Active Users:134 Time:01/06/2024 09:54:51 PM
That's something else - I agree many of these things can't really be solved legislatively. Legolas Send a noteboard - 09/10/2016 01:54:35 PM

But just because an issue is a social one that can't just be solved with a few new laws or regulations here and there, doesn't mean people shouldn't make noise about it. On the contrary, making noise and trying to keep people focused on the issue is the only way to see mindsets evolve over time.


View original postBut the point is, when women DO chose to do the child thing, it adversely affects their earning power, which is where a lot of the pay gap comes into play. For single men and women, in the same jobs, with the same education and experience, there is no pay gap. On the other hand, married men make more than single men (not derive higher salaries from the same employer for the same job), and married women make less than single women, all other factors being equal.

I'm not so sure that there is no pay gap for single men and women in equal circumstances. Not in jobs with fixed payscales, since that would be illegal - but in the ones with negotiable wages, on average, yes. Though as mentioned, I certainly wouldn't know how that could be fixed by any law, it really is a question of slow adjustment to society's expectations of how men and women are supposed to behave.
View original postThe circumstances that result in women making less, are due to their own lifestyle choices, not bigotry. Unfortunately, recognition of these existing factors is now being referred to as bigotry. That Harry Potter chick alluded as much in her brain-grating UN speech, and I've seen women citing apocryphal & anecdotal employers who are reluctant to hire women out of fear they'll quit to have kids in a few years. Except a lot of them do. When my brother got a job at a cancer treatment facility, his supervisor said she was glad he was male in regards to one particular task on which she was training him, because the last four people she trained to do it got pregnant and left. How many times are you supposed to get bitten like that in the name of maintaining gender equality? As it happens, nurses are predominantly female, so it's not like my brother was undermining the sisters, but these are real practical problems.

Certainly, it's tricky. Though improved and expanded child care and kindergarten would at least reduce the problem quite a bit - American women are significantly more likely than those in many other countries to stop working altogether for a number of years, instead of merely being on maternity leave for e.g. six months or a year.

Some Scandinavian countries are trying to force parents to divide tasks more equally by making paternity leave essentially obligatory, so having children will briefly interrupt both parents' careers rather than just the mother's. Seems heavy-handed to say the least, but in a way it fits with the broader idea of moving away, also for men, from the old view of 'education, then work, then retirement' towards a more flexible career in which extended leave (for children or for something else) or new studies can interrupt the main career when appropriate.


View original postFurthermore, if, as you point out, birth control etc negates the disadvantages women face, should they not have to own those choices, now that they ARE choices? No one MAKES her get pregnant, so why do employers have to accommodate that? Why is it acceptable to take time away from your job for one sort of irrelevant self-indulgence at not another? If a woman (or man, for that matter) can take off to have a baby and have her job held for her, not to mention get compensation for doing nothing, why can't another employer take off to work on his or her golf game? The latter is much more likely to be a source of networking opportunities, at least. There is no benefit to an employer to an employee breeding, as it will simply be additional competition for the employee's time, attention and priorities. If an employer refuses to embrace "family friendly" human resource policies, that should not be an occasion for lawsuits or picketing, they should just let the free-market and 13th Amendment drag that employer down.

Valid enough questions, but singling out the having and raising children as a uniquely promoted goal, with all the privileges related to it, does have obvious arguments behind it: no society will get far in the long run without enough children being born. The affordability of pensions is looking bad enough as it is, families really do need support to have children.

But yeah, that's not much use to the employer who has to suffer the consequences in the short term. If it's a productive worker who's important for the company in the middle or long term, that's one thing, but if it's the kind of job where the worker would only be expected to stay for a few years at most in any case, I can't blame employers for being wary.

View original post Do you even realize what you are saying here? That we have to radically alter the way we are all collectively living our lives, so that women can get more money. If they want more money, they can do what they need to do to get it. Men who make the choices that women do face the same consequences.

Who said anything about radically altering the way we are all collectively living our lives?
View original postAnd beyond that, you need some sort of proof that the gender priorities and behaviors are necessarily the result of socialization, rather than socialization simply following the trail blazed by biology, in much the same way biology dictated the inclusion of toilet facilities in structures intended to be occupied by humans for extended stretches of time.

One of the points I'm trying to make here, is that while gender stereotypes, which in turn influence gender behaviour and social norms, are obviously based in biology, society should be more open to the fact that individual women and men conform to those stereotypes to wildly varying degrees or in some cases really not at all - and should leave room for that. The law generally does do that, by now - but society not necessarily.
View original postFurthermore, the contentions about society shaping gender roles and expectations is a bit disingenuous in a time when you could never make a TV show or movie that negatively portrayed a women who prioritized her job & career over her children.

I see your point, but I'm sure you also realize that if there is such a bias from the liberal media establishment, it's a defensive reflex because in reality such women are indeed viewed negatively - hence feminists expect TV and movies to do their part in changing that, and get upset if they don't.

This is actually a good example of what I was saying above regarding things that can't be fixed with laws or government action, just by trying to change people's mindsets over time. Including, of course, through fiction, in TV, movies, books and so on.

View original postAnd on a related note, if ultimately managing society's view of women is more important in the long term, what do you do about birth control? While it does, in the short term, prevent maternity-related career disruptions, it also contributes to the sexual objectification of women, by divorcing sex from its most humanizing consequences. Not to mention, speaking of birth control, that equalizing the perception of parental and economic roles between the sexes should do away with the presumption of financial responsibility on the part of fathers, since "her body" and "her choice" were entirely responsible for the advent of his paternity, especially if he is not otherwise involved in her life.

It takes two to create a baby - so the financial responsibility belongs with both of them, and neither should be allowed to escape that.

I don't see how divorcing sex from its natural consequence of childbirth contributes to the sexual objectification of women. Clearly it contributes to viewing sex as a recreational activity without major consequences, and if you will to promiscuity. I suppose you could view that as objectification, but then of both men and women - both genders can have sexual partners whom they wouldn't dream of choosing as long-term partners or parents to their children. But historically, many men (at least those with a certain degree of power) already did that anyway, so if anything birth control has levelled the playing field.

Reply to message
Are feminists making fun of themselves? - 01/10/2016 10:25:03 PM 884 Views
Can you link to one of these Seth Rogen commercials ? *NM* - 02/10/2016 11:06:41 AM 241 Views
Sure - 04/10/2016 11:14:40 PM 536 Views
Liberals have turned victimhood into a cult *NM* - 05/10/2016 06:34:51 PM 171 Views
I assume you're aware that you're contradicting yourself within the post - so which is it? - 05/10/2016 07:41:34 PM 513 Views
I'm not, you're making some (understandable) assumptions - 05/10/2016 11:23:38 PM 500 Views
Okay, misunderstood you then. The different wages for the same job point still stands though. - 06/10/2016 09:17:39 PM 527 Views
Re: Okay, misunderstood you then. The different wages for the same job point still stands though. - 08/10/2016 01:50:52 AM 486 Views
That's something else - I agree many of these things can't really be solved legislatively. - 09/10/2016 01:54:35 PM 514 Views

Reply to Message