The Gender Pay Gap

ShowMeTheCash

I like listening to Kate Andrews she talks some sense on some of these subjects.

newport2

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, this is a good argument and it's another good example of the failings of "Gender Studies Theory" to apply to reality.

While now they are encouraging their kids to play in a non gender specific way they are eventually, one day, going to try talking to them about "The Patriarchy" and "Male Privilege". How does that not eventually introduce the concept of gender in the worst way possible?

So, how do you encourage young women to get in to STEM subjects while simultaneously telling them how horribly sexist and oppressive and unfair these areas are to women?

Think about it. Let's say you want your buddies to come and watch a movie with you. Do you sell the movie to them by saying "well, it's basically the kind of movie you won't like, the director doesn't even really want people like you to watch it and you are probably gonna feel victimized by this film"? Of course not.

So if you maybe have a little "clique" of 4 high school girls planning their careers. One wants to be a teacher, one wants to be a nurse, one just wants to get a rich husband. Those three are happy to conform to "gender roles". The fourth girl though? Well, she just wants to get in to STEM and right away the Gender Studies Crew and right behind her. "Yes, we need women like you in STEM because right now it is a horrible oppressive den of misogyny and sexism with micro-aggressions and groping old man hands coming at you from all angles"! How does this kind of rhetoric encourage the 4th girl to break away from the traditional "gender role"?

Are the very people who want to see more women in STEM not the exact same people who are discouraging women from entering these "unwelcoming" fields?

Take Matt Taylor, for example, I doubt this guy has ever publicly stated that he doesn't want women to work for the European Space Agency. I doubt he has deliberately tried to prevent a woman from being employed bu the European Space Agency. Yet, he was held up as an example of how women are not welcome in science. "Look at this guy! This is exactly why science is a boys club where women are not welcome, not respected, and are treated like sex objects. Now, ladies, who wants to sign up for science classes?"

Surely a much more sensible idea would be to focus on the positives and market these fields as being welcoming to everyone (which I am sure most workplaces probably already are)?

Like you could actually end up saying something like "the tech industry has a bad reputation as being sexist towards women but actually this isn't really true. There are lots of opportunities for everyone so sign up today!" Right now, it feels like a woman entering the tech industry is being conditioned to feel like she is going to war on behalf of women everywhere. Of course, it will benefit the corporations who are seen as "inclusive" as they rake in the extra cash but this approach cannot possibly be good for anyone on an individual basis.

+1

There is definitely a self-fulfilling prophecy in some of the messages put out there today. Encouraging people is the way to go, not telling them they are doomed before they even begin. And stop taking things that a few dickheads on the web say and presenting them in an article as if they are everybody's view.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note

all, could you be a bit more selective in your quoting. Thx

Sleepy

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I have even seen an argument that children should be encourage to do none gender specific play.

Actually, I think there's merit in that argument.

I've always encouraged my daughter to play with Lego (something which was only really marketed as a "boys toy" since the advent of children's TV channels), "gross science" kits etc. because the world of advertising does seem to advertise to children along gender lines.

I actually started along the road of parenthood encouraging my daughter to be a tom-boy as I feel a lot of the toys targeted at little girls (princess sets, "toy" make up etc.) encourage little girls to place far too much value on appearance and I'd feel a total failure as a parent if she grew into the type of person who watches The Only Way is Essex or looks up to vapid morons like Katie Price.

Since the age of about 2, however, her favourite colour has always been pink and she loves princess dresses, having her hair done etc. We've no idea where she got it from as I've seen Mrs Sleepy wear a dress maybe 6 times if you include our wedding day!

Fortunately, she's also the type of child who's obsessed with animals and insects of all kinds (she's the type of child who collects snails in her wellies and ends up with so much muck on her clothes that it's astonishing there's any left in the garden tbh!) and she spends far more time playing with her art sets than the inevitable Barbie dolls she's been gifted over the years. She still plays with those, but in her games Barbie is always a vet, a cow-girl or an animal rescue warden. She's started getting more into building with lego now too (which is great, because I've never grown out of it!).

