Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Gender Pay Gap
Options
Comments
-
Sigh. Are we going to compare ourselves to oil-rich Nordic countries again? The lands where discrimination against men is considered a good thing? Where disagreeing with feminism is equated with racism?
I'd love to live in a country that could afford to be as socialist as the Nordic countries but, frankly, I don't think I'd be happy to live somewhere where my genitalia made me a second class citizen.
I'm with you on a lot of things, but you've just further enhanced fits' point, and discredited your previous one.
If Nordic countries are so pro feminism that it leads to the detriment of equality, and the hyperbolic notion that having male genitalia makes you a second class citizen (try and prove that one), yet somehow this perceived ultra feminism has led to equal paternity leave, then how on earth can unequal paternity leave be a direct result of feminism?
You've used the same cause for two completely opposite results. In fact, the more ideal result, whereby we have equal paternity leave, came about from what you say is a more extreme version of the cause. The cause, of course, being the Feminist movement.0 -
Stumbled across this post and I have to stay, what strikes me is how many people use their own anecdotal experiences as empirical evidence for a wider trend. What happens in your office is not a representation of what happens in every office in the world and I'm sure you'll agree.
You say you don't mean to generalise but you absolutely are generalising and being overly-simplistic. Women are 50% of the human race. You cannot possibly say that all men work harder than all women. Some men work harder than women and some women work harder than men. It depends on lots of different factors and not everybody can be tarred with the same brush.
Women are paid less than men, whether it's by a small fraction or percentage or whether it's to do with the fact that very few women occupy higher positions at the top of large companies, it doesn't matter. It's the principle that matters.
And by the way, women are not paid less because of their output. They're paid less because historically (and currently in many, many countries in the world) they were deemed to be of less value than a man.
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. That is both the case in a sociological context and in labour law context (e.g. men don't get paternity leave). So women have double the amount of work if they have children.
You're forgetting that most of the work women with children do, they are NOT paid for. Even after a full days work, they will still cook, clean, make lunches, give lifts etc. Try and remember what your own mother did for you that she wasn't paid for and use THAT as your anecdotal starting point for female work ethic.0 -
Stumbled across this post and I have to stay, what strikes me is how many people use their own anecdotal experiences as empirical evidence for a wider trend. What happens in your office is not a representation of what happens in every office in the world and I'm sure you'll agree.
You say you don't mean to generalise but you absolutely are generalising and being overly-simplistic. Women are 50% of the human race. You cannot possibly say that all men work harder than all women. Some men work harder than women and some women work harder than men. It depends on lots of different factors and not everybody can be tarred with the same brush.
Women are paid less than men, whether it's by a small fraction or percentage or whether it's to do with the fact that very few women occupy higher positions at the top of large companies, it doesn't matter. It's the principle that matters.
And by the way, women are not paid less because of their output. They're paid less because historically (and currently in many, many countries in the world) they were deemed to be of less value than a man.
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. That is both the case in a sociological context and in labour law context (e.g. men don't get paternity leave). So women have double the amount of work if they have children.
You're forgetting that most of the work women with children do, they are NOT paid for. Even after a full days work, they will still cook, clean, make lunches, give lifts etc. Try and remember what your own mother did for you that she wasn't paid for and use THAT as your anecdotal starting point for female work ethic.
Assuming, because of the wording and the argument presented, that you are speaking about total earnings with regards to the comparison between male and female pay, I have one issue.
You say they are not paid less because of their output, but you also say that there is a far few % of them in the top positions at companies. These top positions will of course pay more than the lower ones.
By not holding these positions, they are not producing the same output for companies. You can't pay someone top tier wage if they do not hold a top tier position.
Reasoning behind this, and the differences, by and large, between male and female goals and ambitions, have been done a lot in this thread, so I'll leave it there.
The last paragraph of your post I have a major gripe with, as it is unfair generalisation. These are not gender specific tasks. It actually does the equality movement more harm than good.0 -
You say you don't mean to generalise but you absolutely are generalising and being overly-simplistic. Women are 50% of the human race. You cannot possibly say that all men work harder than all women. Some men work harder than women and some women work harder than men. It depends on lots of different factors and not everybody can be tarred with the same brush.
Women are paid less than men, whether it's by a small fraction or percentage or whether it's to do with the fact that very few women occupy higher positions at the top of large companies, it doesn't matter. It's the principle that matters.
