Feminism's many branches
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 03:38 PM)PrettyGirlRock Wrote:  I jumped onto my computer so I can see all your conservations better Smile

I see you're all talking about the wage gap, and you're all making nice points. Thank you for "arguing" in a civilized manner, I do appreciate that.

The thing that I would like to see feminists talk about that they don't (this is usually a conservation that egalitarians and MRAs have) is the high male suicide rate. Now, when you actually look into suicidology statistics, you will see that women attempt suicide more but men end up succeeding because they use more fatal methods. For example, a woman would typically go for overdosing, while a man would try to hang or shoot himself. I'm interested in why there are different methods for the different sexes, but that doesn't really change the fact that men are killing themselves at a higher rate and that needs to be addressed and changed.

Suicide rates in general are totally flawed. There are countless suicides by the elderly that are covered up by relatives because of stigma and inheritance. We do know that the elderly commit the majority of suicides. One of the ways to accomplish it is to NOT take meds. This is rarely ever identified at all, but extremely common.

Adult males and females are the smallest group of people committing suicide. Males tend to have more guns available and don't seem to care about the mess. Women tend to have more pills available, and having been the ones to clean up messes most of their lives, will chose a clean way. So, yes, there is gender conditioning at play here. But, mostly people look for convenience.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 09:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:16 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That said (one of my favorite expressions), I agree that in many ways, there are activists in Third Wave feminism who "give the movement a bad name" by seeming to promote what I call "Mad Men for Women"-style feminism, under the idea that because men engaged in such misogynistic ways for so long, that the solution is misanthropy in return (I think we need a better term, since misanthropy applies to all humans, and in this case I mean anti-male positions).

Misandry is the etymological equivalent of misogyny.

Ugh, I just noticed I made that mistake too. OP confused me. Wtf brain?


...why can't I edit that post? Consider

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
15-08-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You clearly live in a very different world from anyone else in this thread.

Blah, blah , blah....

Women DO EARN less money then man in total, that is not even disputed. BUT, there is a very big and significant BUT ( read the next few sentences very carefully and several times if needed....

It doesn't take into account jobs they do. They just take all the working men and all the working women and yes, men make more money.

Fun fact: no. That is not how the data are generated.

(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Because they choose higher payed jobs, work more hours...Not because they are payed more for the same job.
Male surgeon is payed the same as the female surgeon.
Actually, I have read the study by a serious organization, something like Stamford university or such (I have the link and I believe I posted it the feminism thread a while back , but I am not at my computer now) that in US women are payed 10-15 % more then man by the hour in certain fields.

"In certain fields" sure gives you a lot of room to hide behind, eh?

(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Nowhere in the link you posted or in any regarding that matter this significant factor is taken into account, even tho in the bottom line that is all that matters.

I did not post the link. But would you like one? Here you go.

(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Just think about it for a second. Would any employer ever pay somebody a dollar if they can get somebody to do the same job for 80c? If that claim was true, no man would ever get a job until there was no women left that wanted that job.

If we were all robots in fantasyland, sure. Reality has additional variables present.

(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  This classical feminist claim is debunked a million times over , you only have to do a simple google or youtube search.

Like I said, myths, disinformation and just plane ol lying.

I note that you conveniently don't bother to actually do so.

(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  On the other hand I can give you , and I did if you remember, a hundred and one well documented and undisputed example where women are privileged in western societies. From health care, education, family laws, penal law , pension, lower job requirements etc etc.

Never saw a feminist address any of those issues yet they claim they are all about equality.

What you never saw isn't particularly representative, now, is it?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-08-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 06:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

...

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.

Cut this down a bit for emphasis...

It's one thing to say that's a problem, but who says that? "Some loudmouth on the internet" does not a sample constitute.

I'll admit that the areas in which I generally encounter the topic are academic or government policy oriented, but seriously; who are these people blindly spouting context-free data?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
15-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(15-08-2015 12:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 03:51 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Blah, blah , blah....

Women DO EARN less money then man in total, that is not even disputed. BUT, there is a very big and significant BUT ( read the next few sentences very carefully and several times if needed....

It doesn't take into account jobs they do. They just take all the working men and all the working women and yes, men make more money.

Fun fact: no. That is not how the data are generated.

Actually, it is. See my posts for more information.

Again, this doesn't necessarily rule out discrimination, but the fact that the figure being cited is a comparison between total median wages across all fields, and that women dominate nine of the ten least-pay-expected fields in college, is a contributing factor.

(15-08-2015 12:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's one thing to say that's a problem, but who says that? "Some loudmouth on the internet" does not a sample constitute.

I'll admit that the areas in which I generally encounter the topic are academic or government policy oriented, but seriously; who are these people blindly spouting context-free data?