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

Actually, I think there's merit in that argument.

I've always encouraged my daughter to play with Lego (something which was only really marketed as a "boys toy" since the advent of children's TV channels), "gross science" kits etc. because the world of advertising does seem to advertise to children along gender lines.

I actually started along the road of parenthood encouraging my daughter to be a tom-boy as I feel a lot of the toys targeted at little girls (princess sets, "toy" make up etc.) encourage little girls to place far too much value on appearance and I'd feel a total failure as a parent if she grew into the type of person who watches The Only Way is Essex or looks up to vapid morons like Katie Price.

Since the age of about 2, however, her favourite colour has always been pink and she loves princess dresses, having her hair done etc. We've no idea where she got it from as I've seen Mrs Sleepy wear a dress maybe 6 times if you include our wedding day!

Fortunately, she's also the type of child who's obsessed with animals and insects of all kinds (she's the type of child who collects snails in her wellies and ends up with so much muck on her clothes that it's astonishing there's any left in the garden tbh!) and she spends far more time playing with her art sets than the inevitable Barbie dolls she's been gifted over the years. She still plays with those, but in her games Barbie is always a vet, a cow-girl or an animal rescue warden. She's started getting more into building with lego now too (which is great, because I've never grown out of it!).

there are good studies now that toy preference has a biological basis, but we found a lot of companies box themselves in. My son loved a lot of the arts and crafts stuff especially the fine motor skills stuff when he was 3-4 but most of it was "pink" so it cut the choices down. On the flip side there are girls that can be quite masculine so forcing dolls 'n stuff on them will just make them miserable.

Hanlock

silverharp wrote: »

there are good studies now that toy preference has a biological basis, but we found a lot of companies box themselves in. My son loved a lot of the arts and crafts stuff especially the fine motor skills stuff when he was 3-4 but most of it was "pink" so it cut the choices down. On the flip side there are girls that can be quite masculine so forcing dolls 'n stuff on them will just make them miserable.

There's an interesting book by neuroscientist Cordelia Fine and it's called 'Delusions of Gender'. Her argument is that although there are characteristics dictated my hormonal make up etc. masculinity and femininity are largely socially constructed. You're born male or female but the notion of masculinity or femininity is performative and not necessarily inherent.

silverharp

Hanlock wrote: »

There's an interesting book by neuroscientist Cordelia Fine and it's called 'Delusions of Gender'. Her argument is that although there are characteristics dictated my hormonal make up etc. masculinity and femininity are largely socially constructed. You're born male or female but the notion of masculinity or femininity is performative and not necessarily inherent.

this is a look at some of the studies in this area

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wRIoE9QJ9M

Hanlock

silverharp wrote: »

this is a look at some of the studies in this area

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wRIoE9QJ9M

Honestly, I find this video a little spurious. It is based on the premise that people who believe in the significance of socialisation believe that people are born a blank slate. This is not true. And if you had looked up the source I referenced above, you'd see that it is not a social constructionist book but a book debunking the poorly executed scientific 'studies' in which sex dictates whether someone is 'systematic' or 'empathetic'. Fine is on the fence about whether it's nature or nurture (any valid argument has to consider both, surely) but she argues that it's been far too long that shoddy, biased studies have been used to justify sex differences (for example, studies in the 70's where presumptions about sex differences were rooted in sexism that was ubiquitous at the time - i.e that men didn't have as much empathy and were unable to understand emotions, women didn't have systematic abilities and were unable to read maps).

silverharp

Hanlock wrote: »

Honestly, I find this video a little spurious. It is based on the premise that people who believe in the significance of socialisation believe that people are born a blank slate. This is not true. And if you had looked up the source I referenced above, you'd see that it is not a social constructionist book but a book debunking the poorly executed scientific 'studies' in which sex dictates whether someone is 'systematic' or 'empathetic'. Fine is on the fence about whether it's nature or nurture (any valid argument has to consider both, surely) but she argues that it's been far too long that shoddy, biased studies have been used to justify sex differences (for example, studies in the 70's where presumptions about sex differences were rooted in sexism that was ubiquitous at the time - i.e that men didn't have as much empathy and were unable to understand emotions, women didn't have systematic abilities and were unable to read maps).

