On December 22 2011 16:05 GeorgeForeman wrote: I'll just add that as I understand it, the best studies (account for the most variables, etc.) generally find a much smaller (though still non-zero) wage gap between men and women than the "~20% less than men" figure that's most often cited. A couple reasons (inadequate accounting for experience, work hours, union vs. nonunion, etc.) were given above. This doesn't mean that a wage gap doesn't exist anymore, but I think it's fair to say that the problem is far less severe than it once was and all trends point to it moving in the direction of equality.
The statistic that's normally quoted is hugely misleading and its context needs to be understood. Once you do that, you can actually see that problems still exist- they just don't necessarily represent themselves in that number.
76% is basically just an average of all working men's salaries and all working women's salaries. It doesn't take into account anything, really. In reality on a job to job basis, it's still not perfect 1:1, especially in some industries (in construction men make more for the same job, in communication women make more for the same job, etc.,) but in most cases when controlling for education, experience, specialty, etc., the disparity is within 90%. If you could actually pay an equally qualified woman 76% of a male counterpart's salary, businesses would just hire women because it makes financial sense. That's not the case and that's where the 76% number falls apart.
While more women go to college than men these days, that wasn't true for most of modern history and in the past, the only available jobs for women were ones that were destined to be lower paying. The end result is that indeed the average woman makes less than the average man, but in part because women from 50+ years old weren't afforded the same opportunities to build their credentials as their male counterparts.
The bigger problem that still exists, and makes up the majority of the 76%, is that women are often socialized into lower paying fields. There isn't an inherent (natural) reason that precludes women from being good at math and science, but they still make up a small minority of engineers, which is one of the highest paying professions. They do, however, make up the majority of Education, which is one of the lowest paying fields. So the problem is not usually seen on the individual level, where sex might determine the pay of two equally qualified candidates, but rather it's seen on the societal level where women are far more likely to pursue lower paying fields than men. That makes it much more complicated and difficult to solve, but pretending that an issue doesn't exist is certainly detrimental.
EDIT: I know the average male nurse is paid more than the average female nurse, but that's because of specialty. Despite being a minority in the general field, they're a majority in the sub-field of anesthesiology, which pays huge money.
On December 22 2011 11:41 Mobius_1 wrote: Surprisingly deep discussion. Have to say some of those extreme feminists blow some many things out of proportion. Just on the point of sexy Christmas songs, it's not like artists were forced into performing them, I'm sure Mariah Carey didn't need to do that song if she somehow deemed it degrading, just like Rihanna/Katy Perry don't need to dress as provocatively as they do. However, they know sex sells and they are simply making good money with their good looks. I'd say it's actually a good feminist thing because females are free to do what they want without being oppressed (or any more so than men). If you are honestly mad at this, then shouldn't men be mad too at Beckham's underwear ads and topless actors in movies and music videos with bulging sixpacks?
There are of course still inequalities, and many of those we as a society can still work on. However, these feminists see injustices everywhere even when none exist substantially in the same way literary critics can pluck themes and illusions out of thin air. Ugh indeed.
It's not about selling sex. Most modern third wave feminists embrace sexuality better than the majority of people on TL do.
The issue with the songs is that in the past, they were usually about a woman being subject of a man. I don't agree with "I saw Mommy kissing Santa Clause" and the Mariah Carey song is borderline, but I see the reasoning she was trying to use- the idea that all a woman needs to be happy is a man. That's a common theme across many classic songs, but rarely is it presented the other way around. The line of thinking leads to horribly sexist bullshit like this ad:
@Jibba- here is a nice feminist-penned rebuttal of criticisms toward "Baby It's Cold Outside." It can be seen as a song about a man helping a woman decide to break societal norms and make her own decisions instead of worrying about what everyone else will think. Framing it as "a man trying to rape a girl" as if that's obvious is silly. There is a ton of suggestion in the song that she wants to stay; she's constantly saying that she "can't" and that everyone will talk and worry etc., but never that she doesn't "want" to stay. And in the end of the song she sings with him, "oh but it's cold outside," which implies her consent pretty clearly. More detailed info:
I identify as a feminist. I don't think that there is much of a direct problem with explicit discrimination in our society today, but there are still many problems with how we raise our children (both male and female) and what we tell them they should or shouldn't be/can and can't be, and unjustifiable differences in how we judge people of different genders. Don't let the man-haters cause you to negatively judge the whole movement of gender equality.
