar.

Full-time lawyers, women earn 83 cents to the dollar.

Those are just a few examples.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/eco...-day-2015/

Again, not all factors taken into account. Statistics can paint any picture you need.
Perhaps not taking into account how many hours teachers put in or what are the subjects they teach, or male lawyers are more into criminal law that pays more then family law that women do more, for example.
Nothing more than feminist propaganda, poisoning everything they touch.
Going down that road will only get you bitter, angry and alone.

Maybe I do live in a different society like cljr said,who knows, but here things are simple.
If you work in any kind of government job , there is a set amount for the position + you have a quota for the level of education + quota for years in service and that's it. Gender doesn't play a role.
If you work in a private sector it just depends how good you are at your job and how good of a deal you can get yourself.

"Nothing more than feminist propaganda, poisoning everything they touch. " I just love how you threaten her POV with ultimately being "bitter, angry, and alone." Those stupid assertions tell me about everything I want to know about your view and why I should discount it outright, but I'll play.

Length of service isn't an effective differentiating factor in terms of performance on the job, although anti-feminists use this to try to justify women being paid less for the same work. Most jobs, even professions, have a several-year learning curve at most, and after that, pay differentials do not reflect differences in ability. Further, longevity of service is outmoded in an economy where no employer even pretends to intend to hire an employee for anything longer than a few years, and so length of service bonuses are irrelevant An employee who has been with a firm for a long time may very well be someone who could not find an opportunity elsewhere, and therefore is not deserving of a larger paycheck. I would also quibble with the idea that someone who is putting in more hours (say, 12-14 per day) into a profession is a better employee than someone who puts in 8 hours per day. There's actually a lot of research that suggests this is simply not true, and that there's an awful lot of time wasting going on. My husband works from the office sometimes and sometimes telecommutes--he is a computer programmer--and he can get more done in four hours at home than he does in seven hours at his office, and that's not even counting his commute time.

I'm a female classical musician, a field where it is actually relatively straightforward to distinguish between people who can't play and people who can. Most symphony orchestras used to be composed primarily of males. It was not until the institution of absolutely blind auditions that women started making significant inroads into this orchestra world, which they continue to do. That was not because of women's being less able; it was instead because male musicians found reasons to favor males over females when they could see which gender was auditioning. I would also note that the women accepted into orchestras have, over the years, performed just as well as the other people in their positions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
14-08-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 05:26 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  I forgot to mention what I hate about feminism the most.
It's that feminism is trying to pin a label of an violent, oppressing rapist waiting to happen, to all men.
Like there is something inherently wrong with anybody who is born with a penis, and we all need to be fixed to be fit for society.
Actions like "teach men not to rape" make me puke.

That being said, I am on a fuckin' vacation in Spain, and instead of enjoying my paella I'm beating this dead horse.

You worry about people stereotyping Serbia--but you have no problem stereotyping feminists or those with feminist views?

I am a feminist and I like men. I don't think they are violent, oppressive rapists. I think society is what is oppressive *in some ways* toward women. Men and women are byproducts of society. Are there some men who are oppressive toward women--yes, I would say there are. Are there some women who blame everything on men--yes, I would say there are. But to say that *all* feminists are man-haters is an unfair statement.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
14-08-2015, 05:51 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 05:41 PM)julep Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 04:22 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Again, not all factors taken into account. Statistics can paint any picture you need.
Perhaps not taking into account how many hours teachers put in or what are the subjects they teach, or male lawyers are more into criminal law that pays more then family law that women do more, for example.
Nothing more than feminist propaganda, poisoning everything they touch.
Going down that road will only get you bitter, angry and alone.

Maybe I do live in a different society like cljr said,who knows, but here things are simple.
If you work in any kind of government job , there is a set amount for the position + you have a quota for the level of education + quota for years in service and that's it. Gender doesn't play a role.
If you work in a private sector it just depends how good you are at your job and how good of a deal you can get yourself.

"Nothing more than feminist propaganda, poisoning everything they touch. " I just love how you threaten her POV with ultimately being "bitter, angry, and alone." Those stupid assertions tell me about everything I want to know about your view and why I should discount it outright, but I'll play.

Length of service isn't an effective differentiating factor in terms of performance on the job, although anti-feminists use this to try to justify women being paid less for the same work. Most jobs, even professions, have a several-year learning curve at most, and after that, pay differentials do not reflect differences in ability. Further, longevity of service is outmoded in an economy where no employer even pretends to intend to hire an employee for anything longer than a few years, and so length of service bonuses are irrelevant An employee who has been with a firm for a long time may very well be someone who could not find an opportunity elsewhere, and therefore is not deserving of a larger paycheck. I would also quibble with the idea that someone who is putting in more hours (say, 12-14 per day) into a profession is a better employee than someone who puts in 8 hours per day. There's actually a lot of research that suggests this is simply not true, and that there's an awful lot of time wasting going on. My husband works from the office sometimes and sometimes telecommutes--he is a computer programmer--and he can get more done in four hours at home than he does in seven hours at his office, and that's not even counting his commute time.

I'm a female classical musician, a field where it is actually relatively straightforward to distinguish between people who can't play and people who can. Most symphony orchestras used to be composed primarily of males. It was not until the institution of absolutely blind auditions that women started making significant inroads into this orchestra world, which they continue to do. That was not because of women's being less able; it was instead because male musicians found reasons to favor males over females when they could see which gender was auditioning. I would also note that the women accepted into orchestras have, over the years, performed just as well as the other people in their positions.

Right, all feminists are bitter, angry, and alone Facepalm Anyone who knows me knows that that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 04:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)jennybee Wrote:  However, there is a disparity in pay between men and women for doing the same exact job. From CNN Money:

Male teachers earn a median of $1096 per week, while women earn $956

This is an interesting statistic, but it still doesn't answer the real question. Why is this gap present? What are the differences in levels of expertise, length of tenure at the institution, and so on between the two genders? Are there more male teachers who stay in the profession longer, while the women retire for various reasons (or find other work) and thus don't garner as many pay raises? Is it something else?

It's also worth noting that there are several areas where women earn more than men. Again, there is no information available as to why this happens. It's interesting, but it doesn't really tell us much.

From your article:

Quote:Furthermore, in the tiny fraction of jobs in which women earn more than men, it's by a nearly inconsequential amount.

But when men out-earn women, it can be by a significant amount.

One of those 9 fields was a difference of women making $30 more on average...per year. The issue is jobs where male peers are making tens of thousands more dollars than women.

I've posted in other feminist threads data on nurse pay - nationally, male peers make significantly more money than their female peers in equivalent positions. It's not the case at my hospital, fortunately. I work for the lowest paid hospital in my city, but it treats its employees the best and is a much more preferable work environment and is quite progressive. For YEARS they've provided health benefits to common law and same sex partners despite it not being legally recognized by the state.




As far as equality between men and women, I'd say it's more social perception than legal obstacles in my region. To tell a woman she's delusional about her experiences is a bit short-sighted.

I live in a heavily conservative, religious region. We log into this site and often bitch and moan about the harm religion inflicts upon society. When the vast majority of my population is taught at home that women are to be submissive, it certainly has its influences upon societal perceptions of how a woman should behave and how she is treated by her peers.

Here's a snippet of my own experiences:

I was taught at home, from the pulpit, and in Sunday School that feminism was a dirty word, and represented defiant women that opposed the "natural order" created by God. I was taught that men are to be leaders and women are to default to the leadership of their husband/father, etc, in obedience even if/when the man is wrong, as so commands the lord. I was taught that as a woman I am to be my husband's "help mate" - I am to supplement my husband's needs, his career and needs were to come before my own, and I would hope my husband would take care of mine as well, but if he didn't it was still my place to remain submissive. I was taught that a woman who has sex outside of marriage is a whore, and got married quite young.

Six years ago my husband told me not to get a purse - I'd been working 50-60 hour weeks, took care of my little one at home when off the clock, was expected to clean the house and cook, and then bought an on-sale Coach bag as a reward to myself after a particularly large, hard earned paycheck (I hadn't gotten a new purse in five years). He was pissed that his wife *disrespected* him and threatened to divorce me over it...and I was terrified of me and my 6 month old son being abandoned after that and spent the next five years walking on eggshells.

My husband didn't want me going to graduate school, he wanted me to stay home. So thanks to religious indoctrination I didn't go to medical school because my husband didn't will it and refused to support me in my dreams.

If I wanted to go to grad school, I'd have to do it without my husband, and without my son (he actually had the audacity to tell me that last year). Thanks for the support, sweetheart! Dodgy I'm now working a job positioning myself to go to grad school, and he has sunk in his heels and is presently the custodial parent - working long night shift hours (and attending CRNA school) isn't feasible for a single parent to take care of a child without social support - so now I'll be going to grad school without either of them, just as he said. I had a friend tell me as a mother I should give up grad school and that people would judge me harshly for being a mother that "abandoned" her son. Apparently furthering my career so I can one day afford to send my son to college and build a nice retirement is seen as abandonment (despite the fact I pay child support and have him on most of my off days), and wouldn't have been had the man I married been supportive. He doesn't make much money, refuses to go to grad school himself, and I'm not content with my son's future options being limited by my income.

Sure, it was my own decision not to go to grad school and to get married early, but societal pressures to remain subservient certainly had its influences.

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Nurse's post
14-08-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 05:41 PM)julep Wrote:  Length of service isn't an effective differentiating factor in terms of performance on the job, although anti-feminists use this to try to justify women being paid less for the same work.

Though I agree that Slowminded is being unnecessarily vitriolic, I do have to quibble with this point a bit.

It isn't that women not having been in the job as long necessarily makes them deserve less, but the plain fact of the matter is that most jobs will pay more for people who have been in the field longer. In fact, I personally have worked several jobs where pay raises were flat and granted once per six months, making time on the job the only determining factor for pay, regardless of gender.

Because this is so widespread, the fact that women sometimes quit their jobs in order to raise children full-time (which is not as common as it was in the past, but still happens) does skew things a bit. They may return to work after a few years, but that still puts them well behind those who didn't leave in terms of tenure-based pay raises.

I'm not defending the system by any stretch - in fact, I think it's rather stupid, since it has on more than one occasion resulted in me getting paid half the cash of my coworkers despite being the only reason the office wasn't a complete disaster - but it doesn't have anything to do with gender. Men are in the same boat as women, so far as time-scale pay is concerned.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 06:12 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 05:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 05:41 PM)julep Wrote:  Length of service isn't an effective differentiating factor in terms of performance on the job, although anti-feminists use this to try to justify women being paid less for the same work.

Though I agree that Slowminded is being unnecessarily vitriolic, I do have to quibble with this point a bit.

It isn't that women not having been in the job as long necessarily makes them deserve less, but the plain fact of the matter is that most jobs will pay more for people who have been in the field longer. In fact, I personally have worked several jobs where pay raises were flat and granted once per six months, making time on the job the only determining factor for pay, regardless of gender.

Because this is so widespread, the fact that women sometimes quit their jobs in order to raise children full-time (which is not as common as it was in the past, but still happens) does skew things a bit. They may return to work after a few years, but that still puts them well behind those who didn't leave in terms of tenure-based pay raises.

I'm not defending the system by any stretch - in fact, I think it's rather stupid, since it has on more than one occasion resulted in me getting paid half the cash of my coworkers despite being the only reason the office wasn't a complete disaster - but it doesn't have anything to do with gender. Men are in the same boat as women, so far as time-scale pay is concerned.

I understand where you're coming from, but the pay-for-length-of-service concept is becoming an outmoded concept as the idea of working for one company for the whole length of one's career has eroded on both sides. Fewer and fewer companies are doing so. Also complicating things are the many women (and men) who continue to keep a toe in their field even while they are not employed full time. I was at one point a college professor (don't laugh: is true) and continued to teach, although one class at a time, and keep up with my field, until circumstances convinced me to go in a different direction. Teaching just one class for a couple of years would have made no significant difference in my teaching abilities or knowledge of my field (writing). Certainly one's productive capacity in the short-term is compromised, but not one's actual skill level, so I don't see that a pay differential, once one is returned to a full-time workload, is supportable.

Now, companies can certainly make a case for rewarding employee longevity, as it costs the company money to hire and train new employees. There's more of an argument about whether longevity-based raises truly boost company performance or just reward inertia--depends on the company and the culture. Not so many companies these days are hiring employees with the intention of retiring these same employees. (The "retired" employees are more likely to be executives who have worked only four or five years, and who are held to a much lower performance standard than the average janitor…)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
14-08-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 05:51 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 05:41 PM)julep Wrote:  "Nothing more than feminist propaganda, poisoning everything they touch. " I just love how you threaten her POV with ultimately being "bitter, angry, and alone." Those stupid assertions tell me about everything I want to know about your view and why I should discount it outright, but I'll play.