I agree with your post but it has got quite extreme out there though , ask a feminist why there are more male engineers and they will scream sexism and discrimination against women rather than recognising that all things being equal women will prefer to study other fields and men are attracted to fields like engineering, there is nothing to fix.

cantdecide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q

This is the first of an interesting video set of a lecture from Warren Farrell on the pay gap. It's worth watch them all the way through if you have the time. The video quality is poor, I'm afraid but it's well worth a watch IMO.

He outlines 25 questions and performs an experiment in the room around those questions that can be put to someone to determine the kinds of sacrifices that one can make to understands why men do, indeed, earn more.

PinkLemonade

silverharp wrote: »

I agree with your post but it has got quite extreme out there though , ask a feminist why there are more male engineers and they will scream sexism and discrimination against women rather than recognising that all things being equal women will prefer to study other fields and men are attracted to fields like engineering, there is nothing to fix.

Incorrect, I am a feminist and I would not say (or scream ) that.

It's ridiculous how posters are allowed get away with stupid generalisations on this forum. There seems to be an active attack on feminism as a whole on here far too frequently, rather than criticism of extreme crusaders who claim to be feminist (unfortunately we can't restrict entry to the club)

strelok

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Incorrect, I am a feminist and I would not say (or scream ) that.

It's ridiculous how posters are allowed get away with stupid generalisations on this forum. There seems to be an active attack on feminism as a whole on here far too frequently, rather than criticism of extreme crusaders who claim to be feminist (unfortunately we can't restrict entry to the club)

im sure many people here will be only delighted to try and change your perception when all the "actual" feminists make themselves heard in the media and online whenever the next "faux feminist" outrage pops up

it won't be long now I'm sure

silverharp

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Incorrect, I am a feminist and I would not say (or scream ) that.

It's ridiculous how posters are allowed get away with stupid generalisations on this forum. There seems to be an active attack on feminism as a whole on here far too frequently, rather than criticism of extreme crusaders who claim to be feminist (unfortunately we can't restrict entry to the club)

ok "alot" of feminists, the forum works. Unfortunately the noisy 3rd wave types are the ones that have the mikes , so I tend to only hear the idiological feminist arguments. Even listening to the the British news yesterday the 19% was peddled with no critical analysis.
I like feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Pagalia , but all these latter day "safe space" types or the rad fems are a cancer

PinkLemonade

strelok wrote: »

im sure many people here will be only delighted to try and change your perception when all the "actual" feminists make themselves heard in the media and online whenever the next "faux feminist" outrage pops up

it won't be long now I'm sure

Whats an "actual" feminist? Why don't I qualify? Why do you have to force your opinion of extreme feminists on everyone who just wants equal rights? I'd also like to say I'm an equalitarian, but I'm not sure that part will be remembered by the anti-"extreme feminists" (who seem just as bad as the extreme feminists).

This thread isn't about feminism though, it's about the gender pay gap

PinkLemonade

silverharp wrote: »

ok "alot" of feminists, the forum works. Unfortunately the noisy 3rd wave types are the ones that have the mikes , so I tend to only hear the idiological feminist arguments. Even listening to the the British news yesterday the 19% was peddled with no critical analysis.
I like feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Pagalia , but all these latter day "safe space" types or the rad fems are a cancer

If you want to criticise a certain type of feminist then do so, say who yout mean in your post.

I couldn't give a flying f*ck about your opinion on those people, but stop putting words in my mouth, stop accusing all feminists all the time of holding views held by extremists

strelok

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Whats an "actual" feminist? Why don't I qualify? Why do you have to force your opinion of extreme feminists on everyone who just wants equal rights? I'd also like to say I'm an equalitarian, but I'm not sure that part will be remembered by the anti-"extreme feminists" (who seem just as bad as the extreme feminists).

This thread isn't about feminism though, it's about the gender pay gap

i put "actual" in quotes because you claimed these extreme crusaders were only "claiming" to be feminist. it's something you see fairly often from people or people who identify as feminists, that all the people we hear and see online or read in print are just an extreme fringe that don't represent the majority of feminists and aren't we all shameful misogynists for misrepresenting feminism in such a fashion.

so yeah, maybe. why not. all I know is the majority of feminist expression I come across on the internet and in actual life (although thankfully, not much of it there) is the radfem 'my gender identity is victimhood' mentality so that is what gets reacted to.

you can't just leave them to dominate the conversation and then get upset when we're not responding to you particularly.

PinkLemonade

strelok wrote: »

i put "actual" in quotes because you claimed these extreme crusaders were only "claiming" to be feminist. it's something you see fairly often from people or people who identify as feminists, that all the people we hear and see online or read in print are just an extreme fringe that don't represent the majority of feminists and aren't we all shameful misogynists for misrepresenting feminism in such a fashion.

so yeah, maybe. why not. all I know is the majority of feminist expression I come across on the internet and in actual life (although thankfully, not much of it there) is the radfem 'my gender identity is victimhood' mentality so that is what gets reacted to.

you can't just leave them to dominate the conversation and then get upset when we're not responding to you particularly.

Under that logic I should use the comments of the journal for a proxy of the opinion of an average Irish person

strelok

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Under that logic I should use the comments of the journal for a proxy of the opinion of an average Irish person

not really considering how vocal the majority of people are about the disgust they have for journal.ie commentators, which is something you just don't see feminists doing towards their ..... more outspoken community members.


i remember there was some womens studies/gender studies/feminist event on earlier in the year, probably in some university, and the people running the event sent out a tweet asking people to do "feminist jazz hands" instead of clapping as applause might "trigger" people in the audience

people reacted to this predictably enough, because it was bloody hilarious, but it was quite telling that the overwhelming feminist reaction to it was to accuse everybody else of outright misogyny for laughing at and "harassing" the organisers of this event rather than saying "here, these idiots don't speak for me"

PinkLemonade

strelok wrote: »

not really considering how vocal the majority of people are about the disgust they have for journal.ie commentators, which is something you just don't see feminists doing towards their ..... more outspoken community members.


i remember there was some womens studies/gender studies/feminist event on earlier in the year, probably in some university, and the people running the event sent out a tweet asking people to do "feminist jazz hands" instead of clapping as applause might "trigger" people in the audience

people reacted to this predictably enough, because it was bloody hilarious, but it was quite telling that the overwhelming feminist reaction to it was to accuse everybody else of outright misogyny for laughing at and "harassing" the organisers of this event rather than saying "here, these idiots don't speak for me"

If you speak up for feminism- or just point out when someone made an incorrect generalisations, you get hounded.

What's the point? I'd like to be progressive, instead of speaking up under the name of feminism I prefer to speak for myself only and support agendas I believe in.

Enjoy your witch hunt

strelok

PinkLemonade wrote: »

If you speak up for feminism- or just point out when someone made an incorrect generalisations, you get hounded.

What's the point? I'd like to be progressive, instead of speaking up under the name of feminism I prefer to speak for myself only and support agendas I believe in.

Enjoy your witch hunt

could you quote the parts of my replies to you that you consider 'witch hunty'?

cantdecide

PinkLemonade wrote: »

If you speak up for feminism- or just point out when someone made an incorrect generalisations, you get hounded.

I say this understanding that the thread is already way off topic but what feminism boils down to is this; on a scale with egalitarianism/ equality on one end and a vitriolic, anti male sentiment and intolerance on the other, it may be seen as a bit like trying to identify a position on a scale of an optimal level of terminal disease.

I hope that that goes some of the way to explain why feminism tends to be a little controversial in a forum that is intended to be a place for men to discuss issues that affect men.

ShowMeTheCash

PinkLemonade wrote: »

If you want to criticise a certain type of feminist then do so, say who yout mean in your post.

I couldn't give a flying f*ck about your opinion on those people, but stop putting words in my mouth, stop accusing all feminists all the time of holding views held by extremists

Here listen to a Kate Andrews explain why people no longer want to identify with feminism.

FYI not giving f*ck about other peoples opinion sounds very much like the extreme feminism we are talking about :eek:

ShowMeTheCash

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Whats an "actual" feminist? Why don't I qualify? Why do you have to force your opinion of extreme feminists on everyone who just wants equal rights? I'd also like to say I'm an equalitarian, but I'm not sure that part will be remembered by the anti-"extreme feminists" (who seem just as bad as the extreme feminists).

This thread isn't about feminism though, it's about the gender pay gap

And just to make my point, what is a feminist?
As a feminist what do you believe in?
What feminist policies do you champion? What makes you a feminist?

Hanlock

silverharp wrote: »

I agree with your post but it has got quite extreme out there though , ask a feminist why there are more male engineers and they will scream sexism and discrimination against women rather than recognising that all things being equal women will prefer to study other fields and men are attracted to fields like engineering, there is nothing to fix.

It's far too simplistic to use the argument that things are the way they are because that's the way they are. So, here, women are not drawn to systematic fields of academia just cos, well, cos they're women. It's not enough really and it's strange to me thatso many people defend the status quo as if it's the best possible scenario for everyone just because they personally don't feel affected by it.

I think the perception is that feminists 'scream' about sexism (which is an interesting verb to use) but really, when women argue about anything, some men call them hysterical or emotional as a way of derailing them without having to engage with their arguments. And also, lest we forget, current gender roles and arguments about biological determinism in absolute terms are sexist towards men as well. It's absolutely not true that men are not emotionally intelligent or creative or empathetic. Feminists 'scream' sexism on your behalf as well.

I think overall I just wonder why we need to pigeon hole people? Gender role myths are constraining and unfair, I believe anyway. It's not helpful.

silverharp

Hanlock wrote: »

It's far too simplistic to use the argument that things are the way they are because that's the way they are. So, here, women are not drawn to systematic fields of academia just cos, well, cos they're women. It's not enough really and it's strange to me thatso many people defend the status quo as if it's the best possible scenario for everyone just because they personally don't feel affected by it.

I think the perception is that feminists 'scream' about sexism (which is an interesting verb to use) but really, when women argue about anything, some men call them hysterical or emotional as a way of derailing them without having to engage with their arguments. And also, lest we forget, current gender roles and arguments about biological determinism in absolute terms are sexist towards men as well. It's absolutely not true that men are not emotionally intelligent or creative or empathetic. Feminists 'scream' sexism on your behalf as well.

I think overall I just wonder why we need to pigeon hole people? Gender role myths are constraining and unfair, I believe anyway. It's not helpful.

I never used the term determinism, at an individual level its meaningless. If my daughter said she wanted to become an engineer, I'd say that's great go for it. I dont think there is any career that is inappropriate for a woman. However I think its reasonable to say that that all things being equal biology will influence preferences over the whole population but again it says nothing about the individual.

jackofalltrades

Hanlock wrote: »

It's also important to note that women are still seen as the primary caregiver to children despite the fact that they're also working now.

This presumption has it's advantages and disadvantages.
That said modern feminism seems to be all but exclusively focused on the disadvantages, while saying nothing about the advantages.

If I could say one thing though, just because a movement campaigns for equality for one group, doesn't mean that it impinges on the rights of another group.

Which is fine as long as feminism want's equality in all areas.
But it doesn't, it wants the advantages that men have with none of the disadvantages, which creates an imbalance.