Watching just a minute about "All I Want For Christmas Is You" - she says that when she hears a woman sing it, it sounds anti-feminist and dependent, but when a man sings it, it sounds "stalkerish." She needs to be more careful about avoiding the use of gender stereotypes to support feminist commentary...
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice....
smarten up son. Its a technical definition of anti female discrimination. And there is a technical one for male discrimination too so you can stop feeling so oppressed as a man now.
To all the people who are saying that we currently have equality between men and women, it's simply not true, and we're a lot more inequal than you probably think.
The vast majority of CEOs and company board members are male, there are many more male politicians than there are female politicians, even though democracy is supposed to be a proportional representation of the population. In particular, leaders of countries are overwhelmingly male. The only major countries that I can think of with female leaders are Germany, Brazil, Demark and Australia (though feel free to tell me if I'm wrong). Men earn significantly more than women in the same jobs, woman are estimated to do more than their fair share of work the world over, while they earn much less than 50% of the income.
TL;DR We are still far from equality and plenty of work remains for feminists to do.
On December 22 2011 03:42 ranshaked wrote: Just recently, as in today, I was roaming youtube, and I came across a feminism based youtube channel. At first I was intrigued. I thought to myself, does feminism even exist anymore in 1st world countries?
btw, the last song "baby it's cold outside" she states is a man date raping a girl. it's absurd.
Are you seriously saying that you think that feminsim is a bad thing? Just because some attention whore is on the internet claiming to be feminist doesn't mean she actually is one.
Also baby it's cold outside is a date rape song, listen to the lyrics, it's fucking creepy.
On December 22 2011 03:42 ranshaked wrote: Just recently, as in today, I was roaming youtube, and I came across a feminism based youtube channel. At first I was intrigued. I thought to myself, does feminism even exist anymore in 1st world countries?
btw, the last song "baby it's cold outside" she states is a man date raping a girl. it's absurd.
Are you seriously saying that you think that feminsim is a bad thing? Just because some attention whore is on the internet claiming to be feminist doesn't mean she actually is one.
Also baby it's cold outside is a date rape song, listen to the lyrics, it's fucking creepy.
No, it's not. It was 1936, open your eyes. She's talking about the drink as if it was a love potion, because the more she says she needs to go, the more she wants to stay. And "it's cold outside" is an excuse both find to spend the evening together as pre-marital sex was frowned upon. GHB didn't exist back then.
Or maybe "Singing in the rain" is a song about some dude tripping on LSD after a rave. After all, he's singing in the rain and seeing some weird shit, isn't he?
Wow. I read the last page then like a thriller novel, started back at the OP and read my way through all six pages. I concluded by watching the actual channel in question.
Intense!
zzz She comes off as a loudmouth that doesn't actually understand why but knows the what. I'm almost positive Baby It's Cold Outside was about selling advertisements and concert tickets.. not rape. There wasn't some deeper meaning to it. It only reflects the average quality of life for women of the 30s. Things were bad for women then.
Things are better now. They aren't even close to perfect and we should all be mindful of what we can do to bring down discriminatory practices and obfuscating gender roles that only reinforce negative stereotypes and shit from a bygone era. However aiming at a random song from last century while it is still completely acceptable to write new songs about the objectification, reduction and domination of women hits billboard top 40s.
If you think a 65 year old ditty is what's wrong with society you need to re aim and open your eyes. At least, musically.
Then again, music is a form of expression and while most songs that demean women express "GIVE ME MONEY FOR MY ALBUM" there are some that can be qualified as artistic and while they don't portray or encourage positive views on feminism or women, they aren't much worse than a violent movie or a crude joke.
