Feminism - Frightbats Galore!

[karaddin]

and, uh

fuck you, guy. Queer isn't actually the opposite of sympathetic - except it is to you, now, because we know that you're an asshole and you don't get any of our sympathy.

Nor is queer equivalent to violent ffs. It's wonderful when someone reveals their colours without even realising they are doing it.

[Athias]

That's a fair question. I'm not going to share my full answer to this question because I have some views that are relevant that I'm not comfortable sharing. But I will say that one of the rights I mean to mention when I refer to a woman's rights are the costs of child care: it is my belief that the sexist culture America has dwelled in for all these years has contributed to expensive child care and I think that's absolutely unacceptable. I think that's one right that, for the most part, specifically pertains to making life easier for women. I say for the most part because I don't want to seem unaware that there are single fathers who'd benefit from fighting against this as well.

So it is your belief that women have a right to inexpensive child care? What do you think of the rights of those who are selling the goods and services that go into child care?

I am, of course, opposed to unequal wages for the same level of education, seniority and position. So that's an issue I care about. And really, those are the big two for me.

The problem I find with equal pay is that it spurs forced contracts and undermines one's freedom to associate or disassociate with whomever one wants. It's a political gender mainstreaming that seeks to coerce employers to hire and pay under terms privy to female workers--or at least that's the alleged goal. It's a tenuous endeavor to purge discrimination from the labor market, even if said discrimination is peaceful. If a male employer does not wish to pay me the same as a male counterpart, as unfortunate as that may be, that is his right. He should be able to dictate the terms to which he is willing to consume my labor. Just as it is my right to dictate the terms to which I'm willing to provide my labor. "Equal Pay" offers a privileged priority--or that's what its proponents would have you believe--to one party, in a two (or more) party contract. And that privilege is informed by virtue of being a woman. As a person who believes in a moral jurisdiction over my person and all that is produced from it, I would rather work the fictive "73 cents on the dollar" than to countermand another person's propriety and coerce him/her under my terms.

As far as I know, women with the same level of education, seniority, and position are paid identically to their male counterparts. It's only when an indiscriminate aggregate of gross salary is taken, that one sees a gap. And it isn't a gap based on a gendered dichotomy -- it's seems to be a deviation based mostly on motherhood. [some] mothers who work tend to opt for non-wage benefits as opposed to increases in raw salaries--which are not taken into the aggregate average. [some] women--if we're considering an aggregate--tend to work safer professions in contrast to males who overly represent participation in riskier professions, which in turn, generates higher yields. If I, as a female, were only able to yield 73 cents for every dollar a man of the same education and talent yielded, would an employer be more or less likely to hire me? I would say the more cost-efficient decision is to higher the cheaper labor--which would be me, a woman. But I guess a crusade obsessed with a cultural homogeneity and this notion of "equality" would not only disregard the unavoidable diversity in both interests and action, but any reasoning or evidence that would substantiate such an effect.

*Note* I'm not asserting that sexism does not play any role. But as I said above, even if these male employers are sexist, it is their right to refuse your price--as a male, female, black, white, Hispanic, religious devotee , atheist, etc.--as an extension of their propriety or proxy.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

As far as I know, women with the same level of education, seniority, and position are paid identically to their male counterparts. It's only when an indiscriminate aggregate of gross salary is taken, that one sees a gap.

This is incorrect. The gap lessens, but it is still there when these variables are accounted for. You are arguing from a misinformed premise.

[karaddin]

If a male employer does not wish to pay me the same as a male counterpart, as unfortunate as that may be, that is his right. He should be able to dictate the terms to which he is willing to consume my labor. Just as it is my right to dictate the terms to which I'm willing to provide my labor. "Equal Pay" offers a privileged priority--or that's what its proponents would have you believe--to one party, in a two (or more) party contract. And that privilege is informed by virtue of being a woman. As a person who believes in a moral jurisdiction over my person and all that is produced from it, I would rather work the fictive "73 cents on the dollar" than to countermand another person's propriety and coerce him/her under my terms.

Bolded is your opinion, others don't feel that there is a fundamental right to discriminate against others in the work place and we disagree with you.

Broadly yes, you believe every man, woman and presumably child is an island, you are arguing an individualist perception that does not mesh with feminism. That's wonderful for you, and you are entitled to think what you want, but it makes your stance on feminism pretty clear - it's not a legitimate movement in your view. Ultimately your purpose in this thread is to derail conversation and undermine the idea of feminism, which is off topic for this thread and I'm really fucking sick of it happening. If you want to have a thread about how awesome your ultra individualist world view is, go create one, but don't derail this thread with it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

When someone essentially argues that equal pay for equal work is subject to the whim of the employer, clearly they don't believe in equality, at all. and there is no point in arguing with such a person.

