On February 16 2011 19:27 denzelz wrote: In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs.
This is the most retarded myth I can think of. If this were actually true, I would be a successful billionaire by paying 20-30% less labor costs by only hiring women. If women were truly paid less for THE SAME work, nobody would hire men. There must be something men bring to the table that women don't. And indeed, just using common sense observations, there's lots. Who's willing to work the more dangerous/hazardous/unpleasant jobs? I don't remember the last female construction worker I've seen, men far outnumber women in the military, and a vast majority of work related deaths have been men. Hormones make people behave differently. Men happen to have more of the hormone correlated with drive, aggression, ignoring danger and discomfort, and leadership. These things are all important attributes for succeeding in most careers. It's retarded to have social norms that relegate women to the kitchen and the schoolhouse exclusively, as there are individual women who most certainly can perform as well as men in traditionally masculine arenas. But we're dealing with averages, and legislating privileges for women is probably even more damaging.
There's one more thing on that misandric checklist of "male priviledge" that gets ignored:
30. I am also more likely to die a violent death, be depressed, commit suicide, have a divorce initiated against me without any burden of proof, be arrested first in any domestic violence report regardless of where fault lies, have my children taken away from me for no good reason, have to lose financially from a divorce, be homeless, die at work, have a lower life expectancy, be denied university admission, or not succeed in public school.
There are ways that women and men are unequal and situations where that inequality is in favor of one gender or another. When it's out of the male's favor however, it can very often be the difference between life and death. Nah bro, blind to privilege. Rules being the biologically expendable sex.
On February 20 2011 23:54 tyCe wrote: Well, there's a difference between feminism and gender equality..
I completely agree with this.
Feminism = Legislate higher pay, privilege, etc for one gender.
Gender egalitarianism/equality = equality of opportunity, not outcomes. Recognize that there are certain disadvantages and advantages to being male or female and that the disadvantages as well as privileges need to be shared. Sometimes, a "hands off" approach is best for this rather than involving the federal government.
I personally believe that there's a shit ton more difference between a male and female of the same ethnic group than two people of the same gender but different ethnic group, but the second ideology isn't an intellectually bankrupt and hateful one.
On February 16 2011 19:27 denzelz wrote: In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs.
This is the most retarded myth I can think of. If this were actually true, I would be a successful billionaire by paying 20-30% less labor costs by only hiring women. If women were truly paid less for THE SAME work, nobody would hire men. There must be something men bring to the table that women don't.
I know you took a Microeconomics class once and know all about supply and demand curves but please review these articles. These are simply the first results that popped up on Google, but I think they suffice. Please let me know if I need to do more to convince you of this disparity.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
Seriously. like that list has a few exaggerations oversights and stuff, but holy fuck, the somehow likens women on the golf course to women in a total war. And then at the top of this page, someone seriously questioned the fact that women get paid less on the dollar a myth. Lordy.
the whole fucking discussion is basically a bunch of morons upset they have to hold the door for someone. mother fucker
My own, possibly misinformed opinion, is that if women want to be treated equally, they take it all. They want to be payed the same as men? They can't bitch about sexism if they don't get the job and the get the same health benefits. Sexism in sports? Put male and female professional sports players to compete together.
These things will never happen though because men and women naturally are different in how we think and how our bodies function. As a result, we should be treated differently with regards to our differences. We should all have the same human rights though, as we all are human.
On February 21 2011 10:10 denzelz wrote: Dude, you are just nit-picking on these issues and making wide generalizations. How can you say that "most females don't want a well paying job if it costs them all them [sic] with their kids"? Even if you happen to survey all women in the world, how can you prove that this "preference" is not the result of societal pressure?
That list made many such generalizations as well. Also how can you prove that mens preference to sacrifice so much for their job doesn't come from the result of societal pressure? Maybe they just really want to stay home with the kids and fix the chores while some wife is out earning money for them? Women have more choice, men knows that they either fix their career or they are losers.
On February 21 2011 10:10 denzelz wrote: And your other point about menstrual cycles? I'm not saying that scientifically, women do not experience hormonal changes during certain parts of the month but to attribute every outward emotional expression to the fact that "it's that part of the month" is incredibly condescending.
