Feminism - Now with an extra helping of gender roles

[Zippertrain85]

You have posted no links since Mormont posted his. Try again.

:bang: Please take the time to look at my previous comment to Lyanna...

[KiDisaster]

I have left them responses with links to studies confirming my points, so don't pull the your arguments have been refuted nonsense. They have not.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning along with any of the older feminism threads on the board. Every point you have made, or are thinking of making, or will think of making in the future has been made and refuted ad nauseam. You are not the first psuedointellectual men's rights activist who's come in here thinking he's going to show all the big, bad feminists the error of their ways.

You are the most recent in a long line of such. You're not going to change anyone's mind. You're just going to be a buzzing fly in the room for a few days until you realize no one is taking you seriously and everyone thinks you're a moron and you fuck off like the rest of them and sulk on back to your "Red Pill" MRA boards.

Why not save us all some time and expedite the process?

[Zippertrain85]

Go back and read this thread from the beginning along with any of the older feminism threads on the board. Every point you have made, or are thinking of making, or will think of making in the future has been made and refuted ad nauseam. You are not the first psuedointellectual men's rights activist who's come in here thinking he's going to show all the big, bad feminists the error of their ways.

You are the most recent in a long line of such. You're not going to change anyone's mind. You're just going to be a buzzing fly in the room for a few days until you realize no one is taking you seriously and everyone thinks you're a moron and you fuck off like the rest of them and sulk on back to your "Red Pill" MRA boards.

Why not save us all some time and expedite the process?

No, because hopefully by challenging Feminism some people may actually see the truth. Which is good enough for me, I know most people are on these Forums are completely stuck in their ways, and will never change regardless of how much proof was given. But, I debate because I want to show the neutral people, that Feminism is NOT the only way.

[mormont]

I have left them responses with links to studies confirming my points, so don't pull the your arguments have been refuted nonsense. They have not.

They have, I'm afraid.

To the extent that your links actually support your points, which is certainly far from 100%, they are not the last word on the topic: they're part of a complex picture of discussion and debate. They certainly are not armour-plating for poor argumentation.

Your claim, for example, was that the gender gap in pay was down to men working longer hours. This is not so. That's one contributing factor among many. You argued that 'maybe women have more interest in less demanding jobs'. You provided no backup for this claim. You claim that evolution is the reason women are more naturally inclined to caregiving than men, but offer no explanation of how this came about, other than 'men are stronger and there are differences in the biology of the brain, so maybe somehow this means this other unrelated thing is also biologically based, somehow'. You apparently failed to understand the refutation of this point, ie that caregiving is a social behaviour and that any biological basis (if it exists) can explain only a small proportion of that behaviour, at best. (Not to mention, you don't really say what importance any hypothetical biological basis for women being naturally inclined towards caregiving means for the argument. Should we just accept that? Is this meant to be an argument for simply ignoring the pay gap and continuing with the status quo?)

In summary, your arguments are underdeveloped, simplistic, ill-thought-out, poorly supported by evidence, do not engage with contrary evidence, show a poor understanding of the subject and, on top of all that, are phrased in an unnecessarily aggressive and abrasive style. Or to put it another way, you argue like shit.

[Zippertrain85]

They have, I'm afraid.

To the extent that your links actually support your points, which is certainly far from 100%, they are not the last word on the topic: they're part of a complex picture of discussion and debate. They certainly are not armour-plating for poor argumentation.

Your claim, for example, was that the gender gap in pay was down to men working longer hours. This is not so. That's one contributing factor among many. You argued that 'maybe women have more interest in less demanding jobs'. You provided no backup for this claim. You claim that evolution is the reason women are more naturally inclined to caregiving than men, but offer no explanation of how this came about, other than 'men are stronger and there are differences in the biology of the brain, so maybe somehow this means this other unrelated thing is also biologically based, somehow'. You apparently failed to understand the refutation of this point, ie that caregiving is a social behaviour and that any biological basis (if it exists) can explain only a small proportion of that behaviour, at best. (Not to mention, you don't really say what importance any hypothetical biological basis for women being naturally inclined towards caregiving means for the argument. Should we just accept that? Is this meant to be an argument for simply ignoring the pay gap and continuing with the status quo?)

In summary, your arguments are underdeveloped, simplistic, ill-thought-out, poorly supported by evidence, do not engage with contrary evidence, show a poor understanding of the subject and, on top of all that, are phrased in an unnecessarily aggressive and abrasive style. Or to put it another way, you argue like shit.

One word, no.

I am not sure what you mean by this, can you explain again?