[Ouroboros]

This is incorrect. The gap lessens, but it is still there when these variables are accounted for. You are arguing from a misinformed premise.

I'd be curious to see the data that says so, as that's not what I've read on the issue.

[Summah]

I think someone should make a FAQ with stats on the pay gaps, feminism 101 and all the other things that keep coming up over and over again (and I haven't even been here that long), and we could just refer to people to the FAQ.

[litechick]

Random responses to what I have read in this thread:

Growing up, my parents played the Jedi Mind Trick on me and it worked for many years. "We treat you and your brother exactly the same" was what they said but that was not remotely true. They were unaware that it wasn't true. However, their statement of principle (if not fact) was valuable in teaching me that we should be the same.

I'm sort of getting the distinctions between the waves of feminism--second wave = deploring girly things, discouraging girls from taking traditional gender roles; third wave = the right to be girly and equal? It's still a bit cloudy for me.

Childcare is expensive because of an intersection between a litigious society and market forces.

On Orange, sharing the facepalm at the suggestion that men are being marginalized and stereotyped. For one we have the guard who is flawed but sympathetic and ethical, for two we have the administrator who is fighting the corrupt female boss only to find that being the boss ain't that easy.

Harking back to page 2: that article about the Warped Tour was bad. The journalist was a dipshit. If you want to be treated like anybody else (men) you need to act like anybody else. The women being interviewed understood this, the journalist did not.

That's all I have time for but good thread.

[Ouroboros]

I think someone should make a FAQ with stats on the pay gaps, feminism 101 and all the other things that keep coming up over and over again (and I haven't even been here that long), and we could just refer to people to the FAQ.

Well I suppose there's nothing stopping you from doing it, but I am very curious to read this data, as much of what I've read has either suggested the wage gap (in america) has been heavily distorted by politically motivated groups from both wings to suit their individual causes. Most of the 'distortion' coming in the form of the surveys themselves that they use to compile these statistics being heavily flawed to begin with, lumping together a great many very different types of degrees and occupations under a single header.

[Lily Valley]

The show is set in a womens' prison. There are no opportunities for male prisoners to be around at all except for the handful of transport scenes in 2x01 (when groups of prisoners are put onto a plane). The male and female prisoners are still segregated during this time and not allowed to speak. There's no feasible way that a male prisoner who is not a belligerent troublemaker would interact with any of the show's characters.

It is a fair point that the one representation of a male prisoner character is pretty extreme (scary rapey hitman) to the point where I thought it hurt the story. It definitely shook my suspension of disbelief.

"tragic lack of love" is laughable as a summary of how the prisoners in the show got there. Yeah, people who do desperate shit often are in desperate situations, that's how life works. But it doesn't fit for Sophia, nor the nun (despite the article bizarrely claiming it), nor Yoga Jones, nor Rosa, nor Piper and Alex, and that's just off the top of my head. It doesn't even really fit Taystee, whose tragic lack of love is an indictment of the foster system; who gets preyed on by Vee (who we can assume was hanging around the orphanage befriending random kids for a reason - she's exploiting the broken system herself). Who gets released and is forced back into prison because she has no support system outside, which could be a "tragic lack of love" - but is again really an indictment of the system.

The scenario the article paints as typical for prisoners ("hey baby, do you mind if I leave my shit here") is pretty much what Piper is in for. I remember another one from S1 too, vaguely. Daya maybe? I like how this shows the woman as a victim and the man as at fault, exactly the stereotype that the article's original thesis is against propagating.

and, uh

fuck you, guy. Queer isn't actually the opposite of sympathetic - except it is to you, now, because we know that you're an asshole and you don't get any of our sympathy.

Emberling, +1+1+1

Piper's situation didn't count because a female landed her there, all the other "moments" were totally ignored because they didn't involve male violence. Totally oblivious bullshit.

I'd disagree about portrayal about male prisoner. Men in jail are fucking scary. These are Piper's eyes. She's still a delicate little Connecticut flower. I totally bought it.

Edit: Is someone else up for addressing the wage gap research? I'm tired.

[karaddin]

I tend to more have Aussie data on that, which while interesting isn't likely to be accepted as definitive. I did love that our worst industry for gender pay gap is financial services though, I'm sure it's just that the women aren't intelligent or qualified enough to get promoted.

Agree with Lily on the male prisoner, although I thought there was more to it again - I thought it was also an exaggerated act for the purposes of making him more secure/safe in prison. That first episode is very much through Pipers eyes though, not an objective pair of eyes.