Yup, but that is not a problem about sex but a problem about being condescending. It happens to everyone and not just women. I know that in general men are more condescending against women than men but that would then be a point on its own.
On February 21 2011 10:10 denzelz wrote: By the way, just for a historical trivia, black males did historically held rights (at least voting rights, which is one of the basis to citizenship) longer than white females in the United States. Blacks (and other people of color) were allowed to vote via the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 1870 while women in the US were allowed to vote in 1920. So...I'm not really sure what your statement at the end was trying to say. That Blacks should be even more inferior to women in terms of income? Oops, did I just reveal some kind of prejudice?
Do you even know what prejudice is? The deal is that blacks on average are coming from a much more social disadvantageous position than white women and still manage. They went to worse schools, are less educated and have less financial support from home. Also as some stated young women are currently out earning young men in many places, how do that fit your point? Women earn more and more for each new generation and considering that they on average are more educated than men it isn't hard to draw the conclusion that they will soon out earn males. Especially since the current generation is already on par and we still have some leftovers of the thinking that women are worth less which also disappears more and more.
The problem is that all of this takes time, the people in charge today grew up in the 60's, back then society had a completely different view on all of this and parts of that is still in them. But people growing up today don't have the same problems, we are constantly bombarded with slogans like "women can" and girls have way better scholastic results than boys and today people in general sees girls as more hardworking than guys. In 30 or so years those views will be ingrained all over society, males are lazy and females works hard while the females still have way better education etc. Then the roles are reversed.
It is happening right now and when people like you acknowledges this then it has garnered too much momentum to stop. I don't say that I really care about this development or so, I just say that ignoring the facts like most feminists do will lead to this. Instead they are focusing on statistics which proves that we had inequalities 40 years ago and continues to run more campaigns intended to empower women.
And I still stand by my view that it is just as much an inequality that men faces problems if they try to have a traditional female lifestyle. We have tons of campaigns trying to get women into the STEM fields, but where are the campaigns trying to get men to be teachers and nurses? Isn't it a huge problem that most teachers are female? Isn't the male view lost to the kids then? The last sentence is a joke btw, because that is roughly the argument feminists presents as to why it is important to have equal sex representation in jobs.
On February 16 2011 19:27 denzelz wrote: In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs.
This is the most retarded myth I can think of. If this were actually true, I would be a successful billionaire by paying 20-30% less labor costs by only hiring women. If women were truly paid less for THE SAME work, nobody would hire men. There must be something men bring to the table that women don't.
I know you took a Microeconomics class once and know all about supply and demand curves but please review these articles. These are simply the first results that popped up on Google, but I think they suffice. Please let me know if I need to do more to convince you of this disparity.
Are you shitting me? You're going to first patronize me then link me to a bunch of bullshit sources like wikipedia and about? The GAO one is the only remotely well reasoned and insightful, adn the very title of that one is "Work patterns partially explain the difference between men and women's earnings", which is exactly what I'm claiming. How about addressing the fact that men are willing to do more dangerous jobs, work more hours, and leave the workforce for extended periods of time less frequently? One look around a college campus and surveying the students going into majors like law, premed, engineering, and computer science vs sociology, political science, english also reveals the source of the mythical pay gap. Are you seriously trying to ignore those things and claim that people just like men more and are willing to forgo financial gain to hire them?
You failed to give me one good reason why firms would hire men at all if they carried a notable pay premium without any added benefit.
I also don't appreciate the ad-hominem attack, I'm starting my phd in economics in a few months.
edit: more on the GAO study:
The authors acknowledge that factors other than gender discrimination are at work and realize the limitations of attempting to quantify this variable. Most of the things they point out are things women choose, like more flexible but lower paying jobs, jobs more accommodating to family life, taking leave or going part time more often, hazard pay etc. The only reason they probably included gender discrimination as a major variable is that angry lesbian harpies would scream at them if they DARED to challenge feminist assumptions.
n = about 72,000. The average age of respondents was 40.2 for men and 40.4 for women. Average age in the U.S. is only 34/37 or so. In a country of a few hundred million where the average age is mid 30s, there's a lot of room for sampling error in this study. Like another posted pointed out, young and childless women outearn their male counterparts, yet it's unlikely this sample was able to include much of that demographic.
