Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ogdibus]

Are you referring to the countries, the summit, or the leaders?  For the countries, there is, and that will affect the thinking of the leaders and their actions at the summit.

The second question has no answer because it fails to provide a realistic context in which hiring decisions are made.  You are also very clearly trying to convince us that culture is not a factor.

[alexandertnt]

You missed what I have been trying to say:

This:

(I admit my slant, openly.  Feminism is not only anti-man; it's anti-human.  I respect the women in my life far too much to buy into pseudo-socialist ideologies that claim to speak for them)[/spoiler]

is one of these:

overly-broard political classifications

My second question, as directly related to the proposition that any wage inequities are based on discrimination, rather than choice, is:  if you were a hiring manager for a multi-billion dollar firm, and knew that you could save 20-25% of your personnel costs by hiring Jill over Jack, would you, in light of your mandate to provide maximal profit to the shareholders?  If so, then why do any men whatsoever have jobs at all?  If not, what justification(s) do you think would be acceptable for not saving millions upon millions of dollars?

The first bolded statement I do not agree with. I am assuming you are under the illusion that this is somehow an implication of the description of feminism you provided.
The second: yes.
The third: May have something to do with the fact that humans do the hiring and not some optimal search algorithm.

[Ogdibus]

You could also hire neither and whistle blow the obvious pay discrimination practice that is going on.  Having to choose one of those two applicants is a false dilemma.

[Tiruin]

Erm, tiny poke. WoobMonkey: What do you define/see feminism as?

I'm a bit confused by some generalities going on but those have context that [the poster] often connects to the area they are in/see.
...Is feminism too general a term to use?

[palsch]

The very term itself "wage gap" pretty much highlights the problems with putting too much stock in the wage gap.
The term itself implies an absolute difference in wages, which shouldn't be what anybody cares about.
You should care about the portion of the difference that is due to unjustified prejudice.

Meh, I think you are justified in worrying about the gap as a whole as well. It represents at least a potential problem with power inequality between the genders. So long as women have a practical earning power lower than men they practically have less power in a capitalist society, regardless of the reasons, and that is a valid issue for feminism to be concerned with. Combating reasons that may be viewed as 'justified' by general society is not, in my eyes, a bad idea. Things like equal parental leave, better childcare provision and healthcare reform/provision can go a long way towards addressing pay inequality as well as being general good policy and good ideas.

Then there are the problems of what people count as 'justified' pay discrimination. People can be incredibly arbitrary about these things. It's not hard to justify nearly any discrimination by choosing (or unconsciously) focusing on negative factors they might ignore in other people. I've linked studies like this before, but these were the first to pop up. Even in cases where every decision has to be justified and defended, such as journal article selection, you see considerably more favourable results for women when sex can be hidden from the reviewers. I see no reason not to believe this is the same in wages, where entirely 'justified' decisions can include such biases.

Basically, for me, we need to count any pay gap in statistically significant populations doing broadly similar jobs as problematic. Luckily those are exactly the statistics the BLS keep. It only looks at full time workers. They give averages for any category that has more than 50,000 people in it, so you are only comparing significant populations. Their overall F/M wage ratio is 0.82, which broadly matches other studies for full time employment only. Using a quick and dirty review of the dataset in excel (I wish they would give you a clean csv suited to r or similar, but work with what you have) I have 139 comparable occupation categories, including the broader categories and fields of employment (which I admittedly could probably have excluded as being too broad). In 3 women earn more ("Wholesale and retail buyers, except farm products" - 1.07, "Computer occupations, all other" - 1.04, "Bakers" - 1.07). In all the rest men earn more. In 109 the gap was larger than 10%. In 50 it was greater than 20%. 25 had a gap of 25% or more.

[WoobMonkey]

Are you referring to the countries, the summit, or the leaders?  For the countries, there is, and that will affect the thinking of the leaders and their actions at the summit.

The second question has no answer because it fails to provide a realistic context in which hiring decisions are made.  You are also very clearly trying to convince us that culture is not a factor.

I am referring to the nations.  I use the G8 as the sample, as the term 'modern West' is rather vague.  If you prefer, 'industrialized, modern democratic nations.'

If we're to look for discriminatory practices, we need to remove as many confounding issues as possible.  The claim, mostly repeated by Feminists (like Fox News, until it takes on the mantle of 'fact'), that women make 77 cents to a man's dollar, needs backing.  If anyone bothered to look at the data I provided, they'd see that this assertion carries a major [citation needed.]

Also, how does this not reflect hiring practices?  What about this example rubs you the wrong way?  Believe it or not, the legal mandate given to a publicly-traded enterprise is to find profits.  If a woman is paid 23% less than a man, regardless of why, for the same level of work, then that represents a 23% reduction in labour cost.  Which is an increase in profit.

'Culture' is vague; care to elucidate?

You missed what I have been trying to say:

This:

(I admit my slant, openly.  Feminism is not only anti-man; it's anti-human.  I respect the women in my life far too much to buy into pseudo-socialist ideologies that claim to speak for them)[/spoiler]

is one of these:

overly-broard political classifications

Then enlighten me.  Yes, it is a broad statement.  So are statements (which are by no means 'fringe' within 3rd-wave Feminism) such as 'women are oppressed by a Patriarchy,' 'Rape Culture,' 'society is.... {x}' and the like.  Which is why I'm attempting to narrow it down, in the name of open, honest discussion.  It's also why I spoilered the above; it's tangential to any points we may have to discuss.

But hey, as long as assertion without backing floats yer boat, whetever.  This is, after all, a forum for a games company; I'm not going to be upset if you'd rather avoid backing up your claims; I'm simply attempting to show a willingness to back mine.

Erm, tiny poke. WoobMonkey: What do you define/see feminism as?

I'm a bit confused by some generalities going on but those have context that [the poster] often connects to the area they are in/see.
...Is feminism too general a term to use?

Feminism is an ideological movement, with its prime cohesive factor being 'patriarchy theory.'  From the 2nd Wave (usually associated with Steinem, de Beauvoir, Dworkin, and sometimes Solanis) and its focus on using sex in the same context as class, to the 3rd Wave, with a focus on 'culture' as an oppressive force, with a very post-modernist outlook on the subordination of factual evidence to vague feelings as motivation, it's an ideology that strays further and further from any need for truth.

My contention with Feminism lies in that exact place; I'm of the strong opinion that men, women, and everyone in between, are best served by allowing facts and evidence more power than ideology.  Unfortunately, PoMo argumentation is still given credence in the poliltical landscape - at least, here in Canada it is.  And so I find myself in this position, as predicted; answering to a bunch of people at once, despite nobody holding my interlocutor to the same standards they do me.

Because I question the ideology, and attempt to get to the facts of the matter.

Oh well.

[scriver]

As for the 'pseudo-socialist' attribution: feminisim is an ideology which aims to shape society to fit its own ends, by whatever means availible.  That is socialism.  The 'pseudo' part comes from having no base economic theory from which to draw, nor any cohesive plan moving forward.  That is, in my opinion, downright ridiculous.

Today I learned all ideologies are socialism.

[WoobMonkey]

As for the 'pseudo-socialist' attribution: feminisim is an ideology which aims to shape society to fit its own ends, by whatever means availible.  That is socialism.  The 'pseudo' part comes from having no base economic theory from which to draw, nor any cohesive plan moving forward.  That is, in my opinion, downright ridiculous.

Today I learned all ideologies are socialism.

Well, you certainly didn't learn that from me.

[palsch]

If we're to look for discriminatory practices, we need to remove as many confounding issues as possible.  The claim, mostly repeated by Feminists (like Fox News, until it takes on the mantle of 'fact'), that women make 77 cents to a man's dollar, needs backing.  If anyone bothered to look at the data I provided, they'd see that this assertion carries a major [citation needed.]

Except that that number as the raw wage difference stands. It's direct from the census bureau (pdf warning, slide 13 has the graph). What you are saying is that that number doesn't bother you because you think it is justified by employment factors.

What I and others say is that employment factors don't make up for the entire gap, and that even if they did it's still a problematic situation that should be addressed.

Also, how does this not reflect hiring practices?  What about this example rubs you the wrong way?  Believe it or not, the legal mandate given to a publicly-traded enterprise is to find profits.  If a woman is paid 23% less than a man, regardless of why, for the same level of work, then that represents a 23% reduction in labour cost.  Which is an increase in profit.

But legally (in the US and most other countries we are concerned about) they can't do that. Explicit pay discrimination is illegal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all, but doing so in more subtle and complex ways. It's more about who gets raises and who gets passed over. Who gets the promotion. Who gets their experience valued higher. As I said in my previous post, a lot of it down to unconscious bias, combined with a lot of what people consider 'justified' reasons.

Also, given that the 77% figure is a raw number a lot of it comes down to women being in lower paying jobs overall, as well as more part time and low hour jobs. Again, you can argue about reasons and justifications, but I don't think you can pretend it's not problematic.

[WoobMonkey]

Except that that number as the raw wage difference stands. It's direct from the census bureau (pdf warning, slide 13 has the graph). What you are saying is that that number doesn't bother you because you think it is justified by employment factors.

What I and others say is that employment factors don't make up for the entire gap, and that even if they did it's still a problematic situation that should be addressed.


But legally (in the US and most other countries we are concerned about) they can't do that. Explicit pay discrimination is illegal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all, but doing so in more subtle and complex ways. It's more about who gets raises and who gets passed over. Who gets the promotion. Who gets their experience valued higher. As I said in my previous post, a lot of it down to unconscious bias, combined with a lot of what people consider 'justified' reasons.

Also, given that the 77% figure is a raw number a lot of it comes down to women being in lower paying jobs overall, as well as more part time and low hour jobs. Again, you can argue about reasons and justifications, but I don't think you can pretend it's not problematic.

Let me start by thanking you, for keeping your response both civil and rational.

You are correct that explicit discrimination is illegal; this is as should be.  The fact that civil courts aren't clogged with cases of violations of such laws, is, to me, a telling point.

I will, with your permission, side-step any attribution of 'unconscious bias,' until such a time as someone claims James Randi's million dollars with evidence of mind-reading.

I am not out to 'pretend' that women having the freedom to choose positions that allow for flexibility in scheduling and personal valuation of time over money, is not problematic.  There is no need to pretend - this is exactly what freedom of choice and conscience is.  The only pretending, here, is the unsubstantiated claim that these raw numbers are somehow the fault of anyone other than the rational agents choosing benefits, flexibility, and non-financial pursuits.  Women who choose to aggressively pursue positions in STEM fields, politics, or other positions of a high-risk, high-reward nature are just as free to do so as men.

Unfortunately for both sides of this discussion, there is a dearth of research into the effects of such things as: personal motivation, valuation of time vs stress vs income, willingness to negotiate aggressively, and a host of other, potentially confounding, factors.  What we do have to work with, is the existence of laws prohibiting such discrimination as is posited (and, I daresay, parroted) by organizations such as NOW; as well as the existence of plenty of women who excel and succeed in acheiving financial/political goals, when such goals are aggressively pursued.

What, to me, is problematic isn't the lack of women in higher-paying sectors of the workplace (specifically, STEM fields, upper echelons of politics, CEO positions), but rather the assumption that a degree in Women's Studies/PolySci ought to be valued by society as a whole, as highly as degrees in engineering, economics, and the like.

I make no claim that women are somehow inferior in any of the higher-paying fields; to do so would be ridiculous.  There is, however, solid statistical evidence that women, of their own volition, choose not to pursue such fields.  I'll have to dig up studies, but there is the claim from biology that higher testosterone levels lead to higher risk-taking behaviours; this may explain why there are more men then women, at both the top, and at the bottom, of the workforce, whereas there are more women filling roles in the middle.  <--citation needed

What gets my goat about the mainstream Feminist arguments concerning positions held by men and women in the workforce, is the inherent assumption that equal opportunity must somehow mean equal results.  In a free society, wherein each rational agent is allowed to value hir own time as s/he chooses, this is not so.  The problem isn't a lack of women at the top; the problem, if there is one, is the lack of women choosing to grab for the ring, as it were.

[alexandertnt]

Then enlighten me.

Some women don't want to do woman-y things, but a significant number of people expect them to, unnecessarily favours man in some jobs and women in others. That women finds it hard to do what they want because of this.
I already gave you the wikipedia article, should do a good job of explaining feminism beyong "anti-human socialism".

women are oppressed by a Patriarchy

Its generally viewed that the "oppression" is not intentional (and is not male specific either), hence the focus on society and culture, as well as analysing it. The arguments here are slightly more complex than "Help help I'm being oppressed!".

Rape Culture

Rape Culture is Rape Culture. People defending or justifying rape. They are a tiny minority but they certainly exist.

society is.... {x}

?

No idea how any of these things are anti-men, or how any of these things could possibly be "anti-human". Socialism part is just generic red baiting.

But hey, as long as assertion without backing floats yer boat, whetever. I'm simply attempting to show a willingness to back mine. I'm not going to be upset if you'd rather avoid backing up your claims;

I am pretty sure you entered the thread claming feminism is "anti-human pseudo-socialism". You made the claim, the burdon of proof is on you.

Today I learned all ideologies are socialism.

Only the ones you don't like

[palsch]

Let me start by thanking you, for keeping your response both civil and rational.

Let me say that the civil part is hard. For someone whose training is in physics, to dismiss feminism as post modernism and anti-fact is fighting talk.

You are correct that explicit discrimination is illegal; this is as should be.  The fact that civil courts aren't clogged with cases of violations of such laws, is, to me, a telling point.

Except that such cases aren't all that rare. They rarely make the news unless there is a particularly high profile case, but just from news the other day is this $15m class action lawsuit.

I'd also expect such class action suits to be more successful. Proving discrimination in a single case is hard and I would expect most cases to fail regardless of whether valid or not. Statistical evidence like that is far more likely to show institutional bias that can't be easily explained away.

I will, with your permission, side-step any attribution of 'unconscious bias,' until such a time as someone claims James Randi's million dollars with evidence of mind-reading.

Erm, or read the three studies I linked which demonstrate an unconscious bias (or at least unattributed bias) in participants in various situations that can impact employment and employability. Ignoring the fact that such bias exists is irrational and leads to the assumption of a level playing field that doesn't exist.

The only pretending, here, is the unsubstantiated claim that these raw numbers are somehow the fault of anyone other than the rational agents choosing benefits, flexibility, and non-financial pursuits.  Women who choose to aggressively pursue positions in STEM fields, politics, or other positions of a high-risk, high-reward nature are just as free to do so as men.

Except that there is a strong case that they aren't. Cultural and related factors push them away, alongside that unconscious bias you have such a problem with. There is a fantastic if lengthy review of the evidence here, looking at dozens of studies.

Unfortunately for both sides of this discussion, there is a dearth of research into the effects of such things as: personal motivation, valuation of time vs stress vs income, willingness to negotiate aggressively, and a host of other, potentially confounding, factors.  What we do have to work with, is the existence of laws prohibiting such discrimination as is posited (and, I daresay, parroted) by organizations such as NOW; as well as the existence of plenty of women who excel and succeed in acheiving financial/political goals, when such goals are aggressively pursued.

But we also have the case I mentioned above and plenty of observational data about the world. From my experiences in a physics department and time around universities in general I tend to laugh when people claim women aren't discouraged or discriminated against in STEM fields.

As for the negotiate aggressively part, there is substantial research on that. Women who aggressively push for raises are viewed more negatively. A woman who had negotiated a raise is more likely to be passed over for future promotions or raises because of this, hurting long term earnings.

What, to me, is problematic isn't the lack of women in higher-paying sectors of the workplace (specifically, STEM fields, upper echelons of politics, CEO positions), but rather the assumption that a degree in Women's Studies/PolySci ought to be valued by society as a whole, as highly as degrees in engineering, economics, and the like.

Wut.

For starters, you still see a pay gap between men and women who take the same subjects. But I'm also rather confused as to why you say something like this in a serious discussion.

What gets my goat about the mainstream Feminist arguments concerning positions held by men and women in the workforce, is the inherent assumption that equal opportunity must somehow mean equal results.  In a free society, wherein each rational agent is allowed to value hir own time as s/he chooses, this is not so.  The problem isn't a lack of women at the top; the problem, if there is one, is the lack of women choosing to grab for the ring, as it were.

The problem is the assumption that there is a level playing field and that we should assume that the gap is a result of 'rational' choice or some inherent deficiency in 'risk taking behaviour' (very little of which is associated with income in my experience) in the female gender.

Rape Culture is Rape Culture. People defending or justifying rape. They are a tiny minority but they certainly exist.

I'd say it's more subtle than that. It's generally what is referred to here as a social license to operate.

Change the culture. We are not going to pull six or ten or twelve million men out of the U.S. population over any short period, so if we are going to put a dent in the prevalence of rape, we need to change the environment that the rapist operates in. Choose not to be part of a rape-supportive environment. Rape jokes are not jokes. Woman-hating jokes are not jokes. These guys are telling you what they think. When you laugh along to get their approval, you give them yours. You tell them that the social license to operate is in force; that you’ll go along with the pact to turn your eyes away from the evidence; to make excuses for them; to assume it’s a mistake, of the first time, or a confusing situation. You’re telling them that they’re at low risk.

Generally rape is far more accepted than people pretend it is. It is just not usually referred to as rape or is otherwise minimised. That post examines how people are perfectly willing to admit to rape if it's not called by name. And other people are perfectly willing to make excuses for them and support them. Rape culture is all the cultural factors that go towards that. It's hardly a tiny minority.

[WoobMonkey]

Some women don't want to do woman-y things, but a significant number of people expect them to, unnecessarily favours man in some jobs and women in others. That women finds it hard to do what they want because of this.
I already gave you the wikipedia article, should do a good job of explaining feminism beyong "anti-human socialism".

Provide examples that aren't a matter of free choice and valuation, if you'd be so kind.  Ottherwise, the exact same line of argumentation could point to a 'Matriarchy,' as there are plenty of job classes that favour women over men.  And not facetious, and slightly demeaning ones, either.  Rather, fields such as nursing, middle management, banking, education, and the like - low-to-medium risk for low-to-medium reward positions.  There aren't 'woman-y' things; there are fields that are chosen by women more often then by men, and vice-versa.  To try to blame 'society' for the free choices of rational agents is to attempt to remove the dignity of being a rational agent, capable of taking resposibility for her own actions and values, from a woman.  The results we see in the workforce are precisely what one would expect, if the values of men and women were different, given equal opportunities to pursue the same ends.

My assertion of modern Feminism as socialism lies in the oft-repeated claims that equal results, regardless of the volition of individual actors, are more important than free choices made under equal opportunities.  It's not in the least an attempt to bait anyone; simply a matter of factual representation.

Its generally viewed that the "oppression" is not intentional (and is not male specific either), hence the focus on society and culture, as well as analysing it. The arguments here are slightly more complex than "Help help I'm being oppressed!".

In some places, post-modernism refuses to die.  One cannot meaningfully analyze anything outside of literal critique, when ideology trumps facts and evidence.  Once again, 'culture' is an aggregate term; it is the sum total of freely-chosen outlooks and actions, made by rational, individual agents.  'Culture' has no motive force, in and of itself.  It does, however, make for a convenient scapegoat for a lack of personal responsibility for one's own actions or lack thereof.

Rape Culture is Rape Culture. People defending or justifying rape. They are a tiny minority but they certainly exist.

Where?  Point to them, please.  The only place I've seen anyone defending or justifying rape (personal research alert - not to encyclopedic standards), has been the feminist canard that women cannot be rapists, ergo females in positions of authority who use said authority to have sexual relationships with minors are, in fact, not at fault.  Thankfully, the law says otherwise.

?

No idea how any of these things are anti-men, or how any of these things could possibly be "anti-human". Socialism part is just generic red baiting.

Examples of anti-male bias:

Men receive more, and longer, prison terms for the same crimes as women - yes, it's just a HuffPo article, but the research has been done.  And yet, for all the sabre-rattling over a negligible wage difference between men and women, this glaring discrepancy is met with the sounds of crickets chirping when presented to Feminist theorists.

Grants are available to women, by virtue of nothing more than their genitalia, that aren't availible to men  I'm living in Canada, so I've chosen Grants Canada as the exemplar.  To the best of my knowledge, this is equally true throughout the West.

I am pretty sure you entered the thread claming feminism is "anti-human pseudo-socialism". You made the claim, the burdon of proof is on you.

No, I did not make that a claim.  I made it a statement of my own potential bias.  There is a difference; a claim is a matter of factual evidence.  Hence my spoilering of that point; it's a matter of opinion, not of fact.


edit: formatting.

[palsch]

Quick question, do you consider yourself or anyone on this forum as a "rational agent"?

[WoobMonkey]

Quick question, do you consider yourself or anyone on this forum as a "rational agent"?

Quick answer: yes.