[Ouroboros]

I tend to more have Aussie data on that, which while interesting isn't likely to be accepted as definitive. I did love that our worst industry for gender pay gap is financial services though, I'm sure it's just that the women aren't intelligent or qualified enough to get promoted.

One of the problems with examining just financial services (as opposed to all employment everywhere) is that title alone covers a lot of very different jobs, from bank teller down at the local Westpac to an accountant for the city council.

It's why I like to look at the raw data rather than just the compiled findings, as many surveys would and do in fact compare the lady that works the til down the road to the guy who manages the accounts for Rupert Murdoch. It's the same thing in construction and mining, the office people often have their wages compared to the labourers on the ground.

[brook]

and it wasn't just through pipers eyes, it was shown through the view of piper at a time when she was scared, had no idea what was going on, and was in the middle of a major emotional/mental breakdown.

The audience was supposed to feel her fear and confusion, and I think the show did a really good job of portraying that, she was terrified.

In terms of sympathetic stereotype-breaking male characters the husband of the inmate with the baby (I forget names) I thought was done wonderfully with very little screen time.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I can't dig it all out on my phone, but if nobody's done it by the time I have time, I'll collate a few links.

Even just starting with "pay gap controlled variables" gets some good papers. There's at least one on my first page that also covers how currently-coded "feminine jobs" (nursing, teaching, caring, cleaning) tend to be paid less, and how the "femininity" itself drives wages down.

Litechick - as a really broad brush, yes. First wave: rights to vote, legally be a whole person, etc. Second wave: fight to not have to fit traditionally-feminine gender role, be seen as the same as a man. Third-wave: fight to be seen as equal whether you adopt traditional roles or not. There's also a greater push for intersectionality, where it's taken as given that (for example) black women will face issues that white women won't, because it's impossible to totally separate racial discrimination from gender discrimination. Similarly, white feminists need to be aware of their own racism when dealing with things (and apply the same idea to ableism, and trans phobia, and so on).

[karaddin]

One of the problems with examining just financial services (as opposed to all employment everywhere) is that title alone covers a lot of very different jobs, from bank teller down at the local Westpac to an accountant for the city council.

It's why I like to look at the raw data rather than just the compiled findings, as many surveys would and do in fact compare the lady that works the til down the road to the guy who manages the accounts for Rupert Murdoch. It's the same thing in construction and mining, the office people often have their wages compared to the labourers on the ground.

Yes because women aren't meritorious enough to get promoted so are stuck as bank tellers and secretaries while the men do the heavy lifting of the financial services industry. The lack of promotion for women is part of the fucking problem, women in this industry were getting ~65% of what a man gets, it wasn't a minor gap and it was bigger than even in the "dangerous" "male" industries of mining and whatever else you want to call that.

[Lily Valley]

Kara, the wage gap in the US is about SAME JOB SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AND SAME TITLE. Never no mind the unfairness about promotion. It's about 2 branch managers where one makes 100,000 and the other makes 60-70K. I don't have time for this right now, but the many lawsuits are out there.

[Lyanna Stark]

*Note* I'm not asserting that sexism does not play any role. But as I said above, even if these male employers are sexist, it is their right to refuse your price--as a male, female, black, white, Hispanic, religious devotee , atheist, etc.--as an extension of their propriety or proxy.

Just a note, and I rewrote this several times on account of being too fucking rude since I have not had my first cup of coffee yet: libertarian discussions belong in the politics thread. Not here. Please with sugar on top take it to the politics thread.

Atlas can shrug somewhere else.

Regarding the wage gap, would be great if some industrious individual can dig out the appropriate articles and we can just pin them in the first post for future reference. Thank you with extra sugar on top. I promise to come back later after I've wrestled my servers into submission (I wish) and post coffee consumption in a better frame of mind.

[karaddin]

Kara, the wage gap in the US is about SAME JOB SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AND SAME TITLE. Never no mind the unfairness about promotion. It's about 2 branch managers where one makes 100,000 and the other makes 60-70K. I don't have time for this right now, but the many lawsuits are out there.

Yeah it wasn't comparable and I didn't expect anyone to actually respond to that part. It just amuses me that they are the worst here. It could actually be the same though for all I know, it's almost 18 months since that study came out and I don't remember the particulars, if it is that's just even worse.

[Shryke]

Just a note, and I rewrote this several times on account of being too fucking rude since I have not had my first cup of coffee yet: libertarian discussions belong in the politics thread. Not here. Please with sugar on top take it to the politics thread.

Hey, don't pawn your trolls off on us!

[karaddin]

Hey, don't pawn your trolls off on us!

Well she didn't say US Politics, most correctly it would belong in a political philosophy thread :p