On February 22 2011 02:30 Drowsy wrote: One look around a college campus and surveying the students going into majors like law, premed, engineering, and computer science vs sociology, political science, english also reveals the source of the mythical pay gap.
The whole notion of gendered academic disciplines, thus drawing a false dichotomy between two characters of academia and the sexes, is absolute dogshit.
This topic gone far past usefulness by this point, but it is worth noting that feminism endorses women taking on dangerous jobs.
On February 22 2011 02:30 Drowsy wrote: One look around a college campus and surveying the students going into majors like law, premed, engineering, and computer science vs sociology, political science, english also reveals the source of the mythical pay gap.
The whole notion of gendered academic disciplines, thus drawing a false dichotomy between two characters of academia and the sexes, is absolute dogshit.
This topic gone far past usefulness by this point, but it is worth noting that feminism endorses women taking on dangerous jobs.
1. Why? It's an observation, more men go into more high paying and useful majors. It's not like we bar women from going into these feilds; we actively encourage them. Anecdotal, but my mom, dad, and even myself have been yelling at my sister to go into math/science/engineering or prelaw but she wants to be an international affairs major. 2. No it doesn't. Some egalitarian feminists (think Israel) do, but most want to legislate privilege.
Your spoonfed pc assumptions being challenged =/= topic gone past usefulness.
Lazy observation in counterpoint to lazy observation: I have met far more women going into Law school and Premed than men. In fact, I do not know a single male currently in Law school.
.: Women go into more high-paying and useful majors.
On February 22 2011 02:57 jon arbuckle wrote: Lazy observation in counterpoint to lazy observation: I have met far more women going into Law school and Premed than men. In fact, I do not know a single male currently in Law school.
.: Women go into more high-paying and useful majors.
I don't think there's anywhere it can be gotten for free, but it's well documented that there are way more men than women in STEM fields, which are of course higher paying because civilization depends on these fields.
I don't think this has to do with equality for women at all, just an easy way to make a bit more money. The people who are complaining would complain about anything so I wouldn't take what they say seriously. Those women on "fixed income" shouldn't be playing such an expensive sport then, or shouldn't be playing every week on the golfing grounds. There are alternatives and sometimes you can't have everything you want forever.
also @Drowsy do you have a reference for this? "Men happen to have more of the hormone correlated with drive, aggression, ignoring danger and discomfort, and leadership" I cannot believe this, or are you talking about something else?
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
While I'm all for equal rights, I completely disagree with many of the points stated in that document, and is more of a case of 'the grass is greener'. Some of these incidences also occur because of competition between other women, not because of men. Some of them are just plain ridiculous, and are something only women would fuss over.
Example: "I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity."
What kind of guy goes out of his way to look at a womens wardrobe to find out what person they are? Sorry, this is something that only a woman would think about. Likewise, how many guys tell women not to wear half-naked clothes so they don't get called sluts.
"The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time."
That is a choice, not a requirement. Plenty of guys spend hours on their hair. A lot of guys also don't care about girls wearing make up.
"As a [male] child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters."
People should start making a site for asian equality.
"As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often."
This is false, I always remembered it either was the other way around. Grass is greener.
"I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch."
Lol? Ok here's one "I can punch a male, with no fear of being punched back"
Are you seriously stating you want rights to be loud and aggressive, and not be called a bitch? Did you forget everything society has taught you?
"On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men."
Do you even listen to yourself? You put a bunch of women together at a table and they will constantly talk over each other. Genetically women are better at talking and listening at the same time, that's why they do it.
Sorry there are 50 complaints, and probably 45 of them are just plain ridiculous. I wish the person who wrote this had half a brain. I always thought women equality was about equal pay and equal laws.
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Maybe women on average just possess less of the interest and analytical intelligence required to succeed in hard science fields? And while average gender IQ distribution is relatively equal, men vastly over represent women on the high and low extremes.
I'm an Compsci major, I've met women who way smarter and more proficient at CS then I am. I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the average statistical discrepancies between genders?
Of course I understand concepts like stereotype threats, etc. But I find it really hard to believe that thats the sole factor that accounts for the statistical psychological differences between men and women.
Eh man idk. There's two sides to every story. You guys can take every generalization about men vs women and do point vs. counterpoint to pretty much every one of them. I think you guys should ask yourselves these questions: Is gender equality perfect? No Will it ever be perfect? No Has it gotten better in the past 100, 500, 1000 years? Yes Will it continue to improve in the next 100, 500, 1000 years? Hard to make accurate predictions based that far in the future, but I'm going to guess... Probably
In regards to the actual article... aren't there ways to circumvent the problem of higher course fees? Like why not have Wednesdays be "Ladies Day" at the golf club where women are offered discount rates and Saturdays be "Gentlemen's Day" where men are offered discount rates to golf that day? I realize that they are probably talking about monthly fees, but certainly there are ways to find loopholes to this situation aren't there? Women could always take their game to a different golf course with lower rates couldn't they (unless British laws mandate that all golf course have the same rates, which idk if they do, but it would be ridiculous if they did)?
If these retired ladies all have a problem with the course fees being too high, couldn't they sacrifice something else in their lives in return to help compensate for their raised course fees?
IE: Say the ladies now carpool to their golf course rather then all take their own individual cars everyday. The money they all save individually in gas they can now use to apply to their higher membership fees.
IDK, there are TONS of solutions to this problem that don't have to be gender related. This whole article is BS, seems like people are just finding a way to BS having costs being raised for them. Guess what, costs are raised for people in everything in their lives whether they like it or not, and people complain about it.
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Maybe women on average just possess less of the interest and analytical intelligence required to succeed in hard science fields? And while average gender IQ distribution is relatively equal, men vastly over represent women on the high and low extremes.
I'm an Compsci major, I've met women who way smarter and more proficient at CS then I am. I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the average statistical discrepancies between genders?
Of course I understand concepts like stereotype threats, etc. But I find it really hard to believe that thats the sole factor that accounts for psychological differences between men and women.
Biological differences can account for why not all things should be unisex (like, again, basketball and hockey), but to argue that women possess less of an interest or analytical intelligence biologically is ludicrous. The probability for one's being interested in a certain field and subsequent analytical intelligence is conditioned - a baby is not born solving Hilbert problems any more than that baby is born reciting sonnets, and one's ability for abstract thought or deductive reasoning is not innate, but learned and grasped through practice.
i.e., when attempting to ask why there aren't more women in these fields, we should be concerned with what society tells a young girl she should be.
Women and men are different, but they are not essentially different. A woman is different from a man the way that woman is different from another woman who is similar to a man who is different from a man who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman, etc. - and the tendency for society to presume on essentialist genders, woman are like this all the time and men are like that all the time, is the contested point.
On February 22 2011 03:32 Half wrote: I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the statistical discrepancies between genders?
No not at all, but we aren't allowed to make that assumption since it could easily be used to hide injustices. You can keep it in the back of your head but never rely on it in any situation.
I'd argue that the biggest reason women don't go into stem fields, why they are paid less etc is risk aversion. Going into stem fields is a risk since you never know if you are smart enough to manage or so, much safer to go into a field where work ethics matters the most. Men are much more likely to take risks than women, taking risks is really important if you want to get anywhere especially if you want top positions in anything. You don't get a big pay increase if you don't take the risk asking for it, you don't get to lead the new juicy project if you don't take the risk embarrassing yourself by failing to run it and you wont major in a stem field if you don't want to take the risk to flunk the courses.
Women wants the same benefits without the risks, that will never happen. What happens instead is women seeing less qualified men going past them and they blame that on the system instead of looking at what makes those men walk past them. In general well qualified women who have a behavior more like men's will reach top positions. Well qualified women who just sits and wait for someone to notice how good they are will sit there for a really long time.
School is very straightforward so it fits them perfectly. Do your work and we give you good grades. In the real world things don't work that way. Insecure men gets pushed around at least as much as insecure women. It is common for extremely qualified men to sit in low paid positions basically doing everything. No one comes around to save these people. Women however thinks that this only happens to them for some reason, complaining that the only way to get further is to become more like men. Well, men at top positions have dominant personalities with a ton of confidence for a reason, because that is what is required by those positions! Women tends to lack those qualities.
What you should do is to teach women to be more dominant, assertive and less scared of risks. Men gets that from the boy culture where those characteristics are the key to determine status.
On February 22 2011 03:32 Half wrote: I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the statistical discrepancies between genders?
No not at all, but we aren't allowed to make that assumption since it could easily be used to hide injustices. You can keep it in the back of your head but never rely on it in any situation.
I'd argue that the biggest reason women don't go into stem fields, why they are paid less etc is risk aversion. Going into stem fields is a risk since you never know if you are smart enough to manage or so, much safer to go into a field where work ethics matters the most. Men are much more likely to take risks than women, taking risks is really important if you want to get anywhere especially if you want top positions in anything. You don't get a big pay increase if you don't take the risk asking for it, you don't get to lead the new juicy project if you don't take the risk embarrassing yourself by failing to run it and you wont major in a stem field if you don't want to take the risk to flunk the courses.
Women wants the same benefits without the risks, that will never happen. What happens instead is women seeing less qualified men going past them and they blame that on the system instead of looking at what makes those men walk past them. In general well qualified women who have a behavior more like men's will reach top positions. Well qualified women who just sits and wait for someone to notice how good they are will sit there for a really long time.
School is very straightforward so it fits them perfectly. Do your work and we give you good grades. In the real world things don't work that way. Insecure men gets pushed around at least as much as insecure women. It is common for extremely qualified men to sit in low paid positions basically doing everything. No one comes around to save these people. Women however thinks that this only happens to them for some reason, complaining that the only way to get further is to become more like men. Well, men at top positions have dominant personalities with a ton of confidence for a reason, because that is what is required by those positions! Women tends to lack those qualities.
What you should do is to teach women to be more dominant, assertive and less scared of risks. Men gets that from the boy culture where those characteristics are the key to determine status.
Boy does this man have women all figured out. I was thinking that there weren't as many women in high posts as men because it hasn't even been a century since the world has started to give women fairer opportunities. But turns out that it's because women aren't as ambitious!
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Maybe women on average just possess less of the interest and analytical intelligence required to succeed in hard science fields? And while average gender IQ distribution is relatively equal, men vastly over represent women on the high and low extremes.
I'm an Compsci major, I've met women who way smarter and more proficient at CS then I am. I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the average statistical discrepancies between genders?
Of course I understand concepts like stereotype threats, etc. But I find it really hard to believe that thats the sole factor that accounts for psychological differences between men and women.
Biological differences can account for why not all things should be unisex (like, again, basketball and hockey), but to argue that women possess less of an interest or analytical intelligence biologically is ludicrous. The probability for one's being interested in a certain field and subsequent analytical intelligence is conditioned - a baby is not born solving Hilbert problems any more than that baby is born reciting sonnets, and one's ability for abstract thought or deductive reasoning is not innate, but learned and grasped through practice.
i.e., when attempting to ask why there aren't more women in these fields, we should be concerned with what society tells a young girl she should be.
Women and men are different, but they are not essentially different. A woman is different from a man the way that woman is different from another woman who is similar to a man who is different from a man who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman, etc. - and the tendency for society to presume on essentialist genders, woman are like this all the time and men are like that all the time, is the contested point.
You're arguing that who we are as people is 100% nurture and 0% nature, and gender has no effect on our behavior on a genetic level?
Thats 100% verifiable false. Women do intrinsically behave different from men on several accounts (in terms of statistics) that are independent of society, and our genes have more influence then nurture when nurture is "adequate" (All basic needs are met). Twin studies prove this.
woman are like this all the time and men are like that all the time
We are talking statistics. Obviously, we should maintain a society where individuals can pursue whatever they wish.
The roles between the females and males are going to switch, it is just the matter of when. Reigal-Crumb suggests that more american females are attending universities than their male counterparts. + Show Spoiler +
Personally, I can't wait for females and males roles to switch, where the females go work for the family and the males stay at home and take care for the kids. This means that while my wife is pumping out the cash, I'll be in a starcraft game pumping out the zerglings. A win-win situation I believe.
EPT