I think for the sake of arguing we kind of need to limit this to a location. Or argue each location on it's own merits.
This thread is really talking about "us" and by us I mean the western world.
If you want to talk about the entire planet the dynamic becomes very complicated and you really need to look at it country by country, understand it's politics, religion, economic and sociological factors.
I think your argument makes no sense, you take this "It doesn't matter" line and try and take the moral high ground by saying "It's the principle that matters"
The stats already given in this thread show that men earn more generally than woman over their lifetime and as you said this does not mean every man earns more than every woman but in the western world men generally earn more some of the stats have shown i'ts about a 17% difference.
So right away people like yourself jump on this bandwagon of "It doesn't matter" why this is the case.
You say below:And by the way, women are not paid less because of their output.
Have you read any of this thread?
Yes men on average make more money in their lifetime, but men on average work longer hours than women and take less time off.
There are legitimate reasons to why this happens.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. That is both the case in a sociological context and in labour law context (e.g. men don't get paternity leave). So women have double the amount of work if they have children.
This makes no sense? Are you saying a woman can be in two places at the same time, go to work and look after the children?
I think you are trying to paint a false picture and doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing by generalizing based on their own experience.
Although the number of stay at home mums have fallen there is still a significant % of mothers who choose to stay at home with their children especially in the early pre-school years. For many this is a choice and something they want to do, study's have shown stay at home mothers have a much happier life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11118738/Stay-at-home-mothers-have-the-most-worthwhile-lives.html
So after having a child and returning to work within a family unit people usually have to weigh up the cost of child care and creches to offset the work load as already stated most people cannot be in two places at the one time.You're forgetting that most of the work women with children do, they are NOT paid for. Even after a full days work, they will still cook, clean, make lunches, give lifts etc. Try and remember what your own mother did for you that she wasn't paid for and use THAT as your anecdotal starting point for female work ethic.
And I think this really get's to the crux of the issue.
No one said being a mum was not a hard job, it's one of the most demanding jobs out there but it's not paid employment.
You like a lot of feminists take this emotional approach about how hard the role of a mother is, I would agree being a mother is a full-time job and being a full-time job it will have an impact on any career aspirations.
Let's take men out of the equation for a second.
You are a Solicitor at a firm trying to make partner.
Your main competition is another woman, equally educated and equally intelligent and you both have a similar success rate.
Over the next 5 years you have two children, your competition has no children and is solely focused on her career.
Even if you minimize time off and try and juggle both roles you are now at a disadvantage, this is not sexist or discrimination it's simply consequential!0 -
I am not talking about total earnings. I meant proportionately. If we looked at total earnings, women would have a heart attack.
I am not saying that childcare is a gender specific task. I'm saying that women, historically and currently, are expected to do these childcare-related tasks even though they are not gender specific. It is the expectation that I have a problem with. And might partially explain why a lot of women are often divided in the work place.
My main point is not about childcare or even gender equality though. It is that the original poster is using anecdotal evidence as evidence of wider trends. Not just wider trends, an entire gender of people. When you reduce an entire gender to limited parametres of specification, you're ignoring nuance and complexity. You can't just say 'men have better work ethic than women'. It would be impossible to measure this especially across cultures. It's a narrow perspective which I personally think is more damaging to the movement for equality (feminism).0 -
Advertisement
-
You lost me after linking to the Telegraph... a Tory newspaper.0
-
What principle? That women should have wage equality with men regardless of position or value generated? That sounds more like the principles of communism than equality...Women are paid less than men, whether it's by a small fraction or percentage or whether it's to do with the fact that very few women occupy higher positions at the top of large companies, it doesn't matter. It's the principle that matters.
Oh really? Can you prove that with facts and figures? As ShowMeTheCash points out, statistically men work longer hours, make up the vast majority of employees in any sector involving risk to one's health or life, take less leave and are less likely to opt for "family friendly" or part-time time roles.And by the way, women are not paid less because of their output. They're paid less because historically (and currently in many, many countries in the world) they were deemed to be of less value than a man.
Yes, there are valid reasons for a lot of this, as you mentioned later in your post: choosing to be the primary caregiver being the main one.