Women achieving social, political and economical equality will not take away from the rights men have as human beings.
It seems like a lot of people are very afraid of that.

Men already are losing rights, just look at gender quotas in politics.

ShowMeTheCash

Hanlock wrote: »

It's far too simplistic to use the argument that things are the way they are because that's the way they are. So, here, women are not drawn to systematic fields of academia just cos, well, cos they're women. It's not enough really and it's strange to me thatso many people defend the status quo as if it's the best possible scenario for everyone just because they personally don't feel affected by it.

I think the perception is that feminists 'scream' about sexism (which is an interesting verb to use) but really, when women argue about anything, some men call them hysterical or emotional as a way of derailing them without having to engage with their arguments. And also, lest we forget, current gender roles and arguments about biological determinism in absolute terms are sexist towards men as well. It's absolutely not true that men are not emotionally intelligent or creative or empathetic. Feminists 'scream' sexism on your behalf as well.

I think overall I just wonder why we need to pigeon hole people? Gender role myths are constraining and unfair, I believe anyway. It's not helpful.

I am finding it difficult to understand what if any point you are trying to make.

You are taking this weird stance, as another poster said this is not determinism in absolute terms you are jumping to an extreme.
You are seem to think people are deliberately being pigeon holed against what they truly want.

You seem to take androgynous neutrality that men and women are the same. Do you think think gender has no influence on preference?

At has been shown that men and women do think differently, men and women do have different physiology and chemistry.
The difference in Chemistry also impacts on behavior men develop testosterone and women estrogen, testosterone increases muscle and bone density and also increases aggression which impacts on behavior.

But life is also a spectrum you get the averages but you also get the unusual or the incredible....

A feminist argument is that the STEM subjects which are predominately male are male because males have engineered it to be such and the reason women do not do them is because they are made feel they cannot do them despite getting the grades and or being accepted to the subjects at UNI.

One thing I will say is I think it is human nature, actually it's just nature for people who are similar i.e. male or female to stick together, there is an element that people will do the same or similar thing that their friends did or what their friends done before them, people take comfort in numbers.

I would argue people are not pigeon holed but a lot of what we see is just a natural progression of preference with elements of own gender peer pressure (Boys doing what other boys are doing and girls doing what other girls are doing).

Sleepy

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Incorrect, I am a feminist and I would not say (or scream ) that.

It's ridiculous how posters are allowed get away with stupid generalisations on this forum. There seems to be an active attack on feminism as a whole on here far too frequently, rather than criticism of extreme crusaders who claim to be feminist (unfortunately we can't restrict entry to the club)

Why not?

The failure to denounce misandry and hate-speech from within the Feminist movement is exactly the thing that has caused Feminism to move from being a positive force for helping women attain equal rights to one which is now a cancer seeking to make men second class citizens imo.

A movement has to have a unified aim. The very fact that feminism has allowed so much dissent within it's ranks has caused it to be a meaningless label. For many "I'm a feminist" means "I'm an egalitarian", for others it means "I'm a warrior in the fight to make women the ruling class" (without a hint of irony in the use of the word warrior).

It's the failure to restrict entry to "the club" of feminism that has made it meaningless as a label. The tolerance for sexism, as long as it's targeted at men, that has made it a hate group.

fits

Sleepy wrote: »

The failure to denounce misandry and hate-speech from within the Feminist movement is exactly the thing that has caused Feminism to move from being a positive force for helping women attain equal rights to one which is now a cancer seeking to make men second class citizens imo.

Do you go out of your way to denounce the extreme MRAs? If not, why not?

strelok

fits wrote: »

Do you go out of your way to denounce the extreme MRAs? If not, why not?

any time any of the hardcore mra or pua or redpill **** comes up you get just about nothing but absolute condemnation from all sides. no one likes those idiots.

you can't pretend they have anything even remotely approaching the media presence of their equivalent feminists though.