At last- in response to the OP: Of course feminism exists in first world countries. Outside of the cities bright lights in the desert, forest and jungle it's still a mans world. Just because feminism has had a stronger impact here and is accepted by most implies in no way it is pointless.
In my personal opinion more should be done for womens rights in the third world but.. fuck more should be done for everyones rights in the third world. Sub-Sahara, Burma, Uzbekistan.. rights are not accustomed to.
edit: forgot to shout out to comadose for dropping truth
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice....
smarten up son. Its a technical definition of anti female discrimination. And there is a technical one for male discrimination too so you can stop feeling so oppressed as a man now.
On December 22 2011 16:35 Jibba wrote: The bigger problem that still exists, and makes up the majority of the 76%, is that women are often socialized into lower paying fields. There isn't an inherent (natural) reason that precludes women from being good at math and science, but they still make up a small minority of engineers, which is one of the highest paying professions. They do, however, make up the majority of Education, which is one of the lowest paying fields. So the problem is not usually seen on the individual level, where sex might determine the pay of two equally qualified candidates, but rather it's seen on the societal level where women are far more likely to pursue lower paying fields than men. That makes it much more complicated and difficult to solve, but pretending that an issue doesn't exist is certainly detrimental.
There's no evidence for any of this. The assumption that there are no inherent, average differences between the sexes in terms of motivation, type of preferred occupation, and even capability is an incredibly strong claim that is parroted often with no evidence to support it.
Personally, I don't think it has much to do with socialization that women are the vast majority of elementary school teachers. Easily explained through women on average caring more for young children than men, which is a cultural universal (it's inherent, and it's obvious why it's the case.) Of course socialization could reverse this trend through various means, but I don't think it would be a matter of equalizing past socialization, but rather of socialization actively working against the natural average preferences of men and women.
I also would guess that men are better on average at hard math and science due to average differences in the brains of men and women, but this is a much more tenuous position. There is no evidence against it, however, at least that I have seen, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss it as if the answers are clear and obvious, because they aren't.
On December 22 2011 16:35 Jibba wrote: The bigger problem that still exists, and makes up the majority of the 76%, is that women are often socialized into lower paying fields. There isn't an inherent (natural) reason that precludes women from being good at math and science, but they still make up a small minority of engineers, which is one of the highest paying professions. They do, however, make up the majority of Education, which is one of the lowest paying fields. So the problem is not usually seen on the individual level, where sex might determine the pay of two equally qualified candidates, but rather it's seen on the societal level where women are far more likely to pursue lower paying fields than men. That makes it much more complicated and difficult to solve, but pretending that an issue doesn't exist is certainly detrimental.
There's no evidence for any of this. The assumption that there are no inherent, average differences between the sexes in terms of motivation, type of preferred occupation, and even capability is an incredibly strong claim that is parroted often with no evidence to support it.
Personally, I don't think it has much to do with socialization that women are the vast majority of elementary school teachers. Easily explained through women on average caring more for young children than men, which is a cultural universal (it's inherent, and it's obvious why it's the case.) Of course socialization could reverse this trend through various means, but I don't think it would be a matter of equalizing past socialization, but rather of socialization actively working against the natural average preferences of men and women.
I also would guess that men are better on average at hard math and science due to average differences in the brains of men and women, but this is a much more tenuous position. There is no evidence against it, however, at least that I have seen, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss it as if the answers are clear and obvious, because they aren't.
Holy shit are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously saying, in 2011, that mens' brains are more capable of doing maths than womens? wow.
Of course it's true that women more often work in education fields while men work in other, more highly paid, fields. It's not because they're smarter kid. Noone believes that. Noone either believes that women by nature are more caring than men, you're just being really stupid here. Don't you think girls as children often are raised by their parents to be "cute" and "caring" while boys can play with cars and action figures? You don't think that has anything to do with this? You think men by nature are smarter while women are more caring?