Only if they choose do take that role, or to have children with a man that sees them as the primary caregiver. pwurple makes a good point that our legal system currently encourages this.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. That is both the case in a sociological context and in labour law context (e.g. men don't get paternity leave). So women have double the amount of work if they have children.
And maybe you could take the fact that many of us Dads would regard that as a sexist point?You're forgetting that most of the work women with children do, they are NOT paid for. Even after a full days work, they will still cook, clean, make lunches, give lifts etc. Try and remember what your own mother did for you that she wasn't paid for and use THAT as your anecdotal starting point for female work ethic.0 -
-
I am not talking about total earnings. I meant proportionately. If we looked at total earnings, women would have a heart attack.
The nature if earnings statistics is a long tailed distribution with a small number of extreme outliers. That's not in itself gender bias. It also is an entry point to one of the many arguments as to why the gender pay gap argument is (deliberately) misleading, I.e. what the statistic is rarely acknowledged as not saying-unequal pay for the same workI am not saying that childcare is a gender specific task. I'm saying that women, historically and currently, are expected to do these childcare-related tasks even though they are not gender specific. It is the expectation that I have a problem with. And might partially explain why a lot of women are often divided in the work place.
It falls predominantly (but not exclusively) on women. Equally there's a stigma attached to men wanting to get home to their kids in the evening or work flexible hours. Men also can't easily take long periods out of work through successive children. Tbh, as a father of young children, given that downside I'm actually amazed that the gap is as small as it is, the percentage gap is pretty cheap for time I'll never get back with my kids.....My main point is not about childcare or even gender equality though. It is that the original poster is using anecdotal evidence as evidence of wider trends. Not just wider trends, an entire gender of people. When you reduce an entire gender to limited parametres of specification, you're ignoring nuance and complexity. You can't just say 'men have better work ethic than women'. It would be impossible to measure this especially across cultures. It's a narrow perspective which I personally think is more damaging to the movement for equality (feminism).
It's valid though to question the robustness of the analysis since the Gender pay gap statement itself is based on the concept that, "we looked at data, controlled for a few factors, therefore any difference left must be due to gender bias" (very few of the folks compiling these studies are as comfortable with those statements as the people using these studies)
One argument against this is that there are elements not or inadequately controlled for. Another is that such a bias would give competitive advantage to companies who hired women ahead of men, yet this doesn't happen. You're right about nuance and complexity though, for example the uncomfortable kink in the data that younger women outearn men. While anecdote isn't in itself robust analysis it can point in directions of analysis to better understand the results rather than taking the easy and lasy assumption that's its all about gender.
BTW, feminism <> equalityYou lost me after linking to the Telegraph... a Tory newspaper.
Which in principle should be no less valid than a link on the other side to the Guardian or Irish Times........0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It's a terrible source but if you can ignore the editorial and just read the quoted pieces of legislation quoted, the fact men are second class citizens of Sweden is fairly cut and dried:I'm with you on a lot of things, but you've just further enhanced fits' point, and discredited your previous one.
If Nordic countries are so pro feminism that it leads to the detriment of equality, and the hyperbolic notion that having male genitalia makes you a second class citizen (try and prove that one), yet somehow this perceived ultra feminism has led to equal paternity leave, then how on earth can unequal paternity leave be a direct result of feminism?
You've used the same cause for two completely opposite results. In fact, the more ideal result, whereby we have equal paternity leave, came about from what you say is a more extreme version of the cause. The cause, of course, being the Feminist movement.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/by-law-swedish-men-are-2nd-class-citizens/
I see the point you're making however Paternity leave was won in the 70's in Nordic countries. This would have been during second wave feminism where the movement still had some legitimacy and, while I'd argue it was still too worried with "womens rights" rather than equality, men were still welcome to campaign for equality under it's banner.
It's the third and fourth waves of feminism that have made feminism a misandric movement. As so many of the goals of second wave feminism were attained, the industry of academia which had grown around it sought more and more inane things to complain about in an attempt to justify their own existence which is where the "Gender Pay Gap" whine has come from. It's illegal in almost every western country to pay men and women different salaries for the same work so Third Wave Feminism argues that women should be paid the same as men despite not doing the same work.0 -
-
I am not talking about total earnings. I meant proportionately. If we looked at total earnings, women would have a heart attack.