Actually, you're wrong here. I provided proof that men and women's brains worked differently (see my source in the previous comments). You see, the problem with what you are saying is that it's somehow illogical to blame the Wage Gap on one thing (Men working harder than women) which I kind of agree with, but it's somehow okay when the Feminists act like it's completely based off of discrimination. Why do you have this double standard? Why is it so much more reasonable to assume it's because they were just prejudice against the female gender, than some of the men may simply have done more? Caregiving is a social behavior? No. Almost every mammal does this, including apes, which humans did evolve from. Since animals don't really have the mental capacity to "pressure" a certain group of their species into behaving in such a way, odds are it's biologically, atleast to an extent. This is kind of basic knowledge, but humans would've needed people to take care of the young, while they were still in development stages, that's why it was needed.

Wrong. You just choose to ignore all the evidence I gave, as I have provided links that you did not bring up once. No, I'm not being aggressive, disagreeing with someone is not aggression.

[1918me]

One word, no.

I am not sure what you mean by this, can you explain again?

Actually, you're wrong here. I provided proof that men and women's brains worked differently (see my source in the previous comments). You see, the problem with what you are saying is that it's somehow illogical to blame the Wage Gap on one thing (Men working harder than women) which I kind of agree with, but it's somehow okay when the Feminists act like it's completely based off of discrimination. Why do you have this double standard? Why is it so much more reasonable to assume it's because they were just prejudice against the female gender, than some of the men may simply have done more? Caregiving is a social behavior? No. Almost every mammal does this, including apes, which humans did evolve from. Since animals don't really have the mental capacity to "pressure" a certain group of their species into behaving in such a way, odds are it's biologically, atleast to an extent. This is kind of basic knowledge, but humans would've needed people to take care of the young, while they were still in development stages, that's why it was needed.

Wrong. You just choose to ignore all the evidence I gave, as I have provided links that you did not bring up once. No, I'm not being aggressive, disagreeing with someone is not aggression.

The bolded is completely untrue. No one here has claimed that the wage gap is based on one factor, and Mormont has given at least five reasons why the wage pay gap exists. Also, the "points" you're making in this post aren't refuting anything that anyone has claimed. Men's and women's brains are different? Woop-de-doo. No one here is ignorant of that, and no one is saying otherwise.

[Zippertrain85]

The bolded is completely untrue. No one here has claimed that the wage gap is based on one factor, and Mormont has given at least five reasons why the wage pay gap exists. Also, the "points" you're making in this post aren't refuting anything that anyone has claimed. Men's and women's brains are different? Woop-de-doo. No one here is ignorant of that, and no one is saying otherwise.

In the comment he left me, I cannot find any explanations as to why the Wage Gap could exist (just FYI Wage Pay Gap sounds kind of redundant, not trying to be a Grammar Freak). Oh my gosh. My point was that men & women are different, which is why they choose to go into different fields, hence the part of the reason for why the pay gap exists.

[Lily Valley]

Really? You're taking the word of a stranger on the internet awfully strong. How could she have known exactly how much these employees were making?

Because I we worked together and people talk. Because I performed some of their performance reviews and knew what type of pay raises they were getting. Because I knew when they were promoted within their job designation and you can look up the salary ranges for each position within the company.

I have to go outside the family for airborne things. My best friend from high school works at Boeing, and my astrophysicist college roommate switched gears after getting her PhD and is now working at Lockheed in engineering, so I'm hoping to hit them up next year for some video conferencing on why physics is cool and useful and how you can make money if you pay attention and don't shut out your options.

Tell her to keep an eye on her colleagues salaries and fight like hell to get the best offer she can going in.

And totally cool. Maybe some internship opportunities as well? They used to offer them here before Shuttle shutdown.

One last thing. Every professional position I have been in has had required work hours which included clauses that required working nights and weekends to get the job done. I haven't been able to slack off or work less than my male peers since I was an undergraduate student. There certainly has never been a just-for-moms optional part time schedule offered.

[1918me]

In the comment he left me, I cannot find any explanations as to why the Wage Gap could exist (just FYI Wage Pay Gap sounds kind of redundant, not trying to be a Grammar Freak). Oh my gosh. My point was that men & women are different, which is why they choose to go into different fields, hence the part of the reason for why the pay gap exists.

Post #304. He gives a good explanation about the many phenomena that manifest in the wage gap (yes, wage pay gap was redundant, I'll edit my post on that). The point is, it's a very complex issue, and you can't explain it away with a simple, one-point argument. The fact that men and women choose different careers explains the problem only insofar as it is one step in a long chain of causality, the root of which is still up for debate today. Is it biological, societal, or both? Are the societal factors themselves caused by biological factors? Furthermore, even if you do accept that men simply choose careers with greater pay yield because they're biologically programmed to do so and women aren't (I don't accept this, by the way; I believe there is a stronger sociological reason for it), that still leaves a number of problems, such as the hourly wage and promotion issues, to name a couple.