On December 22 2011 16:35 Jibba wrote: The bigger problem that still exists, and makes up the majority of the 76%, is that women are often socialized into lower paying fields. There isn't an inherent (natural) reason that precludes women from being good at math and science, but they still make up a small minority of engineers, which is one of the highest paying professions. They do, however, make up the majority of Education, which is one of the lowest paying fields. So the problem is not usually seen on the individual level, where sex might determine the pay of two equally qualified candidates, but rather it's seen on the societal level where women are far more likely to pursue lower paying fields than men. That makes it much more complicated and difficult to solve, but pretending that an issue doesn't exist is certainly detrimental.
There's no evidence for any of this. The assumption that there are no inherent, average differences between the sexes in terms of motivation, type of preferred occupation, and even capability is an incredibly strong claim that is parroted often with no evidence to support it.
Personally, I don't think it has much to do with socialization that women are the vast majority of elementary school teachers. Easily explained through women on average caring more for young children than men, which is a cultural universal (it's inherent, and it's obvious why it's the case.) Of course socialization could reverse this trend through various means, but I don't think it would be a matter of equalizing past socialization, but rather of socialization actively working against the natural average preferences of men and women.
I also would guess that men are better on average at hard math and science due to average differences in the brains of men and women, but this is a much more tenuous position. There is no evidence against it, however, at least that I have seen, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss it as if the answers are clear and obvious, because they aren't.
Eh, and wtf do you base that on?
Socialization doesn't play a role? Please. From day 1, you're either wrapped in a pink or blue blanket on your way home from the hospital. The fact that we all just take this for granted shows just how deeply gender socialization runs. And on an interesting note, before the 1920s, pink was a "masculine" color, and blue was a "feminine" color. Baby boys would be wrapped in pink, and baby girls in blue. It's all socially constructed.
How many parents buy their young daughters a chemistry set, or an erector set, or mentally stimulating building toys like knex or legos? We get dolls and toy kitchens. How many young girls, (though these trends are slowly changing) are encouraged to join the chess/math club?
Have you ever watched the crap on TV aimed at young girls? Watch any show on the Disney channel depicting dolled up middle schoolers squabbling over the attention of cute boys and try not to puke. We feed our daughters all this crazy stuff about what's expected of them, or what's "proper and feminine", and then when they say they're not interested in hard sciences, we assume it's because female brains are just different.
And socialization works both ways. How often are men told that professions such as nursing or caring for kids is "for women", and something to be avoided? What reaction does a man get if he admits to being a nurse or an elementary school teacher? It's not that he's somehow biologically inferior at either profession, but he's been told over and over since the day he was born, from his peers, from media, and from society in general that it's not "what men are supposed to do." When you swallow those expectations your entire life, it's easy to just assume it's "the norm."
On December 22 2011 16:35 Jibba wrote: The bigger problem that still exists, and makes up the majority of the 76%, is that women are often socialized into lower paying fields. There isn't an inherent (natural) reason that precludes women from being good at math and science, but they still make up a small minority of engineers, which is one of the highest paying professions. They do, however, make up the majority of Education, which is one of the lowest paying fields. So the problem is not usually seen on the individual level, where sex might determine the pay of two equally qualified candidates, but rather it's seen on the societal level where women are far more likely to pursue lower paying fields than men. That makes it much more complicated and difficult to solve, but pretending that an issue doesn't exist is certainly detrimental.
There's no evidence for any of this. The assumption that there are no inherent, average differences between the sexes in terms of motivation, type of preferred occupation, and even capability is an incredibly strong claim that is parroted often with no evidence to support it.
Personally, I don't think it has much to do with socialization that women are the vast majority of elementary school teachers. Easily explained through women on average caring more for young children than men, which is a cultural universal (it's inherent, and it's obvious why it's the case.) Of course socialization could reverse this trend through various means, but I don't think it would be a matter of equalizing past socialization, but rather of socialization actively working against the natural average preferences of men and women.
I also would guess that men are better on average at hard math and science due to average differences in the brains of men and women, but this is a much more tenuous position. There is no evidence against it, however, at least that I have seen, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss it as if the answers are clear and obvious, because they aren't.