I am not saying that childcare is a gender specific task. I'm saying that women, historically and currently, are expected to do these childcare-related tasks even though they are not gender specific. It is the expectation that I have a problem with. And might partially explain why a lot of women are often divided in the work place.
My main point is not about childcare or even gender equality though. It is that the original poster is using anecdotal evidence as evidence of wider trends. Not just wider trends, an entire gender of people. When you reduce an entire gender to limited parametres of specification, you're ignoring nuance and complexity. You can't just say 'men have better work ethic than women'. It would be impossible to measure this especially across cultures. It's a narrow perspective which I personally think is more damaging to the movement for equality (feminism).
Yet you offer nothing??
Also I don't think you are being fair.
There are physical attributes when it comes to caring for babies....
Men cannot give birth, there is a physical impact on a woman's body when having children that a man cannot carry the burden of, morning sickness, swollen feet, hot flashes, cravings, poor sleep patterns, exhaustion etc etc...
Men cannot breastfeed either, a lot of mothers want to breast feed children but again this choice will come with consequences.
You say:historically and currently, are expected to do these childcare-related tasks even though they are not gender specific.
Not historically.... naturally.
At a time perhaps the task can be split more equally but not during pregnancy and not right after the birth.
Studies have shown men are more work centered generally women more centered on what makes them happy, I posted a link earlier on Warren Farrells book called "Why men earn more" that talks about this in some detail.0 -
The nature if earnings statistics is a long tailed distribution with a small number of extreme outliers. That's not in itself gender bias. It also is an entry point to one of the many arguments as to why the gender pay gap argument is (deliberately) misleading, I.e. what the statistic is rarely acknowledged as not saying-unequal pay for the same work
It falls predominantly (but not exclusively) on women. Equally there's a stigma attached to men wanting to get home to their kids in the evening or work flexible hours. Men also can't easily take long periods out of work through successive children. Tbh, as a father of young children, given that downside I'm actually amazed that the gap is as small as it is, the percentage gap is pretty cheap for time I'll never get back with my kids.....
It's valid though to question the robustness of the analysis since the Gender pay gap statement itself is based on the concept that, "we looked at data, controlled for a few factors, therefore any difference left must be due to gender bias" (very few of the folks compiling these studies are as comfortable with those statements as the people using these studies)
One argument against this is that there are elements not or inadequately controlled for. Another is that such a bias would give competitive advantage to companies who hired women ahead of men, yet this doesn't happen. You're right about nuance and complexity though, for example the uncomfortable kink in the data that younger women outearn men. While anecdote isn't in itself robust analysis it can point in directions of analysis to better understand the results rather than taking the easy and lasy assumption that's its all about gender.
BTW, feminism <> equality
Which in principle should be no less valid than a link on the other side to the Guardian or Irish Times........
You're right in saying the Telegraph comment was more than a bit facetious and unfair. For that I apologise.
And I would argue that one way to address the gender pay gap would be to introduce more paternity leave for men so that fathers can spend more time with their children, if they want to. So I'm in agreement with you there.
I think it's complicated because in any coupling, be it heterosexual or homosexual, one person will end up being the primary care giver. That is an understanding that should probably be addressed before deciding to have children although of course it's not always possible to plan for them. It's not a bad thing if the primary caregiver is a woman nor if it is a man. But the government needs to accomodate for either situation. At the moment, it is unfairly prescribed to women.
I also think that the culture needs to change and that society needs to get used to the idea of dual parenting. It's funny because, if you're in a same-sex marriage/relationship with children, primary caregivers still exists but not with gendered presumptions. I think this should be the model that straight people follow as well.
With regards to the spurious data discussed, I agree with you.
But my argument tackles the original post of this thread that the reason the gender pay gap is widening in Ireland is not because of poor work ethic in women. I hope that we can all agree that to state that is far too simplistic.
I won't address the comments about feminism in a Gentleman's Club forum. I'll state that I am a feminist but it's okay that you're not. Each to their own.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 35800
I won't address the comments about feminism in a Gentleman's Club forum. I'll state that I am a feminist but it's okay that you're not. Each to their own.
Feminists are more than welcome to post here as is anyone else who obeys the charter.
As an aside, the Telegraph is an odd one. One day it's championing men's issues, the next it's sat beside the Guardian having a go. Individual articles should be considered along with who wrote them as opposed to the platform in which they're expressed.We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.
