Jump to content

Feminism - Post-apocalypse version


Lyanna Stark

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

As far as I can see what is being discussed is intra-team (not inter-team) competitive behaviour.

Yeah, I get that but so long as it's not detrimental to the team effort I don't think personal competition in terms of wanting/striving to be the best player is a bad thing. As part of a club with presumably more than one team in the specific example Tracker has used if it's a giant club competing against one another for places while also being part of the same club/team is part of the environment generally.

I don't know, I'm just not entirely convinced competitiveness like that is inherently (heterosexually?) masculine or necessarily toxic in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'm going to go back and delete my comment about competition, and any follow-ups; I didn't think what I was saying was controversial, and I don't want to distract from the main point of this thread. 

I think that's a shame, because I think it's relevant. It's like there are always reports on how much more men earn, how many more men are in senior positions, etc. But I read one report that said women are, on average, happier in their jobs. Are we really focusing on what is important? I live near London, and I always see commuters, and they always look miserable. And then you speak to them, and they sound miserable. They make shitloads of money, but have no time to see their families, have hobbies, etc. And most of them are men. Why have they chosen a lifestyle that makes them unhappy?

It comes down to what you were saying, ego, masculinity, competitiveness. Who is the real winner here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been widely reported, but I think it bears discussing.  Here is a more nuanced version.  Companies with a critical mass of women on their boards (3) apparently tend to do better.  The numbers overall are still appalling.  You know, there are qualified women out there.  It's not a lack of "pipeline" anymore.  So .... discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engineering, physics, and math are the worst disciplines in terms of gender equality among STEM disciplines. No coincidence, but physics and engineering also boast the highest percentage of social conservatives in academia, perhaps beaten only by business school.

 

There are pronounced and quantifiable inflection points in the trajectory of female children's interest in science. It happens around 6th and 8th grade - there is a precipitous drop in the number of young girls who declare to have interest in STEM fields. The reasons are still being examined and it's likely to be a complex set of factors. But the bottom line is that multiple factors can be shown to have an influence. The goal of modern feminism is to work on these identified factors that are NOT biological, to narrow the performance gap.

 

 

Re: zabzie

For higher education, despite graduating as many female STEM undergrads as we do male ones, the number of tenured female professors in STEM still lags behind. In the best-performing disciplines, like Psychology and Biology, we are still seeing only 20 to 30% of tenured faculty being women. The more senior the position, the more disparate the ratio.

 

In Virginia Valant's book, "Why so Slow," she explored some possible factors. One of them is childcare and the default role that women have in it. So the key is not to have a child, but the relative proportion of childcare duty that a woman carries out. If she has a 50% duty or so, her career trajectory is not as impacted as if she were to do more. Sadly, for most couples, an even split is unlikely, and cultural habits place the share of child-rearing more on women's shoulders. I wonder if that holds true in the legal profession? That is, having children is not as critical a factor as the amount of childcare performed. Have you come across this distinction in your discussions?

 

Another compounding factor is the "call on the minority" problem. Recall back about 10 years ago, MIT did an institutional review and identified that female professors with equal publication, grant, and productivity, received, as a group, lower salary, fewer grad students, and also, smaller space for their research labs. As a response to that, MIT has taken on initiatives to be more aware of these disparities. One of the unintended consequences is that every committee now wants to have a female member. Given that there were/are so few female faculty, each of them just got handed a double dose of committee service to carry out. I see this problem on a smaller scale - well-spoken (not "angry") minority faculty are tapped over and and over again to sit on committees to either provide genuine feedback or to act as a human shield.

 

Recently, I also started reading about stereotype threat phenomenon, wherein a minority who's being reminded of the perception of deficiencies associated with their minority status performs worse. In other words, if a group of coeds are taking a math test, and the proctor announces that this is a test where a lot of female students find challenging, then female students will perform worse as a result. When they did it for race, they can see depression of performance even when the call-out was positive. The control groups, where no specific call outs were made, or if the call out wasn't directed at the minority status, then the performance equalized. It's a very disturbing, yet real, phenomenon. So if a female attorney is the first of anything, like the first to head a trial of over $500 million assets, she's might be experience stress above and beyond what a male colleague might experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

I think that's a shame, because I think it's relevant. It's like there are always reports on how much more men earn, how many more men are in senior positions, etc. But I read one report that said women are, on average, happier in their jobs. Are we really focusing on what is important? I live near London, and I always see commuters, and they always look miserable. And then you speak to them, and they sound miserable. They make shitloads of money, but have no time to see their families, have hobbies, etc. And most of them are men. Why have they chosen a lifestyle that makes them unhappy?

It comes down to what you were saying, ego, masculinity, competitiveness. Who is the real winner here?

Agree, there is a level of pressure on men to be the breadwinner still, but the same pressure doesn't seem to sit on womens shoulders as heavily. I'd say out of all my female friends who I went to school with, 60% have left the careers they started after Uni and went into areas that were less stressful, earned much less and involved some level of human interaction and care. I don't think this is unusual at all. Out of my male friends, I'd maybe say one guy has gone on and become a primary school teacher, another a tree surgeon. 

I personally would love to quit my job and go off and do something that fulfilled me a lot more, but I don't see it as a reality. I will have mouths to feed and bills to pay because I am the main breadwinner. 

Its difficult because as the wage gap closes, attitudes haven't changed. A recent conversation at worked turned to 'who pays on a first date', a unanimous decision amongst the women that the man should pay. These are all high level professional women who would class themselves as modern liberal thinkers. Yet this is a given. When I was dating I always paid, but would be a bit unhappy if a girl didn't even offer, and believe me many never offer. As well, when women talk about men, its what job does he do, what car does he have, etc. When men talk about women its 'what does she look like'. 

The sexual marketplace dynamics play a big part, for men anyway, and I'm not sure its changing anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

In Virginia Valant's book, "Why so Slow," she explored some possible factors. One of them is childcare and the default role that women have in it. So the key is not to have a child, but the relative proportion of childcare duty that a woman carries out. If she has a 50% duty or so, her career trajectory is not as impacted as if she were to do more. Sadly, for most couples, an even split is unlikely, and cultural habits place the share of child-rearing more on women's shoulders. I wonder if that holds true in the legal profession? That is, having children is not as critical a factor as the amount of childcare performed. Have you come across this distinction in your discussions?

One thing I find interesting about these arguments is that they always seem to assume that the person taking care of the kids has been lumbered with that job. I think that is a reflection of how feminism is dominated by the concerns of the more wealthy and educated. I work in a job with low qualifications, and a lot of the women talk about how they would rather be a housewife than doing it. Alternatively, I work with a guy who does our full time office job, and also delivers takeaways a few days a week after work. I was a bit surprised to find out his wife doesn't work at all, even though their kids are all in school. I don't know their personal situation better than that, so I don't want to judge, but I think a lot of people would say she's got the better life there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Relating to what I've said above, almost everyone of my female friends 30+ has now had a child and also basically opted out of a serious career, they are now either full time mothers or working part time. This was a lifestyle / career choice for them. They are much happier doing that than going to an office every day. 

conversely, I had my first and that's when my career kicked up a notch after maternity leave. And a few of my friends have gone back to work after the child has gone to full time school because they missed their career. so, y'know, different strokes.

You called me out (not very nicely, it must be said) for using an anecdote before and now you're doing the same. Just an observation.

(Aside: Also, not for nothing sometimes the cost of childcare is often prohibitive enough that going back to work just clear nursery fees by a couple hundred pounds per month can see a waste of time for some and because in hetero partnerships the man earns more (typically), it's the woman that drops the job or goes part time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'm going to go back and delete my comment about competition, and any follow-ups; I didn't think what I was saying was controversial, and I don't want to distract from the main point of this thread. 

I don't think it was at all :)  How masculinity plays out is certainly relevant to this thread and an interesting subject to explore. Far more interesting that the same old biotruths, or the door opening, or why women often are sexists too (all subjects that have been beaten for longer than any dead horse I know of).

2 hours ago, Balefont said:

Emotional labor is fucking exhausting. 

Isn't it just? I'm finding Christmas so far just absolutely grueling, and it feels it hasn't even started. In general, I think emotional labour is far undervalued since it's such a huge energy drain. It almost feels like you are mentally drowning if it goes on for a long time period, and especially when surrounded by people who will not let you unload some of it (if you are doing the emotional labour of yourself AND someone else, often a man, already). I was brought up to believe that you shut up and put up, but that really isn't a good strategy, and it seems to have lead to my parents divorcing eachother twice. This makes me less keen to perpetuate that particular brand of stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Relating to what I've said above, almost everyone of my female friends 30+ has now had a child and also basically opted out of a serious career, they are now either full time mothers or working part time. This was a lifestyle / career choice for them. They are much happier doing that than going to an office every day. 

As a younger guy, I would say one issue for me is that these women usually have a group of friends around them who they take their babies round to and spend time together. If I was in that situation, I'd just be home all day while all my friends were working. So it's a bit of a cycle, if there were more guys raising children, I think other guys would be more open to it.

4 minutes ago, Chaldanya said:

conversely, I had my first and that's when my career kicked up a notch after maternity leave. And a few of my friends have gone back to work after the child has gone to full time school because they missed their career. so, y'know, different strokes.

You called me out (not very nicely, it must be said) for using an anecdote before and now you're doing the same. Just an observation.

(Aside: Also, not for nothing sometimes the cost of childcare is often prohibitive enough that going back to work just clear nursery fees by a couple hundred pounds per month can see a waste of time for some and because in hetero partnerships the man earns more (typically), it's the woman that drops the job or goes part time.)

That's the thing, it's careers vs jobs. The hard truth is most of us aren't doing something we love, we work primarily for money, not passion. That distinction is going to make a huge difference in whether you'd rather be at home with your child or out working.

Also, you mention your career being kick up a notch. That's awesome, but it also gives me a fair idea on what you might do. In some jobs, you can take an extended period off, and come back and it's no big deal. In others you can't. And if you look at the wage gap by field, it definitely reflects that.

I think everyone uses anecdotes a lot in their thinking on these issues, because we all know men, women, parents, etc. For example, I hear people talk about single mothers, and I just think, if you had a single mother in your immediate family, you would never be saying that.

Exactly, it's a decision people have to make based on what is best for the man, woman and child. This is an area Western governments are going to have to look seriously at if they want to get their birthrates at a sustained level, because if the economic incentive is to have no/fewer children, that is exactly what people are going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

....

Exactly, it's a decision people have to make based on what is best for the man, woman and child. This is an area Western governments are going to have to look seriously at if they want to get their birthrates at a sustained level, because if the economic incentive is to have no/fewer children, that is exactly what people are going to do.

I agree with all of this.

Especially around greater support from governments to assist in childcare. I'm not sure where you are from the but charges in the UK are just insane. Full time childcare from after maternity leave ends was approximately £1200 per month - now that's in London maybe it's cheaper elsewhere but fates alive it's eyewatering. But I think that maybe a tangent that doesn't belong here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2016 at 1:46 PM, Lyanna Stark said:

Then we get up to Christmas, and here we are again, with present wrapping and trying to sort out things with relatives who don't get along and which kids is going to get what and where we're going to be when and and and... From the article @Xray the Enforcer linked above:

Because who wants to feel like we cant love or care for people? So I'd posit that this runs very deep, and it's tangled with a lot of shame to go against the grain and ignore the social pressures put on women. Only by shining a light on this can we *ever* hope to change this, IMO.

Since this is relevant to the current season, I'd ask the hive mind, "What do we DO?"

I am lucky right now to have options.  I'm single and have made it a point to run screaming away from men who exhibit inappropriate anger and / or inappropriate neediness.  (Did I mention I'm still single?)  This has cut down my emotional labor enormously.  I can't remember the last time I had to tip-toe through a week because someone else was in a "mood".   I have also cut way back in the last few years on spending time with friends that I find draining.  I've literally had to because I couldn't take care of my son / self without cutting those friends off.

But what about Christmas?  I haven't thrown a big party in 4 or 5 years now.  I haven't had the energy. Do we stop having a Christmas tradition altogether?  Is there any way to take apart this one small battle and get some help?  Any way to scale it back?  

The last few years I've spent a few quiet hours with my son if I've been able to.  I still get a tree, because I love them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding child care, another thing to consider IMO (for the UK at least) is the entitlement to leave that women have as opposed to men. They have an entitlement to more paid time off (I don't recall the exact number offhand, but I think in total it comes to something like 54 weeks?). Men get less paid leave, so it will often make financial sense for mothers to stay home looking after a child. You do have (optional) transferable leave too, but then you run into the problem of stereotypes and bias (conscious or unconcscious) where a couple may just make the decision that the mother will stop at home because that's just how things are done. And if you take this extended leave, I would imagine it makes returning to work difficult, because of opportunities you may have missed to advance your career, or new practices the company has introduced and so on.  

So while there may be some basis for women 'choosing' to stay at home for child-care, I think it's important to note the factors that are going to inform that choice and perpetuate the stereotypical view of the woman as a care-giver, and a man as the breadwinner. 

 

Regarding STEM, I have a small anecdote on that front, though it's not about me. But when I was looking around sixth forms/colleges several years ago, I remember I went to one open evening with a friend. She was big into science and maths, so I went along with her while she watched a presentation and spoke to the teacher. At the presentation we were the only two girls in the room. After the presentation, when she was asking him about the course, the teacher told her that perhaps she would be more comfortable in the biology class because that seemed to be more popular with female students. At the time I never really gave these kinds of issues any thought, but this discussion reminded me of it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Regarding child care, another thing to consider IMO (for the UK at least) is the entitlement to leave that women have as opposed to men. They have an entitlement to more paid time off (I don't recall the exact number offhand, but I think in total it comes to something like 54 weeks?). Men get less paid leave, so it will often make financial sense for mothers to stay home looking after a child. You do have (optional) transferable leave too, but then you run into the problem of stereotypes and bias (conscious or unconcscious) where a couple may just make the decision that the mother will stop at home because that's just how things are done. And if you take this extended leave, I would imagine it makes returning to work difficult, because of opportunities you may have missed to advance your career, or new practices the company has introduced and so on.  

So while there may be some basis for women 'choosing' to stay at home for child-care, I think it's important to note the factors that are going to inform that choice and perpetuate the stereotypical view of the woman as a care-giver, and a man as the breadwinner. 

 

So in the UK, you get mandatory 6 weeks at 90% ( you HAVE to take that it's ilegal for you to go back to work less than 6 weeks after birth - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), thereafter you get statutory pay for then next 7.5 months which comes in at about £500 per month. And then you're entitled to 3 months without pay. The company must keep a position open for you on your return.

Now, some companies are a lot more generous for instance my work gives 6 months full pay, 3 months statutory. 

Men get a rougher deal by far. They are guaranteed 2 weeks paternity leave and whilst you can split the parental leave the man isn't as likely to be paid for it. This needs to be addressed. If we can help sort out the disparity in who looks after the children then I think a lot of good will come of that. And from a personal point of view, I would have loved it if we could have afforded to switch primary care giving - I think my post natal depression wouldn't have been as brutal or as long if I could have gone back to work earlier.

Mlle Zabzie: to your point re: working in the home not being seen as work.  I didn't want to touch that with a barge pole but it's something that C4JS has hinted at previously in this thread i.e. he seems to not consider the work within a house to not be work because it's not paid for. And tbf, it's a pervasive attitude, I think. That if a woman is a SAHM she's sitting on the settee watching Jeremy Kyle and eating jam doughnuts and nothing goes into looking after children and running a house... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

Since this is relevant to the current season, I'd ask the hive mind, "What do we DO?"

I am lucky right now to have options.  I'm single and have made it a point to run screaming away from men who exhibit inappropriate anger and / or inappropriate neediness.  (Did I mention I'm still single?)  This has cut down my emotional labor enormously.  I can't remember the last time I had to tip-toe through a week because someone else was in a "mood".   I have also cut way back in the last few years on spending time with friends that I find draining.  I've literally had to because I couldn't take care of my son / self without cutting those friends off.

But what about Christmas?  I haven't thrown a big party in 4 or 5 years now.  I haven't had the energy. Do we stop having a Christmas tradition altogether?  Is there any way to take apart this one small battle and get some help?  Any way to scale it back?  

The last few years I've spent a few quiet hours with my son if I've been able to.  I still get a tree, because I love them.  

I really have little to no idea, but I try to "prune" and just prioritise to myself what I think is most important, and then do those things. So tree, presents, some activities, some decorations (our Christmas goat is a Must!) and the food stuffs I like and what I think the kids will like. The rest? I cannot deal with. In the future, perhaps bandy together with other women in similar situations? The scaling back seems like a sensible way to go, because if it just ends up being a big stressful time where you spend all your time running around sorting out things for everyone else, it is no fun for you (us) and no fun for the people we are around either, since at least I tend to be cranky at the best of time, and in full blown rage at the worst (you know, when you ran out of tape, the basement just got flooded, something burnt in the oven cos you were too busy swearing over the clogged drain in the basement and trying to figure out if someone knows a plumber and you sent someone to find the flashlight and that person is now AWOL and then the cat vomited in the living room =  my life in a nutshell).

(My neighbour works shift work in care, so she's not home much, but I think we're going to at least be getting shitfaced together at least once, so weeh).

Back in the day, my whole extended family used to gather, but nowadays everyone hates eachother, so perhaps the solution is going for "friends" instead of "family"?

 

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I'm from West Sussex, so close by. I dunno what the thread rules are, but most feminists where we are seem most concerned about wages and the amount of women doing top jobs. I'd say child care is probably the single most important factor in those issues.