[Zippertrain85]

Because I we worked together and people talk. Because I performed some of their performance reviews and knew what type of pay raises they were getting. Because I knew when they were promoted within their job designation and you can look up the salary ranges for each position within the company.

Tell her to keep an eye on her colleagues salaries and fight like hell to get the best offer she can going in.

And totally cool. Maybe some internship opportunities as well? They used to offer them here before Shuttle shutdown.

One last thing. Every professional position I have been in has had required work hours which included clauses that required working nights and weekends to get the job done. I haven't been able to slack off or work less than my male peers since I was an undergraduate student. There certainly has never been a just-for-moms optional part time schedule offered.

So your source is workplace gossip? That's not very good, also if you were there boss, weren't you the one signing their checks? Depending on how high you were, possibly even deciding how much they get paid? I'm sorry, but this is starting to sound kind of sketchy.

[Zippertrain85]

Post #304. He gives a good explanation about the many phenomena that manifest in the wage gap (yes, wage pay gap was redundant, I'll edit my post on that). The point is, it's a very complex issue, and you can't explain it away with a simple, one-point argument. The fact that men and women choose different careers explains the problem only insofar as it is one step in a long chain of causality, the root of which is still up for debate today. Is it biological, societal, or both? Are the societal factors themselves caused by biological factors? Furthermore, even if you do accept that men simply choose careers with greater pay yield because they're biologically programmed to do so and women aren't (I don't accept this, by the way; I believe there is a stronger sociological reason for it), that still leaves a number of problems, such as the hourly wage and promotion issues, to name a couple.

The point I was making is that when Feminists say "it's because of discrimination", it's illogical. I even brought up a point, why would anyone hire a man if they could hire a woman to do the same work for less?

[1918me]

The point I was making is that when Feminists say "it's because of discrimination", it's illogical. I even brought up a point, why would anyone hire a man if they could hire a woman to do the same work for less?

Why indeed? I have never been in the position to interview people for a job, so perhaps someone with actual experience in this could provide a better explanation, but from what I understand it is a very complex process, with lots of subtle biases going into it, often completely unconsciously. I doubt many people are making the decision to hire women for cheaper labor, which as you point out is fairly ridiculous, but many interviewers hire more men vs. women, or rate them subjectively better suited for a job, even when they're performances are equal (this applies to race as well). Here is one study supporting this: http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

Also, that argument doesn't take in to consideration that men may receive more pay raises than women after they are employed.

[Lily Valley]

So your source is workplace gossip? That's not very good, also if you were there boss, weren't you the one signing their checks? Depending on how high you were, possibly even deciding how much they get paid? I'm sorry, but this is starting to sound kind of sketchy.

Oh my God. Am I arguing with someone that thinks most people get paid for work by hand written check?

[DanteGabriel]

So your source is workplace gossip? That's not very good, also if you were there boss, weren't you the one signing their checks? Depending on how high you were, possibly even deciding how much they get paid? I'm sorry, but this is starting to sound kind of sketchy.

You sound like someone who has never had a job.

I used to manage people. I knew how much they were paid. The company had levels of pay for each position, but when hiring a new employee I was involved in setting the initial salary offer, and it was my responsibility to determine what their raise was from year to year. I could see their salary and pay history every time I logged into the manager's portion of our pay system. This is not difficult or esoteric knowledge -- especially for a manager.

Your arguments are stupid and based in seemingly willful ignorance, but this particular tack, where you try and paint a picture that a manager couldn't have a good idea what her direct reports and colleagues are making, is dumb for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with feminism.

[mormont]

Actually, you're wrong here. I provided proof that men and women's brains worked differently (see my source in the previous comments).

Yes, I know that and indeed I said so. I also pointed out that this is a total non-sequitur, because what you haven't done is provide any sort of argument that gets you from this one fact to your conclusions.

Why and how does this explain either the pay gap or women's alleged natural inclination towards caregiving? Indeed, how does that alleged natural inclination explain why women who do not choose to be caregivers wind up as caregivers anyway? And what does this alleged natural inclination actually mean?

You still won't spell that out, despite being asked a very simple question: are you saying that, because women are supposedly naturally inclined towards caregiving by evolution, we should simply say 'hey ho, that's nature for you' and do nothing about it? Are you arguing that the wage gap is just evolution at work and we should therefore ignore it? If so, how do you answer Lyanna's point that we curb evolutionary tendencies in all sort of other ways all the time?

Your post above is just an incoherent mess, not addressing any of these points. Your only response is to say 'well you're just as bad!', which, besides not being true, is not addressing any of the weaknesses in your argument.

You see, the problem with what you are saying is that it's somehow illogical to blame the Wage Gap on one thing (Men working harder than women) which I kind of agree with, but it's somehow okay when the Feminists act like it's completely based off of discrimination. Why do you have this double standard? Why is it so much more reasonable to assume it's because they were just prejudice against the female gender, than some of the men may simply have done more?

What double standard? Did you read my post? I've pointed out that the wage gap is a complex problem with many causes. Most, but not all, of these are due to discrimination, but very few are due to direct discrimination: many are due to indirect discrimination.

The evidence that men work 'harder' than women is scant, by the way - there's evidence that they work longer hours, but that's not the same thing at all: and the reason for that is not that women choose to work less, but that they are less able to work longer hours because they are disproportionately taking on caring and other non-job responsibilities.

Caregiving is a social behavior? No. Almost every mammal does this, including apes, which humans did evolve from. Since animals don't really have the mental capacity to "pressure" a certain group of their species into behaving in such a way, odds are it's biologically, atleast to an extent.

You really don't have a great understanding of some basic terms of this discussion, or indeed of biology.

Apes certainly do have the capacity to exhibit, and do in fact exhibit, social behaviour. Some level of caregiving is innate to many species, yes: but the caregiving behaviour exhibited by, say, an eagle is as different from human caregiving as nesting is from arranging a mortgage. The argument that ancient humans might (allegedly) have had some sort of evolutionary bias towards female caregiving for infants does nothing to explain why modern women disproportionately care for children, elderly relatives and the chronically ill, any more than men's greater musculature (useful in hunting) would lead us to conclude that men are 'naturally' more inclined to go to the supermarket.

No, I'm not being aggressive, disagreeing with someone is not aggression.

It's not, no. It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone in a polite, respectful way. That, however, is not what you have been doing.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I work in a field (law) where only 15 to 20% of top management positions (meaning equity partners) are women. I am one of those women. Going from an associate to an equity partner in the firm has opened my eyes to a lot of things, including the pay gap. Since this "argument" has long since descended into the anecdotal, I'll give you my anecdote. I am either an outlier (a woman who… Gasp… Likes math and works in a technical field of the law and has three children), a token, or something else is going on. Though I didn't start with these beliefs, it seems to me that there's a lot of the last going on. Some women opt out, for sure, but a lot of what's going on is women being forced to opt out. By that I mean seeing equivalent male peers getting promoted where they are not. One of the things I like to look at is not what happens to the superstars. Superstar women and superstar men both get promoted. The question is what happens to the mediocre people in the firm. It seems to me that mediocrity is more often rewarded in men. That is, even if two candidates are objectively the same caliber, certain traits will be assigned a negative value in the woman where assigned a neutral or positive value in the man.

Interestingly, whenever I speak on panels, or am profiled, or otherwise engage with the public, I am often asked how I "make it all work". By that, the questioner is always referring to my family. Last year, I spoke on the panel regarding careers in tax law. I was, of course, the only woman on the panel. And, of course, the moderator asked me (and not the men) how I "leaned in" and balanced work and family. I used that as a chance to discuss how work life balance is not just a women's issue. More recently, both my husband and I were profiled by a legal publication as top attorneys under 40 in our respective fields. Guess which one of us was asked about our family. The last paragraph of my profile talks about how I "make it work", and discusses the size of my family and things of that nature. My husband's profile, to the contrary, discusses nothing personal. Why is that? This is even though my husband is an active caregiver for our children. Neither of us could have the career we have if the other weren't fully supportive.

[Underfoot]

I'd also like to point out that there are multiple species of primates where the fathers (or even "step-fathers") care for their offspring as much as the mother or more than the mother.

Some links, if interested:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

However, even if our species was biologically programmed to have the female provide most parental care, it has been pointed out that humanity has, in many ways, moved beyond biological constraints in our behavior. I would say that society/culture dictates more of our actions and thoughts than our biological impulses.

[Zippertrain85]

Why indeed? I have never been in the position to interview people for a job, so perhaps someone with actual experience in this could provide a better explanation, but from what I understand it is a very complex process, with lots of subtle biases going into it, often completely unconsciously. I doubt many people are making the decision to hire women for cheaper labor, which as you point out is fairly ridiculous, but many interviewers hire more men vs. women, or rate them subjectively better suited for a job, even when they're performances are equal (this applies to race as well). Here is one study supporting this: http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

Also, that argument doesn't take in to consideration that men may receive more pay raises than women after they are employed.