Length of service isn't an effective differentiating factor in terms of performance on the job, although anti-feminists use this to try to justify women being paid less for the same work. Most jobs, even professions, have a several-year learning curve at most, and after that, pay differentials do not reflect differences in ability. Further, longevity of service is outmoded in an economy where no employer even pretends to intend to hire an employee for anything longer than a few years, and so length of service bonuses are irrelevant An employee who has been with a firm for a long time may very well be someone who could not find an opportunity elsewhere, and therefore is not deserving of a larger paycheck. I would also quibble with the idea that someone who is putting in more hours (say, 12-14 per day) into a profession is a better employee than someone who puts in 8 hours per day. There's actually a lot of research that suggests this is simply not true, and that there's an awful lot of time wasting going on. My husband works from the office sometimes and sometimes telecommutes--he is a computer programmer--and he can get more done in four hours at home than he does in seven hours at his office, and that's not even counting his commute time.

I'm a female classical musician, a field where it is actually relatively straightforward to distinguish between people who can't play and people who can. Most symphony orchestras used to be composed primarily of males. It was not until the institution of absolutely blind auditions that women started making significant inroads into this orchestra world, which they continue to do. That was not because of women's being less able; it was instead because male musicians found reasons to favor males over females when they could see which gender was auditioning. I would also note that the women accepted into orchestras have, over the years, performed just as well as the other people in their positions.

Right, all feminists are bitter, angry, and alone Facepalm Anyone who knows me knows that that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

Off topic, but i remember the time i mentioned a femnist friend to my bro and he thought i said lesbian. It is an lol moment.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
14-08-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 05:53 PM)Nurse Wrote:  From your article:

Quote:Furthermore, in the tiny fraction of jobs in which women earn more than men, it's by a nearly inconsequential amount.

But when men out-earn women, it can be by a significant amount.

One of those 9 fields was a difference of women making $30 more on average...per year. The issue is jobs where male peers are making tens of thousands more dollars than women.

Yes, I agree. That is something that needs to be examined. I'm just pointing out that looking at the median salary, and the median salary alone, does not necessarily indicate that there is any sort of discrimination going on. There may be other factors in play.

I'm not ruling out discrimination by any stretch. I'm just pointing out that there may be more going on.

For example, one of the fields where men make substantially more than women is agriculture. Is this because of active pay discrimination, or is it because cultural biases against women working in agriculture are strongest in the states where it is most in demand? States like Kansas and so on have historically been bastions of extremely fundamentalist, sexist thinking, and societal pressures in the area may keep women from seeking jobs in the field. Meanwhile, there may be no such stigma in states like Massachusetts, but farms there may make much less money and thus pay their workers far less.

Note that the above is just an illustrative example. I have no idea what the actual pay rates are for agricultural workers across the states, or what effect societal pressures there have on women considering that as a potential career. But it's worth looking into, rather than simply assuming that women are being handed smaller paychecks for the same work.

And, in case it needs to be said, I do actually consider myself a feminist (as well as a number of other things, but that's beside the point). I quite like women. Some of my best friends are women. I hope to marry one someday. I just think it's important to consider all possible angles before drawing a conclusion on something like this. There are a lot of factors which looking at the raw pay numbers doesn't get across, and if we're going to confront an issue properly, it's important that we understand it.

(14-08-2015 05:41 PM)julep Wrote:  As far as equality between men and women, I'd say it's more social perception than legal obstacles in my region.

I'd go so far as to say that it's probably that way across the entire United States at this point, and probably much of Europe as well (though I confess to knowing little about the details of their situation).

Women have equal rights under the law, broadly speaking. There are still a few issues that need to be sorted out (right to choose and so on), so there's still room to improve, but men also have issues that need to be looked at (legal issues concerning rape and the way some states handle primary aggressor policies, etc.), so it's not really that the legal system is mistreating women so much as it is that the legal system isn't perfect. It never will be, but we've made great strides, and I am confident that we will continue to do so.

Socially, on the other hand, we have a long way to go. It's not always active misogyny that's an issue, either (though it certainly is a problem, and I'm glad to hear that you've gotten away from that). There are things that are deeply ingrained into every part of our society that are going to give people a hard time.

I'd prefer that we were addressing those issues rather than waving around a dubiously-accurate sound bite based on disingenuous interpretation of incomplete information. If there is confirmed discrimination, then yes, it needs to be dealt with, but when everyone is running around waving their hands over their heads screaming "SEVENTY-SEVEN CENTS" without actually understanding what it means, we don't get anywhere.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 06:12 PM)julep Wrote:  I understand where you're coming from, but the pay-for-length-of-service concept is becoming an outmoded concept as the idea of working for one company for the whole length of one's career has eroded on both sides.

Oh, I completely agree. It's an idiotic idea on the face of it, and I'm glad that it's being phased out. But it still does happen in a lot of places, so it can't be ignored as a possible factor in this context.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: