The Gender Pay Gap

Sleepy

Knex. wrote: »

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.

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:

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.

ShowMeTheCash

Hanlock wrote: »

You lost me after linking to the Telegraph... a Tory newspaper.

I find it ironic you talk about narrow minded points of view. :rolleyes:

ShowMeTheCash

Hanlock wrote: »

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:

Hanlock wrote: »

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.

Hanlock

tritium wrote: »

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.

ancapailldorcha

Hanlock wrote: »

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.

Sleepy

Hanlock wrote: »

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

Hanlock

Sleepy wrote: »

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.

orubiru

Hanlock wrote: »

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.

orubiru

Hanlock wrote: »

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.

Sleepy

Hanlock wrote: »

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.

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.

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?

Sleepy

orubiru wrote: »

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 difference between the latter and the suffragettes isn't that wildly different tbh.

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.

Hanlock

orubiru wrote: »

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.

ShowMeTheCash

Hanlock wrote: »

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?

upandcumming

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 ... )

I'd like to see the actual stats and questions asked in that survey.

It's really pointless getting an organisation like that to try to do an impartial survey on this topic.

um7y1h83ge06nx

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.

ShowMeTheCash

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.

ShowMeTheCash

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.

newport2

This was posted here before ShowMeTheCash, but......

ShowMeTheCash

newport2 wrote: »

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.

orubiru

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.

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.