5 ms·

>The whole point of gender studies is the idea that biology is not destiny That's the whole point? Because I think this is the sentiment of pretty much every r

>The whole point of gender studies is the idea that biology is not destiny That's the whole point? Because I think this is the sentiment of pretty much every rational person, and heck, every non-rational person. Nobody argues biology is destiny. Even the most stringent materialists won't argue that physics or chemistry or biology is the best way to understand interactions between people. This is why biologists don't necessarily make good therapists. That doesn't mean humans are complete free agents that can violate laws of physics and chemistry and whose biology plays no part in their development and behaviour. >You can't point to a spot on the Y chromosome that is responsible for unequal pay. No. But we can do in depth economic analysis. And in fact, we can explain unequal pay quite well, and it has very little to do with discrimination. On the other hand, can gender studies explain unequal pay, or can it only provide an unsupported, a priori, ideological-based conclusion? I suspect the latter is closer to the truth. Gender studies doesn't strike me as an area of scholarship that is self-critical, self-reflective, and scientifically rigorous. And yet, it is perfectly fine with making overarching conclusions about complex, chaotic systems.

wickedsickeune 7y ago
> No. But we can do in depth economic analysis. And in fact, we can explain unequal pay quite well, and it has very little to do with discrimination. Because I'm really interested in this and have been unable to find something convincing, could you point me towards any such studies?
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Fair warning, this topic has been beaten to death and is now radioactive and everyone has settled in their tranches. But just Google around and you'll find tons of resources, though the wikipedia page[1] has a good overview of some of the subtleties, and some good examples (the recent Uber study is referenced on the page). And the fact that there are deep, nuanced, subtleties that require context to properly digest shows you that activists are really dishonest whenever they make shallow claims of wage discrimination. For the sake this next example, grant me that difference in wages is due to life choices, even in that case, you can reach a state where things are, on the surface, unfair, like for example the fact that the pension will be greater for men than for women (or vice versa if we're talking about a female dominated field). You can take a shallow view and look at the raw numbers and assert bigotry. But that misses something, because it isn't quite the same as a government having a policy where, even when all things are equal, women get a low pension rate. Almost every single explanation or example has this kind of nuance. It is almost never the case that someone just decided that Jane should make less than Bob because he's a man and she's a woman (though I'm sure in a country of 350 million, you can find plenty examples of that too). Furthermore, no company, and no government department has policies on the books that mandate one gender should be paid more than the other, and in fact they all have policies to disallow that - which really cuts against the claim of systematization (how can it be systematic if everyone is actively against it). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > It is almost never the case that someone just decided that Jane should make less than Bob because he's a man and she's a woman That used to be the case until the equal pay laws came in, though. And that change was historically recently - within Paglia's lifetime, for example. It has hardly been eradicated from thought simply because the law changed.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >That used to be the case until the equal pay laws came in, though. Right. As a society, we should pat ourselves on the back. It was the right thing to do. Having said that, nobody actually disputes that there was active, direct, and systemic discrimination against women in the past. Or even that it doesn't exist today in some isolated cases (the recent case in Japan where female applicants were denied medical school admission solely due to their gender is one such example). That's not the same as saying this is broadly the case today. >It has hardly been eradicated from thought simply because the law changed. You're right. It wasn't eradicated because the law changed. It was eradicated because society changed which enabled the law to change.
- twic 7y ago
  Freakonomics covered it a while ago: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender... I'm not well-informed enough to say that this is an accurate summary of the current understanding, and certainly not in a position to say it will convince you!
- whowhatwhy 7y ago
  Check out the book "Economic Facts and Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell, it has about 30 pages of references, and he provides books and studies.

wickedsickeune 7y ago

> No. But we can do in depth economic analysis. And in fact, we can explain unequal pay quite well, and it has very little to do with discrimination. Because I'm really interested in this and have been unable to find something convincing, could you point me towards any such studies?

macspoofing 7y ago
Fair warning, this topic has been beaten to death and is now radioactive and everyone has settled in their tranches. But just Google around and you'll find tons of resources, though the wikipedia page[1] has a good overview of some of the subtleties, and some good examples (the recent Uber study is referenced on the page). And the fact that there are deep, nuanced, subtleties that require context to properly digest shows you that activists are really dishonest whenever they make shallow claims of wage discrimination. For the sake this next example, grant me that difference in wages is due to life choices, even in that case, you can reach a state where things are, on the surface, unfair, like for example the fact that the pension will be greater for men than for women (or vice versa if we're talking about a female dominated field). You can take a shallow view and look at the raw numbers and assert bigotry. But that misses something, because it isn't quite the same as a government having a policy where, even when all things are equal, women get a low pension rate. Almost every single explanation or example has this kind of nuance. It is almost never the case that someone just decided that Jane should make less than Bob because he's a man and she's a woman (though I'm sure in a country of 350 million, you can find plenty examples of that too). Furthermore, no company, and no government department has policies on the books that mandate one gender should be paid more than the other, and in fact they all have policies to disallow that - which really cuts against the claim of systematization (how can it be systematic if everyone is actively against it). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
- pjc50 7y ago
  > It is almost never the case that someone just decided that Jane should make less than Bob because he's a man and she's a woman That used to be the case until the equal pay laws came in, though. And that change was historically recently - within Paglia's lifetime, for example. It has hardly been eradicated from thought simply because the law changed.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >That used to be the case until the equal pay laws came in, though. Right. As a society, we should pat ourselves on the back. It was the right thing to do. Having said that, nobody actually disputes that there was active, direct, and systemic discrimination against women in the past. Or even that it doesn't exist today in some isolated cases (the recent case in Japan where female applicants were denied medical school admission solely due to their gender is one such example). That's not the same as saying this is broadly the case today. >It has hardly been eradicated from thought simply because the law changed. You're right. It wasn't eradicated because the law changed. It was eradicated because society changed which enabled the law to change.
twic 7y ago
Freakonomics covered it a while ago: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender... I'm not well-informed enough to say that this is an accurate summary of the current understanding, and certainly not in a position to say it will convince you!
whowhatwhy 7y ago
Check out the book "Economic Facts and Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell, it has about 30 pages of references, and he provides books and studies.