6 ms·

"That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky" Maybe you haven't noticed, but you are already assuming that e

"That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky" Maybe you haven't noticed, but you are already assuming that employers are guilty. That kind of thing is exactly what makes me speak out against feminist articles all the time, because there are so many unspoken assumptions. What if they aren't and there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for them paying less to women? Are there even employers who pay their female employees less than the males? Perhaps it is rather a difference between companies? (Just examples). What if the women just work less hours than the men (which seems to be the case)? I think the answer to the wage gap has more than just two parts. Also I suspect most wage gap studies neglect to mention that women automatically get half of their husbands income. Edit: to answer one of your arguments, women more likely to stay home because they have lower wages. What if they chose a profession with lower wages because they knew they'd be staying home anyway? Or maybe they chose a less paid, but more fun job, because they don't need to provide for the whole family? You probably automatically assume it is a problem. But what if it is a privilege instead? What if instead of measuring "wage", we would measure "time spent with children and family"? See how you are being manipulated? Of course everybody may decide for themselves what they prefer (work or time with family), but it seems wrong to just assume those preferences for all of mankind. I suspect a lot of feminists don't have children yet, so they don't even know what it means. To me, having witnessed my wife toiling in labor for hours, it seems ridiculous to send a woman right back to work after having given birth to her child. Of course she should have the privilege to spend time with her children - she sacrificed the most to have them in the first place. What makes me angry is if this privilege is then turned on it's head and the people who toil to make it possible (ie men earning the money to support the family) are then being blamed for it. Again - everybody may choose their own preferences. I am just saying that the preferences we see today may not be completely arbitrary. Most people end up having children after all - nothing against the ones who don't want to have children, but they simply don't make a significant impact in the long run. They die, and then that's it.

aestra 13y ago
>What if the women just work less hours than the men (which seems to be the case)? >women more likely to stay home because they have lower wages. What if they chose a profession with lower wages because they knew they'd be staying home anyway? Or maybe they chose a less paid, but more fun job, because they don't need to provide for the whole family? If you ever even paid attention to such studies you are trying to debunk you would realize that many take this into consideration and see that there are still differences in pay even though factors like that are taken into consideration very carefully. Even though the wage gap does lessen when those are taken into consideration. >I suspect a lot of feminists don't have children yet, so they don't even know what it means. Of course that is absurd. My mother is a feminist. Then I just Wikipediaed list of feminist and it was not at ALL hard to find a bunch with children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Frank_Ward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Frank_Ward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Valenti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Valenti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Najimy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Najimy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ohly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ohly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Nussbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Nussbaum >To me, having witnessed my wife toiling in labor for hours, it seems ridiculous to send a woman right back to work after having given birth to her child Nobody said women need to return to work after giving birth. The whole point of feminism is everyone has a choice to do what they want. They have a choice to go back to work, or stay at home. Or the man or same sex partner can stay at home if they wish too, without any problems. >Also I suspect most wage gap studies neglect to mention that women automatically get half of their husbands income. Of course that isn't what we are taking about. AT ALL. Not even close. We are talking about two people doing exactly the same job and one person getting paid less. Except it is two groups doing the same job and one group getting paid less. These are people who do equally well in their jobs. >Are there even employers who pay their female employees less than the males? Yes. Is it outright "I don't like women?" Probably not. See my last reply to you. >But what if it is a privilege instead? If you actually understood feminism rather than just blindly shot it down you'd understand that feminist just want women and men to be treated as equals. They want men to have the same opportunities to spend time with their children as women and the same opportunities to work as women without societal pressure. It's all up to the choices each individual and family wants to make for themselves. But if a women chooses to do labor in the job market she should be treated as an equal to men. That's all these feminist are saying. if she chooses not to have children, then she should also be respected. People like to think of feminism as something that's a scary monster or something. It is simply the belief that men and women should be treated as equals. Feminism deals with men's issues too when they are unequal to that of women's such as in the realm of child custody.
- facepalm 13y ago
  "that many take this into consideration" Whenever they do that, the wage gap tends to shrink to a very low number (I think 2 to 4%) - of course most feminist outlets prefer to quote the 23% or other higher numbers instead. I am not convinced that the remainder has to be "discrimination". Perhaps they just haven't thought of every possible factor? Take women in IT - how many samples did they even find for female programmers? I am highly skeptic about most studies really comparing men and women doing exactly the same job. I have tried to get data for such studies to check, but it tends to be not available. "Of course that is absurd. My mother is a feminist." I never said that no feminists are mothers. Besides I think a lot of feminists don't really understand what they are even fighting for. If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists. Did your mother take time off to spend with you then? "The whole point of feminism is everyone has a choice to do what they want." At face value - but they seem to have a hard time accepting that people want different things, and that perhaps women WANT to stay home more often than men. Or rather, as I suspect, are given the opportunity more often. If you want real equality and you measure that aspect, you would have to force women to go back to work as quickly as possible after child birth, so that the fathers can have their turn at staying at home. Of course feminists think staying at home with children is a horrible ordeal, but I think if they finally get their wish they might regret it once they have children. In France where this might have started (with Simone de Beauvoir) there is now a counter movement of mothers who don't want to give their kid to childcare at age 3 months anymore. And afaik Beauvoir didn't demand women should go to work because it would free them, but because she saw the time with children as too easy and tempting to slack off. She wanted to force women to be tough. "They want men to have the same opportunities to spend time with their children as women and the same opportunities to work as women without societal pressure." It doesn't sound like that in most publications, though. The idea seems rather that spending time with children is horrible and men should shoulder their equal half of the burden instead of having fun at work. If you read so many studies, you probably also read that childless women actually tend to earn more than men. So not being respected is not really the issue. Children ARE the main issue. It is a problem that employers have to worry about female employees dropping out, and therefore the value of a female employee might be lessened. Not only that - thinking about the costs of education, I wonder if it is also less likely to pay off for a woman if she has to take a few years off that could otherwise be used to earn back the money spent on education. That is a real issue I accept. The solution seems less clear. Feminism seems to assume that women simply want the same things as men. But what if they really want to spend time with their kids? I don't think it is unfair to let there be a cost to that. It's a problem for women who don't want kids, but what would be a good solution? "It is simply the belief that men and women should be treated as equals." It's not, unfortunately. It is the idea that women are victims and should get special treatment because of that. But I grant you that many feminists probably believe your version. The irony is that most feminists demands really hurt women. For example now they fight for childcare everywhere. In result there will be no excuse to stay at home with children, and both father and mother will earn less (because of more people in the workforce) and be unable to afford to leave one parent at home. Capitalism wins - not women...
e12e 13y ago
You said: > For example, in the wage gap discussion, I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less. Who knows, there might be some surprising answers. I replied: >> "That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky" Because your question assumed some employers paid women less, and in eg: the US, systematically paying women less for the same job that you pay men more for, would be illegal. >> Maybe you haven't noticed, but you are already assuming that employers are guilty. That kind of thing is exactly what makes me speak out against feminist articles all the time, because there are so many unspoken assumptions. I see were we might have mis-communicated here. If we assume at a given employer, that women are paid less for the same type of jobs that men do, to a statstically signficant degree -- you might argue that it just so happens that women are paid less, that it has nothing to do with them being women -- therefore the employer might not be discriminating. Now, if you're right, you might get some answers with justifications ranging from experience, to education etc. However if you're wrong, then an employer would be incriminating themselves by answering. That's why it's a tricky question to ask -- if you expect to get meaningful responses. Note that such research has still been done (see other comments in this thread).
- belorn 13y ago
  (replying to this comment since I can't tell which is the furthest down on the comment tree) Wage differences are not as simple issue as potraited here. For example, if discrimination is the only factor, why is the discrimination only after the age of 40? Before that, wage difference is in many professions negligent. A study in Sweden noticed that by every 10 years from the age of 30, average wage differences between men and women increases by a factor of 2 (ie, 30 = 0-10%, 40 = 15-20%, 50 = ? - 40%).
  - e12e 13y ago
    Indeed, outright discrimination isn't the only factor, I think that's reflected in the other comments in this thread. My response above was to the lack of qualitative studies as to why employers might pay women less -- in cases that they do. The example from Sweden you site might be an example of the "glass ceiling" at work -- lack of promotion and recognition for women compared to men (I can't tell by your example if the differences are in similar positions, of if lack of promotion might be an issue).

aestra 13y ago

>What if the women just work less hours than the men (which seems to be the case)? >women more likely to stay home because they have lower wages. What if they chose a profession with lower wages because they knew they'd be staying home anyway? Or maybe they chose a less paid, but more fun job, because they don't need to provide for the whole family? If you ever even paid attention to such studies you are trying to debunk you would realize that many take this into consideration and see that there are still differences in pay even though factors like that are taken into consideration very carefully. Even though the wage gap does lessen when those are taken into consideration. >I suspect a lot of feminists don't have children yet, so they don't even know what it means. Of course that is absurd. My mother is a feminist. Then I just Wikipediaed list of feminist and it was not at ALL hard to find a bunch with children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Frank_Ward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Frank_Ward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Valenti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Valenti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Najimy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Najimy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ohly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ohly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Nussbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Nussbaum >To me, having witnessed my wife toiling in labor for hours, it seems ridiculous to send a woman right back to work after having given birth to her child Nobody said women need to return to work after giving birth. The whole point of feminism is everyone has a choice to do what they want. They have a choice to go back to work, or stay at home. Or the man or same sex partner can stay at home if they wish too, without any problems. >Also I suspect most wage gap studies neglect to mention that women automatically get half of their husbands income. Of course that isn't what we are taking about. AT ALL. Not even close. We are talking about two people doing exactly the same job and one person getting paid less. Except it is two groups doing the same job and one group getting paid less. These are people who do equally well in their jobs. >Are there even employers who pay their female employees less than the males? Yes. Is it outright "I don't like women?" Probably not. See my last reply to you. >But what if it is a privilege instead? If you actually understood feminism rather than just blindly shot it down you'd understand that feminist just want women and men to be treated as equals. They want men to have the same opportunities to spend time with their children as women and the same opportunities to work as women without societal pressure. It's all up to the choices each individual and family wants to make for themselves. But if a women chooses to do labor in the job market she should be treated as an equal to men. That's all these feminist are saying. if she chooses not to have children, then she should also be respected. People like to think of feminism as something that's a scary monster or something. It is simply the belief that men and women should be treated as equals. Feminism deals with men's issues too when they are unequal to that of women's such as in the realm of child custody.

facepalm 13y ago
"that many take this into consideration" Whenever they do that, the wage gap tends to shrink to a very low number (I think 2 to 4%) - of course most feminist outlets prefer to quote the 23% or other higher numbers instead. I am not convinced that the remainder has to be "discrimination". Perhaps they just haven't thought of every possible factor? Take women in IT - how many samples did they even find for female programmers? I am highly skeptic about most studies really comparing men and women doing exactly the same job. I have tried to get data for such studies to check, but it tends to be not available. "Of course that is absurd. My mother is a feminist." I never said that no feminists are mothers. Besides I think a lot of feminists don't really understand what they are even fighting for. If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists. Did your mother take time off to spend with you then? "The whole point of feminism is everyone has a choice to do what they want." At face value - but they seem to have a hard time accepting that people want different things, and that perhaps women WANT to stay home more often than men. Or rather, as I suspect, are given the opportunity more often. If you want real equality and you measure that aspect, you would have to force women to go back to work as quickly as possible after child birth, so that the fathers can have their turn at staying at home. Of course feminists think staying at home with children is a horrible ordeal, but I think if they finally get their wish they might regret it once they have children. In France where this might have started (with Simone de Beauvoir) there is now a counter movement of mothers who don't want to give their kid to childcare at age 3 months anymore. And afaik Beauvoir didn't demand women should go to work because it would free them, but because she saw the time with children as too easy and tempting to slack off. She wanted to force women to be tough. "They want men to have the same opportunities to spend time with their children as women and the same opportunities to work as women without societal pressure." It doesn't sound like that in most publications, though. The idea seems rather that spending time with children is horrible and men should shoulder their equal half of the burden instead of having fun at work. If you read so many studies, you probably also read that childless women actually tend to earn more than men. So not being respected is not really the issue. Children ARE the main issue. It is a problem that employers have to worry about female employees dropping out, and therefore the value of a female employee might be lessened. Not only that - thinking about the costs of education, I wonder if it is also less likely to pay off for a woman if she has to take a few years off that could otherwise be used to earn back the money spent on education. That is a real issue I accept. The solution seems less clear. Feminism seems to assume that women simply want the same things as men. But what if they really want to spend time with their kids? I don't think it is unfair to let there be a cost to that. It's a problem for women who don't want kids, but what would be a good solution? "It is simply the belief that men and women should be treated as equals." It's not, unfortunately. It is the idea that women are victims and should get special treatment because of that. But I grant you that many feminists probably believe your version. The irony is that most feminists demands really hurt women. For example now they fight for childcare everywhere. In result there will be no excuse to stay at home with children, and both father and mother will earn less (because of more people in the workforce) and be unable to afford to leave one parent at home. Capitalism wins - not women...

e12e 13y ago

You said: > For example, in the wage gap discussion, I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less. Who knows, there might be some surprising answers. I replied: >> "That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky" Because your question assumed some employers paid women less, and in eg: the US, systematically paying women less for the same job that you pay men more for, would be illegal. >> Maybe you haven't noticed, but you are already assuming that employers are guilty. That kind of thing is exactly what makes me speak out against feminist articles all the time, because there are so many unspoken assumptions. I see were we might have mis-communicated here. If we assume at a given employer, that women are paid less for the same type of jobs that men do, to a statstically signficant degree -- you might argue that it just so happens that women are paid less, that it has nothing to do with them being women -- therefore the employer might not be discriminating. Now, if you're right, you might get some answers with justifications ranging from experience, to education etc. However if you're wrong, then an employer would be incriminating themselves by answering. That's why it's a tricky question to ask -- if you expect to get meaningful responses. Note that such research has still been done (see other comments in this thread).

belorn 13y ago
(replying to this comment since I can't tell which is the furthest down on the comment tree) Wage differences are not as simple issue as potraited here. For example, if discrimination is the only factor, why is the discrimination only after the age of 40? Before that, wage difference is in many professions negligent. A study in Sweden noticed that by every 10 years from the age of 30, average wage differences between men and women increases by a factor of 2 (ie, 30 = 0-10%, 40 = 15-20%, 50 = ? - 40%).
- e12e 13y ago
  Indeed, outright discrimination isn't the only factor, I think that's reflected in the other comments in this thread. My response above was to the lack of qualitative studies as to why employers might pay women less -- in cases that they do. The example from Sweden you site might be an example of the "glass ceiling" at work -- lack of promotion and recognition for women compared to men (I can't tell by your example if the differences are in similar positions, of if lack of promotion might be an issue).