Well, Senator Bernie Sanders, for one.

He's not the only one, either. At this point, politicians likely see the issue as a button they can press to win a handful of votes from feminists who don't actually understand what the figure means. Whether Senator Sanders was deliberately presenting incomplete data or was genuinely mistaken, I have no idea, but really, this is just one of the standard show ponies trotted out by a lot of burgeoning political campaigns. It's an easy way to get female voters riled up without actually having to do anything.

Again, I recognize that there are still social issues affecting the pay disparity and that there are still cases of discrimination here and there. But the plain fact is that women already have the right to equal pay for equal work. We don't need to, as Senator Sanders says, "pass pay equity for women workers". We already did that. What we need to do is find out the real reasons that the median wages are still so far apart and address those.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
15-08-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(14-08-2015 12:29 AM)PrettyGirlRock Wrote:  It's the exact same thing for feminism, if all these feminists say they want equality and for oppression and discrimination to stop, but they all believe and fight for different things...it's hard to know who to listen to. And they think that they are right, like all Christians. That doesn't make things easier.

I don't really gather or get why you come to a thought of this manner. This isn't a strong description that matches up to a lot of peoples stances in the social world. This isn't a science or a firm static concept.

It's a social philosophical concept, it's fluid and many people express how it's a shift. Which is why you'll see the waves of feminism or ANY social/ISM that can acknowledge because they build off each other over time growing or diminishing ideas.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(15-08-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 12:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Fun fact: no. That is not how the data are generated.

Actually, it is. See my posts for more information.

Again, this doesn't necessarily rule out discrimination, but the fact that the figure being cited is a comparison between total median wages across all fields, and that women dominate nine of the ten least-pay-expected fields in college, is a contributing factor.

(15-08-2015 12:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's one thing to say that's a problem, but who says that? "Some loudmouth on the internet" does not a sample constitute.

I'll admit that the areas in which I generally encounter the topic are academic or government policy oriented, but seriously; who are these people blindly spouting context-free data?

Well, Senator Bernie Sanders, for one.

He's not the only one, either. At this point, politicians likely see the issue as a button they can press to win a handful of votes from feminists who don't actually understand what the figure means. Whether Senator Sanders was deliberately presenting incomplete data or was genuinely mistaken, I have no idea, but really, this is just one of the standard show ponies trotted out by a lot of burgeoning political campaigns. It's an easy way to get female voters riled up without actually having to do anything.

Again, I recognize that there are still social issues affecting the pay disparity and that there are still cases of discrimination here and there. But the plain fact is that women already have the right to equal pay for equal work. We don't need to, as Senator Sanders says, "pass pay equity for women workers". We already did that. What we need to do is find out the real reasons that the median wages are still so far apart and address those.

I am not an expert in American equality laws, but does those laws affect all states or simply certain ones? My second question would regard if those laws are retroactive. If a women was underpaid for years, she didn't managed to save/invest has much money has a male counterpart which might affect her retirement and overall revenue at an older age. This was an issue raised in my province and all our gender equality laws concerning this wage equality became retroactive for up to ten years. I also think that pay equity work should cover jobs on the basis of the investment required to practice them since many fields dominated by women were historically strongly devaluated. Many professionals are underpaid for their work both in the USA, Canada and Western Europe. I do agree with you on one point thought, this is not a fight that needs to be fought so much in the legal arena. Like most feminist fight in the western world, this is one that needs to take course in the wider social arena. Massive progress have been made to solve the pay gap and we are almost there, but the last problems may not be has simple to solve then the first ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
15-08-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(15-08-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 12:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Fun fact: no. That is not how the data are generated.

Actually, it is. See my posts for more information.

Again, this doesn't necessarily rule out discrimination, but the fact that the figure being cited is a comparison between total median wages across all fields, and that women dominate nine of the ten least-pay-expected fields in college, is a contributing factor.

... But you can't just assert that.

Did you look at the link I, for example, posted? It is most assuredly not in that case. The types of objections you raise are already accounted for in any competent treatment of the data. I did not feel like diving into the Statscan archives for raw numbers, but as per the pay equity office of Ontario, those are all things they treat and account for.

(15-08-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 12:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's one thing to say that's a problem, but who says that? "Some loudmouth on the internet" does not a sample constitute.

I'll admit that the areas in which I generally encounter the topic are academic or government policy oriented, but seriously; who are these people blindly spouting context-free data?

Well, Senator Bernie Sanders, for one.

He's not the only one, either. At this point, politicians likely see the issue as a button they can press to win a handful of votes from feminists who don't actually understand what the figure means. Whether Senator Sanders was deliberately presenting incomplete data or was genuinely mistaken, I have no idea, but really, this is just one of the standard show ponies trotted out by a lot of burgeoning political campaigns. It's an easy way to get female voters riled up without actually having to do anything.

Devil's advocate: how much nuance can he fit into a five second soundbite? When so many of the compounding factors are themselves highly gendered, does it not make sense to elide them for simplicity in the most basic contexts? As DA I contend that this is acceptable shorthand.
(after all, if the thesis they are attempting to convey is we do not yet have equality, then you agree that that the thesis is correct, yes? that's literally what you affirm in your next paragraph...)

(15-08-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Again, I recognize that there are still social issues affecting the pay disparity and that there are still cases of discrimination here and there. But the plain fact is that women already have the right to equal pay for equal work. We don't need to, as Senator Sanders says, "pass pay equity for women workers". We already did that. What we need to do is find out the real reasons that the median wages are still so far apart and address those.

Well, sure. Much like racism didn't immediately vanish the morning after the Civil Rights Act. I just don't see how, "NUH-UH! It's not direct discrimination most of the time, it's just indirect discrimination!" is a useful response from someone who is trying to help? Equal pay is one thing, but - notwithstanding that even the article you link to states that that isn't the reality either, and having a right does not guarantee that it be recognised - as you've well said, there are still social pressures which act against women being in the position to do equal work in the first place.

It just seems a little counterproductive to me to get worked up about such a simple statement - and the one example you gave was a man giving a bullet point; how do you know what he meant? - and to insist, unconditionally, that it must have been intended to be absolutely and single-mindedly literal, instead of implicitly including the many intimately related factors. That's all.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-08-2015, 07:40 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
(15-08-2015 05:40 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I am not an expert in American equality laws, but does those laws affect all states or simply certain ones?

It's a federal law. It applies to all businesses in all states. It is illegal in every part of the country to pay women less than men, or men less than women.

(15-08-2015 05:40 PM)epronovost Wrote:  My second question would regard if those laws are retroactive.

I have no idea, but since it was passed in the 1960s, it doesn't really matter at this point.

(15-08-2015 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Actually, it is. See my posts for more information.

Again, this doesn't necessarily rule out discrimination, but the fact that the figure being cited is a comparison between total median wages across all fields, and that women dominate nine of the ten least-pay-expected fields in college, is a contributing factor.

... But you can't just assert that.

I'm not. I provided you the links to the articles (or at least linked them earlier in the thread; I forget exactly which link is in which post), which themselves link directly to the statistics.

Women do dominate nine of the ten lowest-expected-pay college majors, and it's not by a small margin.

(15-08-2015 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The types of objections you raise are already accounted for in any competent treatment of the data.

I'm aware. What I'm saying is that the seventy-seven percent statistic so commonly tossed about is the result of an incompetent - or, rather, incomplete - handling of the data. It is a sound bite meant for political gain rather than anything actionable.

(15-08-2015 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Devil's advocate: how much nuance can he fit into a five second soundbite?

Oh, I know. I actually quite like Senator Sanders. I consider him, for the most part, to be rather well-spoken and intelligent. But things like this are inevitable in politics, and having them repeated isn't helpful, whether or not he is aware of the finer details behind it and intends to address that.

The problem is that the people listening don't know that. Most people don't care to look up the numbers and actually understand what is meant, which leads to anger and confusion, which leads to nothing useful getting done.

Again, I am a feminist. I would just prefer that people addressed the numbers and the actual information they garner than spend all their energy yelling about sound bites.

(15-08-2015 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When so many of the compounding factors are themselves highly gendered, does it not make sense to elide them for simplicity in the most basic contexts?

No. Because most people don't know about these compounding factors, and telling them things so simplistic as "women earn only seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man makes" will not help to educate them on that front. It will only serve to confuse the issue and prevent help from reaching the actual places where it is needed.

(15-08-2015 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, sure. Much like racism didn't immediately vanish the morning after the Civil Rights Act. I just don't see how, "NUH-UH! It's not direct discrimination most of the time, it's just indirect discrimination!" is a useful response from someone who is trying to help?

Because putting your efforts towards dealing with something that has already been dealt with and is no longer the main problem does not help.

(15-08-2015 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Equal pay is one thing, but - notwithstanding that even the article you link to states that that isn't the reality either

Though it doesn't say why. Again, there are other factors in play, and assuming that it's simply the evil corporations trying to keep women down does not help when that isn't necessarily the case.

Making such sweeping, simple generalizations is bound to end up confusing the issue. As someone who wants it actually solved, I would prefer that to not happen.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
15-08-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: Feminism's many branches
I just do what ManlyGirl tells me and nobody gets hurt.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: