Turn on thread page Beta

Egalitarianism is better than feminism watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stolyarov Daniel)
    Liberals slow down the technological and economical progress. Even though so called social "progress" might seem great, but some times it's over the top.
    And how does this relate to feminism? Do you have any examples of how it slows down progress & in what way is it over the top?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alesha1991)
    And how does this relate to feminism? Do you have any examples of how it slows down progress & in what way is it over the top?
    Feminism = liberalism (& close to Marxism)

    Liberal fiscal policy is to increase taxes in order to increase government spending on social sector. Increased taxes and focus on spending on social welfare slows down the growth of private sector.

    Over the top. Feminists campaign against statistics showing that females are paid less , but they do not consider the fact that females on average start their career later and finish earlier in their lifetime , this means that the career is shorter so the promotion and payrise chances are smaller.

    Also the biological advantage of men having a larger left brain allows men to improve problem solving skills further than women.This means that men are naturally more successful at task oriented and problem solving jobs
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kat.dance10)
    Egalitarianism and feminism have the same principles however, the first refers to equality for all whereas the latter is specifically referring to equal rights for men and women. One is not 'better' than the other, in fact they compliment each other and if one is a egalitarian then they should also naturally be a feminist and vice versa.
    I'm yet to see any real campaigns from feminists that are concerned with men's issues. How long are feminists going to pretend they're about equality and not only women's rights


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Egalitarianism is a better brand because it's not been tarnished by a small minority of female supremacists and misandrists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a conservative, economically and socially, and identify as a feminist, what you gonna do about it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I'm a conservative, economically and socially, and identify as a feminist, what you gonna do about it?
    Nothing, you can make up what you want
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stolyarov Daniel)
    Over the top. Feminists campaign against statistics showing that females are paid less , but they do not consider the fact that females on average start their career later and finish earlier in their lifetime , this means that the career is shorter so the promotion and payrise chances are smaller.
    Why do you think females on average start their career later and finish earlier in their lifetime? Could it possibly have anything to do with gender- and sex-based prejudice, discrimination and expectations?


    Also the biological advantage of men having a larger left brain allows men to improve problem solving skills further than women.This means that men are naturally more successful at task oriented and problem solving jobs
    Source?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Why do you think females on average start their career later and finish earlier in their lifetime? Could it possibly have anything to do with gender- and sex-based prejudice, discrimination and expectations?

    Source?
    In my experience it tends to be because men enter the workplace earlier due to family and social pressures. A 16-18 year old guy out of work is often seen as a free-loader, even in fairly middle class families. By comparison girls of the same age are generally not criticised if they're out of work. Another issue is the fact that women are more likely to leave work to raise children, even when men tend to have time off to raise children they do tend to have less of it and return to work faster. Illnesses are another thing, again men tend to have less time off.

    If you actually have both a man and woman, in the same work, for the same amount of time, same amount of kids, same amount of paternity leave etc, the woman is more likely to be promoted and be paid more than the man.

    Most of the evidence for the 'sexist gap gap' rests on the fact that feminists are unhappy that if they work less they are less likely to get pay rises or promotions. In effect they want more than men but for less work.... gee that sounds a tad sexist in itself to me. It actually seems to suggest a feminist presumption that work undertaken by women has a higher value than mens because most women choose to do less work..... 'because reasons'.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This thread title is so stupid, that it enrages me.

    EGALITARIANISM IS A BROAD, UMBRELLA TERM.

    Therefore if you are a feminist, you can be considered an egalitarian.
    The same applies for if you fight for homosexual rights.
    But if you are an egalitarian you are by definition a feminist.
    However, you can be a feminist but not an egalitarian, because you only support gender equality. For example, you can be a feminist but also racist, therefore not an egalitarian.
    However by the definition of the word, an egalitarian needs to be a feminist who also supports racial equality etc.

    So the statement that you are an egalitarian but not a feminist is an oxymoron. Like saying I am a vegetarian but I eat meat. If you aren't a feminist, you don't support gender equality, therefore you don't hold equality in high regard, therefore you are not an egalitarian.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    In my experience it tends to be because men enter the workplace earlier due to family and social pressures. A 16-18 year old guy out of work is often seen as a free-loader, even in fairly middle class families. By comparison girls of the same age are generally not criticised if they're out of work. Another issue is the fact that women are more likely to leave work to raise children, even when men tend to have time off to raise children they do tend to have less of it and return to work faster. Illnesses are another thing, again men tend to have less time off.