Eh, and wtf do you base that on?
Socialization doesn't play a role? Please. From day 1, you're either wrapped in a pink or blue blanket on your way home from the hospital. The fact that we all just take this for granted shows just how deeply gender socialization runs. And on an interesting note, before the 1920s, pink was a "masculine" color, and blue was a "feminine" color. Baby boys would be wrapped in pink, and baby girls in blue. It's all socially constructed.
How many parents buy their young daughters a chemistry set, or an erector set, or mentally stimulating building toys like knex or legos? We get dolls and toy kitchens. How many young girls, (though these trends are slowly changing) are encouraged to join the chess/math club?
Have you ever watched the crap on TV aimed at young girls? Watch any show on the Disney channel depicting dolled up middle schoolers squabbling over the attention of cute boys and try not to puke. We feed our daughters all this crazy stuff about what's expected of them, or what's "proper and feminine", and then when they say they're not interested in hard sciences, we assume it's because female brains are just different.
And socialization works both ways. How often are men told that professions such as nursing or caring for kids is "for women", and something to be avoided? What reaction does a man get if he admits to being a nurse or an elementary school teacher? It's not that he's somehow biologically inferior at either profession, but he's been told over and over since the day he was born, from his peers, from media, and from society in general that it's not "what men are supposed to do." When you swallow those expectations your entire life, it's easy to just assume it's "the norm."
It's a fallacy to assume that just because socialization exists, nature has no impact. I don't argue that socialization occurs. Just because it occurs doesn't mean it has full explanatory power.
As I said, it is a cultural universal that women care more for young children than men do. When we see certain behavioral differences in every culture on Earth, it is safe to say that socialization is not the primary reason behind them.
There is no reason to think that, in a cultural vacuum (if it could somehow exist), the sexes would be equally inclined towards every profession. Sexual dimorphism is not simply a matter of height and muscle mass, it also a matter of preference and motivation. Men prefer riskier activities and more violent ones. This is a cultural universal. Women care more for children. This is a cultural universal.
On December 22 2011 16:35 Jibba wrote: The bigger problem that still exists, and makes up the majority of the 76%, is that women are often socialized into lower paying fields. There isn't an inherent (natural) reason that precludes women from being good at math and science, but they still make up a small minority of engineers, which is one of the highest paying professions. They do, however, make up the majority of Education, which is one of the lowest paying fields. So the problem is not usually seen on the individual level, where sex might determine the pay of two equally qualified candidates, but rather it's seen on the societal level where women are far more likely to pursue lower paying fields than men. That makes it much more complicated and difficult to solve, but pretending that an issue doesn't exist is certainly detrimental.
There's no evidence for any of this. The assumption that there are no inherent, average differences between the sexes in terms of motivation, type of preferred occupation, and even capability is an incredibly strong claim that is parroted often with no evidence to support it.
Personally, I don't think it has much to do with socialization that women are the vast majority of elementary school teachers. Easily explained through women on average caring more for young children than men, which is a cultural universal (it's inherent, and it's obvious why it's the case.) Of course socialization could reverse this trend through various means, but I don't think it would be a matter of equalizing past socialization, but rather of socialization actively working against the natural average preferences of men and women.
I also would guess that men are better on average at hard math and science due to average differences in the brains of men and women, but this is a much more tenuous position. There is no evidence against it, however, at least that I have seen, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss it as if the answers are clear and obvious, because they aren't.
Eh, and wtf do you base that on?
Socialization doesn't play a role? Please. From day 1, you're either wrapped in a pink or blue blanket on your way home from the hospital. The fact that we all just take this for granted shows just how deeply gender socialization runs. And on an interesting note, before the 1920s, pink was a "masculine" color, and blue was a "feminine" color. Baby boys would be wrapped in pink, and baby girls in blue. It's all socially constructed.
How many parents buy their young daughters a chemistry set, or an erector set, or mentally stimulating building toys like knex or legos? We get dolls and toy kitchens. How many young girls, (though these trends are slowly changing) are encouraged to join the chess/math club?
Have you ever watched the crap on TV aimed at young girls? Watch any show on the Disney channel depicting dolled up middle schoolers squabbling over the attention of cute boys and try not to puke. We feed our daughters all this crazy stuff about what's expected of them, or what's "proper and feminine", and then when they say they're not interested in hard sciences, we assume it's because female brains are just different.
And socialization works both ways. How often are men told that professions such as nursing or caring for kids is "for women", and something to be avoided? What reaction does a man get if he admits to being a nurse or an elementary school teacher? It's not that he's somehow biologically inferior at either profession, but he's been told over and over since the day he was born, from his peers, from media, and from society in general that it's not "what men are supposed to do." When you swallow those expectations your entire life, it's easy to just assume it's "the norm."
It's a fallacy to assume that just because socialization exists, nature has no impact. I don't argue that socialization occurs. Just because it occurs doesn't mean it has full explanatory power.
As I said, it is a cultural universal that women care more for young children than men do. When we see certain behavioral differences in every culture on Earth, it is safe to say that socialization is not the primary reason behind them.
There is no reason to think that, in a cultural vacuum (if it could somehow exist), the sexes would be equally inclined towards every profession. Sexual dimorphism is not simply a matter of height and muscle mass, it also a matter of preference and motivation. Men prefer riskier activities and more violent ones. This is a cultural universal. Women care more for children. This is a cultural universal.
Can you cite me some cultures where this is actually the the "preference and motivation" of both sexes? As opposed to something that is ingrained in society as part of the traditional family dynamics. You know, where women are traditionally supposed to be the "caregiver" in the family.
On December 23 2011 04:17 trias_e wrote: There is no reason to think that, in a cultural vacuum (if it could somehow exist), the sexes would be equally inclined towards every profession. Sexual dimorphism is not simply a matter of height and muscle mass, it also a matter of preference and motivation. Men prefer riskier activities and more violent ones. This is a cultural universal. Women care more for children. This is a cultural universal.
This is specific to our civilization. Others have different habits, such as the Amazones of Dahomey. It's not in our genes, it's in our culture, and is therefore prone to a quick evolution.
In France, "Les chiennes de garde" is a famous group of feminist who stated that any sexual relation between a man and a woman is a rape... So I kinda understand you. Feminism doesn't mean a lot because it is like a galaxy with a thousand of way of seeing things that are in my opinion completly different. Certain group of the second wave (radical feminism) for exemple try to defend the idea that there are a certain number of qualities that women have because they are women and that those qualities should be defended and give them and edge on men on some things : it's basically sexism. For them, men and women must separate themselves, they're all for lesbian feminism...
Ok so first, I haven't read every single post in this thread. BUT, the whole "wage inequality" thing makes me a little intrigued... Be warned its mostly theorycrafting/nerdy thinking.
I am looking at western/liberal/free market countries. Assume there is a huge wage gap, due to sex. This means that if you hire a person for a job at level X, you will pay this person m(X) if male, and f(X) if female, with m(X)>f(X) (at least on average).
So: 1/why not hire only women for a given job? you'll end up saving money right ? 2/or hire a better qualified women for the same price (like hire a X+k female and pay like it was a X male) ?
Add to this that in science/engineer/technical jobs, I know many cases of girls being hired because they are girls (i.e. equal qualification guys and girls => girl gets picked). Both from the "my friends apply" perspective and from the "my colleagues hire" perspective.
Not saying that the world is perfectly equal. Just saying that this huge focus on wage inequality doesn't make much sense to me: fails to make sense from a "game theory" perspective, and fails to make sense when compared to what happens around me (engineer/technical field). Something I am more sensitive to is the "gender expectation" thing. But this issue is so deep that it is almost absurd to try to fight it with other things than slow cultural change (through art, books, culture, slowly putting into people's mind new ideas).
Btw, if you're a girl in science, you get 10 times more opportunity to have "girls in science award" or "woman in research scholarship" things. Talk about equal opportunities
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg)