 

Child care in West Sussex was ridiculously expensive when I lived there. I imagine it isn't cheaper now. You had to make a *lot* of money to afford to put two children in childcare. I have a solid academic education, but even then, we could not make ends meet with two children, so a move to Sweden (my home country) was necessary if we were ever to afford a second child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chaldanya said:

 

Mlle Zabzie: to your point re: working in the home not being seen as work.  I didn't want to touch that with a barge pole but it's something that C4JS has hinted at previously in this thread i.e. he seems to not consider the work within a house to not be work because it's not paid for. And tbf, it's a pervasive attitude, I think. That if a woman is a SAHM she's sitting on the settee watching Jeremy Kyle and eating jam doughnuts and nothing goes into looking after children and running a house... 

It's a hard thing to talk about because so much of the conversation does get looped back into pay.  But, more broadly, women's work (however defined) simply is viewed as less valuable.  The sad truth is that when a profession becomes thought of as "women's work" pay historically has gone down (again, someone kind pls find links, but there is good historical data for teachers, secretaries, and even, I believe, things like pediatrics and primary care physicians).  I've heard some talk about more labor supply, but that doesn't explain it.  E.g., if you look at men in professions like teaching/nursing/etc., they tend to be promoted more often to administration and supervisory roles.  Again the data is there, just don't have time to find it.  So going back to being basically the house's project manager/COO, it isn't "valued" work, even where that work allows the other party to work more and potentially earn more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It's a hard thing to talk about because so much of the conversation does get looped back into pay.  But, more broadly, women's work (however defined) simply is viewed as less valuable.  The sad truth is that when a profession becomes thought of as "women's work" pay historically has gone down (again, someone kind pls find links, but there is good historical data for teachers, secretaries, and even, I believe, things like pediatrics and primary care physicians).  I've heard some talk about more labor supply, but that doesn't explain it.  E.g., if you look at men in professions like teaching/nursing/etc., they tend to be promoted more often to administration and supervisory roles.  Again the data is there, just don't have time to find it.  So going back to being basically the house's project manager/COO, it isn't "valued" work, even where that work allows the other party to work more and potentially earn more.

You'll get no disagreement from me at all. It's the extra work on top of a full time job that still disproportionately falls to the woman. And even given the partnership model of a SAHM/out to work husband* the SAHM is on call 24/7 and the husband tends to come home and thinks he goes to work all day he doesn't have to do anything around the home (am on a message board for moms and this is a feature of many conversations).

*so, I'm aware I'm being hideously heteronormative here mainly because I don't have the knowledge of other partnerships/relationships.  if anyone has info/anecdotes etc they'd like to bust out to help me, all gratefully received. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chaldanya said:

So in the UK, you get mandatory 6 weeks at 90% ( you HAVE to take that it's ilegal for you to go back to work less than 6 weeks after birth - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), thereafter you get statutory pay for then next 7.5 months which comes in at about £500 per month. And then you're entitled to 3 months without pay. The company must keep a position open for you on your return.

Now, some companies are a lot more generous for instance my work gives 6 months full pay, 3 months statutory. 

Men get a rougher deal by far. They are guaranteed 2 weeks paternity leave and whilst you can split the parental leave the man isn't as likely to be paid for it. This needs to be addressed. If we can help sort out the disparity in who looks after the children then I think a lot of good will come of that. And from a personal point of view, I would have loved it if we could have afforded to switch primary care giving - I think my post natal depression wouldn't have been as brutal or as long if I could have gone back to work earlier.

Mlle Zabzie: to your point re: working in the home not being seen as work.  I didn't want to touch that with a barge pole but it's something that C4JS has hinted at previously in this thread i.e. he seems to not consider the work within a house to not be work because it's not paid for. And tbf, it's a pervasive attitude, I think. That if a woman is a SAHM she's sitting on the settee watching Jeremy Kyle and eating jam doughnuts and nothing goes into looking after children and running a house... 

Thanks for the clarifications. I want sure on the exact pay but I was aware your position had to be retained for your return to work. 

I agree it needs to be addressed (and if you've ever tried wading your way through all the statutes and regulations on this, well, that should provide reason enough even before we get to the gender inequality). One proposal I've heard (from a professor at uni I'll add, this wasn't some government proposal as far as I'm aware) is to simply give equal, compulsory, non-transferable leave periods for men and women. Fairly simple idea, and it would address the idea of unconscious bias that informs these decisions which is problematic with the transferable leave. But I don't know that such a proposal would get a great deal of support.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...