    If you actually have both a man and woman, in the same work, for the same amount of time, same amount of kids, same amount of paternity leave etc, the woman is more likely to be promoted and be paid more than the man.

    Most of the evidence for the 'sexist gap gap' rests on the fact that feminists are unhappy that if they work less they are less likely to get pay rises or promotions. In effect they want more than men but for less work.... gee that sounds a tad sexist in itself to me. It actually seems to suggest a feminist presumption that work undertaken by women has a higher value than mens because most women choose to do less work..... 'because reasons'.
    Provide academic evidence for the bit in bold. Not a dumb article, an actual study that has systematically assessed that hypothesis.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I completely agree.
    I don't label myself as a feminist, I'm not a feminist however if I had to label myself as anything- an egalitarian.
    Overall I believe in equality and I'm against all types of discrimination. When it comes to sexism especially, I just do not just/ only focus on the sexism women face and their rights but men's rights and the sexism they face. Some believe it is impossible for men to be victims since they see our society (western world) as patriarchal. I don't completely agree with this notion as we've progressed.
    Yes, some countries are certainly male dominated where women can't drive or vote but this is not happening in the 'western' world. Some feminists in the UK and US speaking about a patriarchal society that totally discriminates against women is a bit of an an exaggeration. Overall, I'm all for egalitarianism.
    -Even the name/label itself pretty much says it all as it's gender neutral unlike feminism.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Provide academic evidence for the bit in bold. Not a dumb article, an actual study that has systematically assessed that hypothesis.
    CBA... you have access to the internet and google, use it!

    Quick links using google.

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ge-study-finds

    The most famous on in america the American Association of University Women (AAUW) study 'Graduating to a Pay Gap' is the study that claimed women were paid on average 23 cents less per dollar than men. Using the precise same study, they actually themselves highlighted the fact the equal work does actually mean equal pay.

    I'll post this link so you can find all the relevant studies, seeing I used them myself in my own undergraduate research
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_2073804.html

    Then an often forgotten fact is despite women being paid less, usually due to decisions on having more family time, their happiness is rated much higher for the precise same reason they work fewer hours over their career lifetime.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    This thread title is so stupid, that it enrages me.

    EGALITARIANISM IS A BROAD, UMBRELLA TERM.

    Therefore if you are a feminist, you can be considered an egalitarian.
    The same applies for if you fight for homosexual rights.
    But if you are an egalitarian you are by definition a feminist.
    However, you can be a feminist but not an egalitarian, because you only support gender equality. For example, you can be a feminist but also racist, therefore not an egalitarian.
    However by the definition of the word, an egalitarian needs to be a feminist who also supports racial equality etc.

    So the statement that you are an egalitarian but not a feminist is an oxymoron. Like saying I am a vegetarian but I eat meat. If you aren't a feminist, you don't support gender equality, therefore you don't hold equality in high regard, therefore you are not an egalitarian.
    Not all feminists believe in equality between men and women. When people point this out they are often met with a no true scotsman fallacy whereby the other person says: "well those people aren't feminists."

    "However, other feminists champion difference rather than equality. Difference feminists regard the very notion of equality as either misguided or simply undesirable"--Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    Not all feminists believe in equality between men and women. When people point this out they are often met with a no true scotsman fallacy whereby the other person says: "well those people aren't feminists."

    "However, other feminists champion difference rather than equality. Difference feminists regard the very notion of equality as either misguided or simply undesirable"--Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies.
    Some people say they aren't racist but they still afford Muslims less respect, are you implying that the issue lies in the definition of racism, or something about people who identify as 'not racists' rather than the individual?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Some people say they aren't racist but they still afford Muslims less respect, are you implying that the issue lies in the definition of racism, or something about people who identify as 'not racists' rather than the individual?
    That isn't coherent. Islam is not a race. You can treat muslims badly because of their religion without being a racist.Two completely different things.

    The problem is that most people know so little about feminism and use a really jaundiced definition of the movement assuming that they know enough about it. People simply don't do enough reading around feminism so they don't realise that so many different types of feminisms posit that equality is not possible or desirable or even achievable. Some feminists say outright that women are not equal, but superior. If you don't believe me then you sould really look into difference feminism, eco-feminism, separatist feminism and look at the ways in which feminists extol the virtues of matriarchy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    This thread title is so stupid, that it enrages me.

    EGALITARIANISM IS A BROAD, UMBRELLA TERM.

    Therefore if you are a feminist, you can be considered an egalitarian.
    The same applies for if you fight for homosexual rights.
    But if you are an egalitarian you are by definition a feminist.
    However, you can be a feminist but not an egalitarian, because you only support gender equality. For example, you can be a feminist but also racist, therefore not an egalitarian.
    However by the definition of the word, an egalitarian needs to be a feminist who also supports racial equality etc.

    So the statement that you are an egalitarian but not a feminist is an oxymoron. Like saying I am a vegetarian but I eat meat. If you aren't a feminist, you don't support gender equality, therefore you don't hold equality in high regard, therefore you are not an egalitarian.
    One does not need to identify themselves with a movement to believe in its core principle.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    In my experience it tends to be because men enter the workplace earlier due to family and social pressures. A 16-18 year old guy out of work is often seen as a free-loader, even in fairly middle class families. By comparison girls of the same age are generally not criticised if they're out of work. Another issue is the fact that women are more likely to leave work to raise children, even when men tend to have time off to raise children they do tend to have less of it and return to work faster. Illnesses are another thing, again men tend to have less time off.
    Sure. Don't you agree that this is a problem? Whether or not it's okay for someone to be out of work shouldn't depend on their gender or sex. Women are more likely to leave work to raise children, sure. But why? Yep, there's probably an element of biology in that one. But we're deluding ourselves if we think it has nothing to do with the different pressures and expectations we put on people just because of their gender or sex. Do you think you'll find it as easy to take time off work for your kids as a man than you would if you were a woman?

    I don't know if men do actually take less time off work for illness than women, but let's suppose it is the case. Why do you think this is so? Again, there might be a certain element of biology that makes women more susceptible to illness (weaker immune system, more sensitive to pain, monthly menstrual cramps, idk). But once more I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend this has nothing to do with men's illness being brushed off as 'man flu' and with the pervasive expectation of men to be strong and manly and uncomplaining. Male suicide, anyone?


    If you actually have both a man and woman, in the same work, for the same amount of time, same amount of kids, same amount of paternity leave etc, the woman is more likely to be promoted and be paid more than the man.
    I was going to ask for your source, but it seems someone has already done so!


    Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds

    It's not a comprehensive study in an academic journal, but it's still an interesting figure from the Press Association. I don't find it completely surprising, since society has gradually been maturing and the role of sexist traditions, prejudices etc. does seem to be reducing. However, as the article notes, men in their 30s earn more than women of the same ages, except the amount by which they earn more is 8 times larger than that by which those in their 20s earn less. It also sounds like female teenage earnings were just above mens but now have dropped right back down again. Either way, this doesn't really support your claim! They don't consider causes at all.


    Wage gap myth exposed – by feminists

    Lots of research in here, not all in agreement. It does seem like there’s a little dishonest journalism going on here though. The article author writes:

    (Original post by The Huffington Post)
    The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing
    She paraphrases the same thing a few more times. However, the AAUW did not say this at all. In the very paper the article quotes, they specifically say something very different:

    (Original post by AAUW)
    Taking a closer look at the data, we find that women’s choices—college major, occupation, hours at work—do account for part of the pay gap. But about one-third of the gap remains unexplained, suggesting that bias and discrimination are still problems in the workplace.
    (Original post by AAUW)
    After we control for hours, occupation, college major, employment sector, and other factors associated with pay, the pay gap shrinks but does not disappear. About one third of the gap cannot be explained by any of the factors commonly understood to affect earnings, indicating that other factors that are more difficult to identify—and likely more difficult to measure—contribute to the pay gap.
    It’s not quite the same, is it? And she does something similar – if not quite as blatant – with other sources she cites. The US Department of Labour, for example, did indeed find that a significant portion of the 23% wage gap can be attributed to individual choices. They found that 4.8-7.1% could not be accounted for by this, as the journalist for The Huffington Post concedes. And the researchers and the Department of Labour still think the wage gap is a problem, as do (as far as I can tell) every single one of the studies that the author cites. That's not quite the message she sends, is it?

    But really, a lot of this misses the point that I’m trying to make. Even if 100% of the wage gap could be accounted for by amount of time spent at work, number of kids etc. etc., we'd still be able to ask why this were the case. And if there were a contributing factor that was anything other than physiology, we'd probably still have a problem. As noted in your article, and as pointed out by the US National Women’s Law Center and National Organisation for Women, ‘powerful sexist stereotypes “steer” women and men “toward different education, training, and career paths” and family roles’. Dismissing this as nothing but patronising women and telling them they aren’t capable of understanding their preferences and decisions is thoroughly disingenuous. We all know our society is rife with sex- and gender-based discrimination, prejudice, expectations and the like, and you even pointed some of them out in the first paragraph of your post. We must be having a laugh if we think this has no impact on career choices and outcomes.

    The European Commission – which is also often misquoted as having ‘exposed the wage gap myth’ – agrees: they have published a short extract of possible causes from their paper, most of which we should agree are problems, and most of which are not examples of direct discrimination.


    Most of the evidence for the 'sexist gap gap' rests on the fact that feminists are unhappy that if they work less they are less likely to get pay rises or promotions. In effect they want more than men but for less work.... gee that sounds a tad sexist in itself to me. It actually seems to suggest a feminist presumption that work undertaken by women has a higher value than mens because most women choose to do less work..... 'because reasons'.
    I don't believe you. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Intuitively it seems to me far more likely they just take the 'women earn x% less than men' statistic at face value and, like most humans (unfortunately), aren't that good at critically assessing their own beliefs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Sure. Don't you agree that this is a problem? Whether or not it's okay for someone to be out of work shouldn't depend on their gender or sex. Women are more likely to leave work to raise children, sure. But why? Yep, there's probably an element of biology in that one. But we're deluding ourselves if we think it has nothing to do with the different pressures and expectations we put on people just because of their gender or sex. Do you think you'll find it as easy to take time off work for your kids as a man than you would if you were a woman?

    I don't know if men do actually take less time off work for illness than women, but let's suppose it is the case. Why do you think this is so? Again, there might be a certain element of biology that makes women more susceptible to illness (weaker immune system, more sensitive to pain, monthly menstrual cramps, idk). But once more I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend this has nothing to do with men's illness being brushed off as 'man flu' and with the pervasive expectation of men to be strong and manly and uncomplaining. Male suicide, anyone?
    Most men find it just as easy to take the time off in terms of securing the leave. But at the same time they understand clearly the effect it has on their career.

    Also if you use the whole biology excuse, then surely there would be a biological excuse women should be paid less for doing less work? Something that would be laughed out as sexist. The problem is equal work should mean equal pay. Individuals that have more time off should not expect the same pay or promotion prospects.

    The argument then changes to why do women have more time off than men. In reality it turns into healthier lifestyle and work choices socialised onto women where a culture of self sacrifice in terms of health and family life is socialised on men. Then you have the added fact that men no longer have social and family security simply by providing for their family (which is now deemed sexist) and suicide rates spike as you correctly highlighted.

    What realistically needs to happen is a change in socialisation and accepted behaviours to men in regards to time off work for family issues and child raising. Not women preaching that they're victims because they work less (which actually helps them in the long run over men).

    (Original post by Implication)
    I was going to ask for your source, but it seems someone has already done so!


    Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds

    It's not a comprehensive study in an academic journal, but it's still an interesting figure from the Press Association. I don't find it completely surprising, since society has gradually been maturing and the role of sexist traditions, prejudices etc. does seem to be reducing. However, as the article notes, men in their 30s earn more than women of the same ages, except the amount by which they earn more is 8 times larger than that by which those in their 20s earn less. It also sounds like female teenage earnings were just above mens but now have dropped right back down again. Either way, this doesn't really support your claim! They don't consider causes at all.


    Wage gap myth exposed – by feminists

    Lots of research in here, not all in agreement. It does seem like there’s a little dishonest journalism going on here though. The article author writes:

    She paraphrases the same thing a few more times. However, the AAUW did not say this at all. In the very paper the article quotes, they specifically say something very different:
    Again... read the study fully instead of cherry picking. What they say in their own conclusions is completely different from the data

    Different college majors lead to different earnings. When we look at women’s and men’s earnings by undergraduate major, clear patterns emerge. Graduates who earned degrees in female-dominated majors tend to get jobs that pay less than the jobs held by graduates who earned degrees in male-dominated majors. For example, one year after graduation, the average full-time-employed female social science major earned just 66 percent of what the average fulltime-employed female engineering or engineering technology major earned ($31,924 compared with $48,493). Men who majored in a social science field, likewise, earned just 70 percent of what men who majored in engineering or engineering technology earned ($38,634 compared with $55,142; see figure 5).
    Here for example the gap falls to 4% between males and females.

    One year after graduation, women and men tend to work in different types of jobs (see figure 7). Women are more likely than men to work in business support and administrative assistance occupations and as teachers, social services professionals, and nurses and other health care providers. Men are more likely than women to work in business and management occupations;
    Again highlighting a difference related on choice. Not actual pay discrimination

    Although full-time work is typically considered to be 40 hours per week, full-time workers reported working considerably different numbers of hours. Some full-time workers reported working as few as 35 hours a week, and others reported that they worked more than 50 hours a week. One year out of college, women in full-time jobs reported working an average of 43 hours per week; men reported working an average of 45 hours per week. Half of full-time employed men reported working more than 40 hours per week compared with one-third of fulltime-employed women. Yet when we compare
    the earnings of men and women who reported working the same number of hours, men still earned more than women did (see figure 9). Among workers who reported working 40 hours per week, women earned 84 percent of what men earned. Similarly, among those who reported working 45 hours per week and those who reported working 50 hours per week, women earned just 82 percent of what men earned. Gender differences in hours worked explains part, but not all, of the gender pay gap.
    Again highlights the differences in hours work.... however something rather bad occurs at this point. They return to simply comparing hours, rather than position or sector worked in..... Also the higher the sample the more likely overtime has been worked for those hours, thus higher pay per hour. The fact you have a higher sample of men in that hour bracket not only makes their pay more reliable, but actually more likely to be higher anyway.

    After this in their final study they state that the gap is reduced to women earning 93% of the earning of men.

    They state the 83% figure is "all bachelor’s degree recipients working full-time one year after college graduation" while the 93% figure "shows the pay gap among bachelor’s degree recipients working full time or in multiple jobs after controlling for factors found to affect earnings". The issue arising the fact they're now also now including part time workers which women are known to more likely choose to work in. Then comes this

    Factors controlled for include occupation, economic sector, hours worked per week, multiple jobs, months unemployed since graduation, undergraduate GPA, undergraduate major, undergraduate institution sector, institution selectivity, age, region of residence, and marital status. This analysis excludes graduates older than age 35 at bachelor’s degree completion.
    Ignoring all time off for whatever reasons, either due to holidays, childcare or illness, which is known to all be more common for women.

    (Original post by Implication)
    It’s not quite the same, is it? And she does something similar – if not quite as blatant – with other sources she cites. The US Department of Labour, for example, did indeed find that a significant portion of the 23% wage gap can be attributed to individual choices. They found that 4.8-7.1% could not be accounted for by this, as the journalist for The Huffington Post concedes. And the researchers and the Department of Labour still think the wage gap is a problem, as do (as far as I can tell) every single one of the studies that the author cites. That's not quite the message she sends, is it?

    But really, a lot of this misses the point that I’m trying to make. Even if 100% of the wage gap could be accounted for by amount of time spent at work, number of kids etc. etc., we'd still be able to ask why this were the case. And if there were a contributing factor that was anything other than physiology, we'd probably still have a problem. As noted in your article, and as pointed out by the US National Women’s Law Center and National Organisation for Women, ‘powerful sexist stereotypes “steer” women and men “toward different education, training, and career paths” and family roles’. Dismissing this as nothing but patronising women and telling them they aren’t capable of understanding their preferences and decisions is thoroughly disingenuous. We all know our society is rife with sex- and gender-based discrimination, prejudice, expectations and the like, and you even pointed some of them out in the first paragraph of your post. We must be having a laugh if we think this has no impact on career choices and outcomes.

    The European Commission – which is also often misquoted as having ‘exposed the wage gap myth’ – agrees: they have published a short extract of possible causes from their paper, most of which we should agree are problems, and most of which are not examples of direct discrimination.
    This is the precise same problem that many of these studies have. The UK ONS found that "When looking at the differences for full-time employees, the gap is relatively small up to and including those aged 30 to 39 (with the exception of the 16 to 17 age group). In fact, in the 22 to 29 age group, women are paid on average slightly more than men. From 40 upwards, the gap is much wider, with men being paid substantially more on average than women. This is likely to be connected with the fact that women who have children often take time out of the labour market."

    They also found "Including overtime can skew the results because men work relatively more overtime than women, and using hourly earnings better accounts for the fact that men work on average more hours than women. The median is less affected by a relatively small number of very high earners than the mean, and therefore gives a better indication of typical pay." Note the AUUW study did not attempt to exclude overtime nor high earners.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandl...isionalresults

    (Original post by Implication)
    I don't believe you. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Intuitively it seems to me far more likely they just take the 'women earn x% less than men' statistic at face value and, like most humans (unfortunately), aren't that good at critically assessing their own beliefs.
    The fact is that women at the moment generally speaking, get paid equally (if not slightly) more for the work they complete. In terms of why this reduces as they get older is A) old fashioned sexism that affected older generations (aka they have more ground to make up) and B) Older generations were more likely to spread child raising upon traditional lines.

    You also have the fact that many US based studies that showed in many area's of work (which even the AUUW study highlighted) women consistently earn more money than men for no explainable reason.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Every second thread on here is about feminism, usually from strange, lonely men.

    I think anyone who wants to stop women (and men) campaigning on issues such as fgm, raising awareness of Breast Cancer and supporting victims, supporting poor,vulnerable women in the sex industry and providing a shelter for domestic abuse victims, is strange.

    Women and men can campaign on women's issues. They can campaign on mens issues too.

    Fgm something that is wrong but happens far far less over in the western world, and what about circumcision it is repulsive and as bad as fgm
    Breast cancer has the most government grants yet prostate cancer has very few this seems fair.
    You think men cant be domestically abused, the rates are close and men normally have nowhere to turn to.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Most men find it just as easy to take the time off in terms of securing the leave. But at the same time they understand clearly the effect it has on their career.
    Well, legislation-wise the scales still seem to tip significantly in favour of women when it comes to maternity/paternity leave, even since the new rules last year. How do you know that most men find it just as easy to secure leave? I'm not asking because I think you're wrong per se, I just want to know whether it's really the case.


    Also if you use the whole biology excuse, then surely there would be a biological excuse women should be paid less for doing less work? Something that would be laughed out as sexist. The problem is equal work should mean equal pay. Individuals that have more time off should not expect the same pay or promotion prospects.
    I completely agree. I brought up biology because it is, as far as I can see, the only possible reason we should accept for a wage gap. I don't mean something as prejudiced as 'well women should be paid less because they're biologically predisposed towards working less efficiently'. What I mean is something more like 'if women are biologically - and not socially - predisposed to work less efficiently, we should expect there to be a slight wage gap, and that is okay'. I'll try to explain more generally/in more detail now.

    There are 1,001 things that could contribute to a gender wage gap. Now, suppose we have the ability to see exactly which portion of the wage gap come from which sources: direct discrimination, a preference for different fields, choosing to work less etc. Now also suppose we can determine how much of each of these sources is ultimately due to societal pressures, expectation, discrimination etc., and how much is down to biology alone. My position is that we should seek to eliminate every single one of these contributions - not just direct discrimination - except that which is solely biological. Were we to reach a situation where the only gender discrepancy in pay were ultimately down to biology and biology alone, I would say 'okay that's great, we've solved the pay gap problem. What's next?' Whether that discrepancy will be 0.01% or 2% I don't know. But until then, I contend that we should seek to close the pay gap whether the proximate cause is direct discrimination or not. Not for its own sake, but because it would necessarily be symptomatic of underlying problems in the way our society values gender and sex.

    This may be a significantly more nuanced position than what we typically see with 'wage gap activists', but it's the only sensible position imo.


    The argument then changes to why do women have more time off than men. In reality it turns into healthier lifestyle and work choices socialised onto women where a culture of self sacrifice in terms of health and family life is socialised on men. Then you have the added fact that men no longer have social and family security simply by providing for their family (which is now deemed sexist) and suicide rates spike as you correctly highlighted.

    What realistically needs to happen is a change in socialisation and accepted behaviours to men in regards to time off work for family issues and child raising. Not women preaching that they're victims because they work less (which actually helps them in the long run over men).
    What really needs to happen is a change in the way society treats gender and sex as if they matter in situations where they quite seriously don't and shouldn't. It doesn't need to be 'society needs to stop expecting men to do this' and 'society needs to stop pressuring women to do that'. It just needs to be 'hey, stop pretending gender/sex matters where it doesn't!'


    Again... read the study fully instead of cherry picking. What they say in their own conclusions is completely different from the data



    Here for example the gap falls to 4% between males and females.



    Again highlighting a difference related on choice. Not actual pay discrimination



    Again highlights the differences in hours work.... however something rather bad occurs at this point. They return to simply comparing hours, rather than position or sector worked in..... Also the higher the sample the more likely overtime has been worked for those hours, thus higher pay per hour. The fact you have a higher sample of men in that hour bracket not only makes their pay more reliable, but actually more likely to be higher anyway.

    After this in their final study they state that the gap is reduced to women earning 93% of the earning of men.

    They state the 83% figure is "all bachelor’s degree recipients working full-time one year after college graduation" while the 93% figure "shows the pay gap among bachelor’s degree recipients working full time or in multiple jobs after controlling for factors found to affect earnings". The issue arising the fact they're now also now including part time workers which women are known to more likely choose to work in. Then comes this



    Ignoring all time off for whatever reasons, either due to holidays, childcare or illness, which is known to all be more common for women.



    This is the precise same problem that many of these studies have. The UK ONS found that "When looking at the differences for full-time employees, the gap is relatively small up to and including those aged 30 to 39 (with the exception of the 16 to 17 age group). In fact, in the 22 to 29 age group, women are paid on average slightly more than men. From 40 upwards, the gap is much wider, with men being paid substantially more on average than women. This is likely to be connected with the fact that women who have children often take time out of the labour market."

    They also found "Including overtime can skew the results because men work relatively more overtime than women, and using hourly earnings better accounts for the fact that men work on average more hours than women. The median is less affected by a relatively small number of very high earners than the mean, and therefore gives a better indication of typical pay." Note the AUUW study did not attempt to exclude overtime nor high earners.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandl...isionalresults
    I'm not gonna lie, you clearly are much more familiar with the literature than I am. I don't consider my post to have been cherry-picked, since I did indeed read over the whole AAUW paper and Huffington Post article, and I still consider the Post to have misrepresented the AAUW (though perhaps less than I thought, with hindsight). I was always taught that it was bad practice to use second-hand data that way, and hoped the journal editor and its review process would weed out bad statistics. I'm in no position to be analysing their data myself, however you look at it. And I wouldn't trust Christina Hoff Sommers (the author from the Post) to do it either!

    My position is as I outlined above. Even if the entire wage gap could be explained by the sorts of factors these studies control for - and the ones they've forgotten - that wouldn't be the end of the story. The European Commission reports that the average gender pay gap for the EU is 16%. I don't think we need to investigate the causes of this (yet) to see that we have a problem. Unless we think that this entire 16% can be put down to average biological differences between genders/sexes - and not down to differences in how we treat gender/sex as a society - something is up. And we should probably do something about it.

    The implicit assumption I'm making here is of course that genetic differences can't explain this 16%. Maybe they can, but to me it seems intuitively unlikely so for now I shall remain sceptical.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2018
The home of Results and Clearing

2,204

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.