H. H. Asquith
0 -
I agree with everything you've posted here, however I think it's a bit naieve to think that the "pay gap" will disappear, or even be greatly reduced by any changes to father's rights (an egalitarian family court system also being necessary in order to support men in taking on the role of primary care-giver).And I would argue that one way to address the gender pay gap would be to introduce more paternity leave for men so that fathers can spend more time with their children, if they want to. So I'm in agreement with you there.
I think it's complicated because in any coupling, be it heterosexual or homosexual, one person will end up being the primary care giver. That is an understanding that should probably be addressed before deciding to have children although of course it's not always possible to plan for them. It's not a bad thing if the primary caregiver is a woman nor if it is a man. But the government needs to accomodate for either situation. At the moment, it is unfairly prescribed to women.
I also think that the culture needs to change and that society needs to get used to the idea of dual parenting. It's funny because, if you're in a same-sex marriage/relationship with children, primary caregivers still exists but not with gendered presumptions. I think this should be the model that straight people follow as well.
With regards to the spurious data discussed, I agree with you.
But my argument tackles the original post of this thread that the reason the gender pay gap is widening in Ireland is not because of poor work ethic in women. I hope that we can all agree that to state that is far too simplistic.
As equal as men and women are, differences appear when you aggregate any data as to what their desires are. There seems to be very few women who find a man who wants to be a stay-at-home Dad attractive and while many want to have a fulfilling career, there also seems to be large numbers of women who feel guilt / resentment about not being a stay-at-home mother etc.
There's are also distinct differences in what men and women tend to consider a to be a "fulfilling" career. Men tend to focus more on what they get out of that career (money and status) with women focusing more on the nature of the work being enjoyable (e.g. it feeling good to help others, to be paid for artistic endeavours or to create something which makes others happy).
It could be argued that much of this stems from our society granting young women more freedom to pursue enjoyable careers? Perhaps due to the view that it's her father or husband's role to financially support her pursuit of happiness? Out-dated notions that the guy should always pay for dinner on a date are still depressingly common.
Obviously this stuff only holds true at an aggregate level (there being women who'd be horrified at the notion of anyone supporting her, those who'd rip the clothes off a man who wanted to be a stay-at-home Dad or who want to work in Finance or enlist with the armed forces) but that's all we can look at discussing when the "Gender Pay Gap" as it vanishes at the individual level, seeming, in fact, to swing the other way when applied to childless twenty-somethings.
TBH, that reads to many as the statement "I'm a misogynist but it's okay that you're not" might read to you.I won't address the comments about feminism in a Gentleman's Club forum. I'll state that I am a feminist but it's okay that you're not. Each to their own.
I'm sure your response to that will probably reference the disharmony within feminism, that it represents something different to every person in the movement etc. However, it was feminists who allowed the fringes to claim their banner, rarely daring to call those they'd privately refer to as extremists to book when they started spouting self-pitying nonsense or misandrist bile.
The lunatics took over the asylum, and it's too late to claim it back. Either join forces with men and seek equality (as opposed to advantage) under a new banner or put up with it when it's assumed your one of the lunatics.0 -
TBH, that reads to many as the statement "I'm a misogynist but it's okay that you're not" might read to you.
I'm sure your response to that will probably reference the disharmony within feminism, that it represents something different to every person in the movement etc. However, it was feminists who allowed the fringes to claim their banner, rarely daring to call those they'd privately refer to as extremists to book when they started spouting self-pitying nonsense or misandrist bile.
The lunatics took over the asylum, and it's too late to claim it back. Either join forces with men and seek equality (as opposed to advantage) under a new banner or put up with it when it's assumed your one of the lunatics.
We will definitely have to agree to disagree there.
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.
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.
Side note: I do think it's unfair when women expect men to pay for their meals on dates. Not all women are like this.0 -
I won't address the comments about feminism in a Gentleman's Club forum. I'll state that I am a feminist but it's okay that you're not. Each to their own.
Well, I would say that I agree with many feminist points of view and have done volunteer work that would certainly lead someone who doesn't know me to assume that I am a feminist.
I strongly believe that men and women should be paid the same amount for the same work. More clearly, I think that employers who discriminate based on gender with regards to pay and/or career opportunities should face sanctions.
I will not however blindly buy in to ideas such as "The Gender Pay Gap" and nod my head in agreement with the mountain of bullsh!t that gets put out there on the subject. I admit that a pay gap exists. The only valid questions are "why does it exist?", "can we fix it?", "how can we fix it?", "is that solution a reasonable one?".
People banging on and on about stuff that can EASILY be debunked in less than 10 minutes doesn't help.
Many men will not identify as "feminist". If I agree that men and women should have equal rights then, yes, I am a "feminist" BUT if I don't want to petition a sports nutrition company because they used a fit woman in a bikini as part of their marketing then I'm "not a real feminist"? No thanks.
I am fairly confident that most men, when questioned sensibly, would agree that certain aspects of society could benefit from listening to certain aspects of Feminism. However, there is far to much extra nonsense and shouty annoying stuff that comes with "feminism". So it's impossible for it to be a movement that I could take seriously as a whole.
Unfortunately, when I hear that someone is a feminist I fully expect I am going to end up discussing a load of goalpost moving, hypothetical, nonsense rather than actually talking about real issues affecting real women.0 -
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.
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.
There's nothing wrong with what you said at all but what happens when people engage in frivolous harassment, shaming and bullying other under the guise of a campaign for equality of one group? What happens when they do this in the name of the movement they are supposedly representing?
Campaigning for equal opportunities for all genders in education, employment, social services etc, this is all the good stuff.
Having a guy fired from his job because he made a "sexist" joke or bullying a scientist because he was wearing a "sexist" shirt, that is most assuredly not the good stuff.
The difference between the "old school" Feminists and late 1800s suffragettes who fought for gender equality and these Twitter and Facebook "warriors" is massive. It's almost disrespectful to think of them as being part of the same movement.
I don't think that people are afraid. I think that virtually all people) in the west) take "men and women are equals in society" as such an obvious statement. Then they take a look a modern feminism and see that it's so petty. That "the lunatics will take over the asylum" is what most people fear. Nobody is afraid of equal pay or equal rights.0 -
Many of your fellow feminists campaign for far more than equality. They demand sexist laws such as an additional tax on all men to "address the Gender Pay Gap", they claim that ALL men are rapists and paedophiles and demand the right to teach young boys "not to rape", they deny that it's possible for men to be the disadvantaged gender in any possible way, some of the real nuts even call for the culling of the male of the species, one of our senators believes it's appropriate to bar men from discussion on legislation etc.We will definitely have to agree to disagree there.
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.
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.
So, I'm afraid your wrong. Some feminists definitely are trying to take away from the rights men have as human beings. No doubt you'll argue that "mainstream" feminism doesn't do this but these extremists have already taken control of much of the infrastructure of the feminist movement, they're the ones teaching "gender studies" in colleges. And since those in the movement who disagreed with them never spoke out for fear of upsetting the sisterhood or because they believed feminism could be all things to all women, they're the ones that represent modern feminism.
TBH, I'd argue that women already have all the same social, political and economic freedoms that men do (in the western world at least). In fact they have a few that men don't have (superior parental right, more lenient sentencing etc.).
Their collective life choices however, lead to different outcomes than the collective life choices of men and that's how we see things like gender imbalances in the Dail, the Boardrooms and income levels).
Now, I'd admit that in Ireland, there's still some hangover from past inequality: the old rules regarding women having to leave work on having children in the civil service leading to fewer female senior civil servants, older attitudes to family still resulting in more men in the boardroom (since most working at that level would fall into the 50+ demographic) etc.
The only thing that will correct those imbalances, however, are the life choices of women over time. Should they continue to have children with men who expect them to play the dominant role in parenting, or should they continue to choose to take that role, there'll always be a gender gap at the top (unless there's an equivalent drop off in childbirth rates) imo. And maybe that's not a problem if everyone is choosing the path in life that makes them happiest?0 -
Advertisement
-
The difference between the latter and the suffragettes isn't that wildly different tbh.The difference between the "old school" Feminists and late 1800s suffragettes who fought for gender equality and these Twitter and Facebook "warriors" is massive.
THe suffragists, did great work. The suffragettes were simply inept terrorists who are only remembered in a positive light because their arson attacks etc. was so ineptly carried out they didn't result in the bodycount they'd hoped for.0 -
Many men will not identify as "feminist". If I agree that men and women should have equal rights then, yes, I am a "feminist" BUT if I don't want to petition a sports nutrition company because they used a fit woman in a bikini as part of their marketing then I'm "not a real feminist"? No thanks.
I completely understand where you're coming from with this. I also find the 'real feminist' discussion frustrating. We absolutely need to include men in the discussion and not exclude people on the basis that there is a perfect way of being a feminist. I think it's great when men are feminists and really, really enjoy their input. I also enjoy hearing input from men who don't necessarily call themselves feminists but do want a more equal society. I think the world will be a better place (for both) when this is achieved. I also understand peoples' misgivings about calling themselves a 'feminist' because of the negative connotations associated with the movement. But the movement itself is nuanced, as human beings are. It's not perfect, by no stretch and there are people who take it too far, as with any movement. But I agree with the overall aims and therefore I'm a feminist.
With regard to the social justice warrior thing, I also agree with you here. I, too, find it exasperating that you literally can't say anything anymore without inadvertently revealing some kind of prejudice and offending someone. It just stops people having an open and honest debate when you're debating over semantics and ideology rather than the real issues.
You say that most people would agree that equal rights is a good thing but there are many, many, MANY people who don't.
Louis C.K said something funny in a stand-up routine actually, I think it's in his most recent show and that is that democracy didn't properly exist until women had the vote, when you think about it. In Ireland, that was 1922! That's within the last 100 years, guys, that basically women had no say in the political decisions. It was only in the 1970's that women were allowed to be married AND have a job, drink a pint in a pub, collect her children's allowance, and it was not until 1990 that rape within marriage was considered a thing. In human history, steps towards equal rights for women is painstakingly recent. And it's thanks in a huge part to feminist movements that this was changed.0 -
I completely understand where you're coming from with this. I also find the 'real feminist' discussion frustrating. We absolutely need to include men in the discussion and not exclude people on the basis that there is a perfect way of being a feminist. I think it's great when men are feminists and really, really enjoy their input. I also enjoy hearing input from men who don't necessarily call themselves feminists but do want a more equal society. I think the world will be a better place (for both) when this is achieved. I also understand peoples' misgivings about calling themselves a 'feminist' because of the negative connotations associated with the movement. But the movement itself is nuanced, as human beings are. It's not perfect, by no stretch and there are people who take it too far, as with any movement. But I agree with the overall aims and therefore I'm a feminist.
With regard to the social justice warrior thing, I also agree with you here. I, too, find it exasperating that you literally can't say anything anymore without inadvertently revealing some kind of prejudice and offending someone. It just stops people having an open and honest debate when you're debating over semantics and ideology rather than the real issues.
You say that most people would agree that equal rights is a good thing but there are many, many, MANY people who don't.
Louis C.K said something funny in a stand-up routine actually, I think it's in his most recent show and that is that democracy didn't properly exist until women had the vote, when you think about it. In Ireland, that was 1922! That's within the last 100 years, guys, that basically women had no say in the political decisions. It was only in the 1970's that women were allowed to be married AND have a job, drink a pint in a pub, collect her children's allowance, and it was not until 1990 that rape within marriage was considered a thing. In human history, steps towards equal rights for women is painstakingly recent. And it's thanks in a huge part to feminist movements that this was changed.
So 2015 is almost coming to a close.
You say "when we get equality", what exactly is the "good" feminist mandate?
You also mentioned above that the gender pay gap in Ireland is widening, can you show evidence of this?
Sexism to some degree will always exist, but perhaps as long as it is happening to both men and women equally it could be argued it's not a single gender issue.
The gender pay gap is not something most economist take that serious, most if not all of these % points can be explained mainly to do with life choices.
You argue that if paternity leave is granted more equally it would level the playing field with careers. I think it's perhaps is a good idea but like another poster said I do not think it will change the gap.
I think regardless if maternity/paternity leave is split between the parents we would still see the majority of mothers taking the time out vrs men, of course it may benefit some mothers and it would be nice for a family to have that choice.
But the facts are this, it is illegal for a woman to be paid less than a man due to her gender the law states that.
The law also protects mothers and her children but not fathers, an unmarried father has no custody rights to his children unless the mother allows him these rights, which can later be contested.