Okay, maybe you have a point when it comes to actually getting hired, but once the work is all said & done the bosses are going to realize they can make so much more money by hiring more women than men. A company's main goal is to make as much money as they possibly can, and spend the least, which is exactly what would happen if women we're getting paid less to do the same work

Oh my God. Am I arguing with someone that thinks most people get paid for work by hand written check?

Someone needs to decide how much they're paid. Doesn't matter if it's signed or not.

You sound like someone who has never had a job.

I used to manage people. I knew how much they were paid. The company had levels of pay for each position, but when hiring a new employee I was involved in setting the initial salary offer, and it was my responsibility to determine what their raise was from year to year. I could see their salary and pay history every time I logged into the manager's portion of our pay system. This is not difficult or esoteric knowledge -- especially for a manager.

Your arguments are stupid and based in seemingly willful ignorance, but this particular tack, where you try and paint a picture that a manager couldn't have a good idea what her direct reports and colleagues are making, is dumb for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with feminism.

My point is, how could the user who has access to these salary numbers not have any say in the payment of the people she was the boss of? I don't understand at all, and that's why her story is sketchy.

[Zippertrain85]

Yes, I know that and indeed I said so. I also pointed out that this is a total non-sequitur, because what you haven't done is provide any sort of argument that gets you from this one fact to your conclusions.

Why and how does this explain either the pay gap or women's alleged natural inclination towards caregiving? Indeed, how does that alleged natural inclination explain why women who do not choose to be caregivers wind up as caregivers anyway? And what does this alleged natural inclination actually mean?

You still won't spell that out, despite being asked a very simple question: are you saying that, because women are supposedly naturally inclined towards caregiving by evolution, we should simply say 'hey ho, that's nature for you' and do nothing about it? Are you arguing that the wage gap is just evolution at work and we should therefore ignore it? If so, how do you answer Lyanna's point that we curb evolutionary tendencies in all sort of other ways all the time?

Your post above is just an incoherent mess, not addressing any of these points. Your only response is to say 'well you're just as bad!', which, besides not being true, is not addressing any of the weaknesses in your argument.

What double standard? Did you read my post? I've pointed out that the wage gap is a complex problem with many causes. Most, but not all, of these are due to discrimination, but very few are due to direct discrimination: many are due to indirect discrimination.

The evidence that men work 'harder' than women is scant, by the way - there's evidence that they work longer hours, but that's not the same thing at all: and the reason for that is not that women choose to work less, but that they are less able to work longer hours because they are disproportionately taking on caring and other non-job responsibilities.

You really don't have a great understanding of some basic terms of this discussion, or indeed of biology.

Apes certainly do have the capacity to exhibit, and do in fact exhibit, social behaviour. Some level of caregiving is innate to many species, yes: but the caregiving behaviour exhibited by, say, an eagle is as different from human caregiving as nesting is from arranging a mortgage. The argument that ancient humans might (allegedly) have had some sort of evolutionary bias towards female caregiving for infants does nothing to explain why modern women disproportionately care for children, elderly relatives and the chronically ill, any more than men's greater musculature (useful in hunting) would lead us to conclude that men are 'naturally' more inclined to go to the supermarket.

It's not, no. It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone in a polite, respectful way. That, however, is not what you have been doing.

1) It means that women may not aspire to get promotions at work to the same rate as men, since they might want to raise kids in the future. What is proof to you? I gave sources, it's not good enough. I give logical explanations as to why, it's not good enough. How can you possibly be convinced in any way if none of these things get you budge even in the slightest bit? I am saying that it's not because of discrimination for that reason, rather it's because of Evolution. I never said nothing should be done about this, you're putting words in my mouth now.

2) That could be the women's choice, it's not due to discrimination, if a man did the same thing, he would be paid as much as a woman doing that would. If men are working longer hours than women, they are doing more work in the project and will be paid more. What are you not understanding about this?

3) You know, talking down to people just makes your post lose credibility to be honest. You're a moderator, start acting like one please. I'm not denying they can't socialize, I'm saying they can't do it, nearly to the extent of a human. Evolution doesn't just get bypassed this quickly, it takes literally millions upon millions of years for even slow changes, you even admitted women are the majority of caregivers of children & elderly. You just admitted my point!

4) It takes one to know one, you have been condescending and arrogant to me since you first started commenting against my points. He who lives in a Glass House should not throw stones.

[Gneisenau]

What does biology or evolution have to do with value statements ? How do we go from XXX occurs naturally => value YYY is true.