In the majority of divorces sole custody is also granted to the mother, only in cases where a father can show a mother is unfit to parent do we see a father being granted custody of the children.
The ramifications to this unfairness most feminists turn a blind eye too or take the position that most divorces happen due to abusive husbands because after all, all men are bad!
So as a feminist what would you like to see change?0 -
I'd like to see the actual stats and questions asked in that survey.Lemming wrote:According to a survey carried out by an Irish women's organisation in recent times (think it was 2014), female graduates are "-17% worse off" than their male counterparts. So no, the official figures don't agree with you (where graduates are concerned anyway ... )
It's really pointless getting an organisation like that to try to do an impartial survey on this topic.0 -
The big thing to question there is what are they comparing. Are they just comparing all the female grads in a group with male grads?
If so they need to dig through the stats a bit more. It would be far more accurate to compare grads in the same profession - so male Java graduate software engineer versus female, male civil engineer versus female.
Comparing all grads is a bit meaningless. IT grads whether male or female will be paid more than say nurses starting off. And typically males dominate IT and females dominate nursing. On the flipside there would be more female grads from medicine these days.
For what it's worth most companies have a standard starting salary for grads, all start off on the same money. I have never ever heard a different figure for male and female in any company I've been in. And who would be crazy enough to do it, it's just begging for legal trouble.
I think the only way that particular analysis would should equality was if all grads regardless of profession were paid the same.0 -
Joaquin Puny Judo wrote: »The big thing to question there is what are they comparing. Are they just comparing all the female grads in a group with male grads?
If so they need to dig through the stats a bit more. It would be far more accurate to compare grads in the same profession - so male Java graduate software engineer versus female, male civil engineer versus female.
Comparing all grads is a bit meaningless. IT grads whether male or female will be paid more than say nurses starting off. And typically males dominate IT and females dominate nursing. On the flipside there would be more female grads from medicine these days.
For what it's worth most companies have a standard starting salary for grads, all start off on the same money. I have never ever heard a different figure for male and female in any company I've been in. And who would be crazy enough to do it, it's just begging for legal trouble.
I think the only way that particular analysis would should equality was if all grads regardless of profession were paid the same.
I do not really know the stats in Ireland but figures in the UK and the USA show that a female grad of engineering or science is two times more likely to getting role than a male due to her gender. This is mainly to do with male saturation of the sector and companies competing for limited female graduates.0 -
Just another stat and again this was an American stat but it was the stat that was used whereby Obama made his comments around equal pay.
2009 United states current population survey conducted by the bureau of labor statistics said that men on average 23% more than females.
I averaged that women made 36K per year compared to men who make 47K per year.
But what is interesting is you actually break down the same data.
Never married men vrs never married females the 23% gap drops to 2%.
So taking marriage and children out of the equation effectively flattens the disparity.
Some other interesting statistics.
Looking at Universities.
Architecture and Engineering
15% Female 85% Male
Math and Science
25% Female 75% Male
Education
75% Female 25% Male
Healthcare
75% Female 25% Male
Then of you look at the earning power of holding the above qualifications.
People who hold Engineering or Math/Science degrees will earn on average 36% more than people who have an education/ healthcare degree.
The same survey also showes that:
women made 4% more in roles that where 1-34 hours per week in Total.
But is also showed that people who work 40hours + on average make up to 5 times more than those who work 1-34 hours per week.
Again the same survey shows that 11% of women work overtime compared to 22% of men.
Again I know the numbers in the UK are similar getting this information on Ireland is not so easy.0 -
This was posted here before ShowMeTheCash, but......
0 -
This was posted here before ShowMeTheCash, but......
Yeah seen this before.
The thing I see now being said by feminist is this.
Women are not encourage to go into STEM subjects so once they have lost the argument that they can go into the subjects (they are even getting better grades than men)but they choose not too they begin a new argument that somehow they have been taught to think they cannot make this choice, I have even seen an argument that children should be encourage to do none gender specific play.0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Yeah seen this before.
The thing I see now being said by feminist is this.
Women are not encourage to go into STEM subjects so once they have lost the argument that they can go into the subjects (they are even getting better grades than men)but they choose not too they begin a new argument that somehow they have been taught to think they cannot make this choice, I have even seen an argument that children should be encourage to do none gender specific play.
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.0
Advertisement