Feminism - Frightbats Galore!

[Lyanna Stark]

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

Well sorry Shryke, I just know you normally deal appropriately with your shrugging Atlases of the libertarian bent over in the US politics thread. :p

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

Why don't the libertarians start a thread about libertarianism where they can compare philosophies and Ayn Rand posters or something? Seems a good idea to me!

It certainly seems a more intuitive place to state with certainty that it's the employer's right to discriminate against women than the feminism thread. Just sayin.

[karaddin]

Didn't you get the memo Lyanna? Corporations are people now, women aren't :p (shamelessly stolen from a Jezebel headline that was probably stolen from somewhere else).

[Lily Valley]

Hey now. I was just reposting SCOTUS. I will take that bag, Lyanna. It's midterm and it might be a few days.

[Lyanna Stark]

Didn't you get the memo Lyanna? Corporations are people now, women aren't :P (shamelessly stolen from a Jezebel headline that was probably stolen from somewhere else).

Hey now. I was just reposting SCOTUS. I will take that bag, Lyanna. It's midterm and it might be a few days.

Yes I saw that apparently women are lower on the ladder of personhood than corporations in the US of A. Can that really stand forever? It seems like a decision that could face some serious backlash and actually bring women to the proverbial barricades to fight for reproductive freedom. Or did the time for political protest stop in the 1970s?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Hey now. I was just reposting SCOTUS. I will take that bag, Lyanna. It's midterm and it might be a few days.

I may well be wrong, but I think Lyanna was referring to Athias's position that a company's right to discriminate trumps her right to be treated as an equal human being, rather than the SCOTUS/Hobby Lobby/Notorious RBG fallout.

[karaddin]

Yeah, pretty sure Lyanna was echoing my plea for no more derails from that particular point of view, not addressing you Lily.

[Shryke]

Yes I saw that apparently women are lower on the ladder of personhood than corporations in the US of A. Can that really stand forever? It seems like a decision that could face some serious backlash and actually bring women to the proverbial barricades to fight for reproductive freedom. Or did the time for political protest stop in the 1970s?

The women are already at the barricades, so to speak. They and minorities are what wins the Democrats elections.

It's just not enough, especially with pre-existing entrenched power structures at work like the SCOTUS.

[Lily Valley]

Double Ouch. I can promise you that down here, we're still working. There's a reason I talk to people on the internet.

+++AWKWARD HUMOR+++

Apologies. Going back to paper shuffling.

[Lyanna Stark]

The women are already at the barricades, so to speak. They and minorities are what wins the Democrats elections.

It's just not enough, especially with pre-existing entrenched power structures at work like the SCOTUS.

Figures. I just wondered if this sort of decision can actually stand for long? Over here it would be a political decision, not something for a court to decide. Or at least it would end up being a political decision fairly soon.

Double Ouch. I can promise you that down here, we're still working. There's a reason I talk to people on the internet.

+++AWKWARD HUMOR+++

Apologies. Going back to paper shuffling.

Don't worry Lily, you can have some of my coffee. :grouphug: I'm having a pretty rough day at work myself.

[Galactus]

I'm sort of getting the distinctio6ns 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.

Not *quite* true. The Second Wave also had a bunch of essentialism, attempts to find a historical female-centric historical society, etc. It's more complex.

Time is probably the best: "First Wave" is late 19th century to roughly the 1930's. "Second Wave" really gets going in the late 50's/early 60's and ends sometime in the 80's, etc.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

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?

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.

Because you were polite, I will respond in kind. Yes, women are entitled to, at worst, inexpensive childcare and in my opinion, it should be free. We have to look into raw numbers if my views are to hold any weight, but I can support them.

Married mothers enjoy a disproportionate amount of income in comparison to their single counterparts. In 2012, single mothers made just under $26,000 on average while married women enjoyed a family income of just over $81,000.

Meanwhile, the average costs of a day care alone are just under $12,000 and the child hasn't even eaten yet off of that $26,000 or even been clothed. Does that not scream problematic to you?

An article I read recently goes a lot more into detail on the subject, for those of y'all that are curious.

The cost of child care fees for two children exceeded housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage in 20 states.

Child care fees for two children in a child care center exceeded annual median rent payments in every state.

The annual average cost for an infant in center-based care was higher than a years tuition and fees at a four-year public college.

That's outrageous. When you combine this with the fact that 24% of families are headed by single mothers, as opposed to 4% by single fathers, you get a good picture of while I feel there is blatant sexism going on. And we're not even controlling for race yet, where the number really start to stick out like a sore thumb.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

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?

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.

Because you were polite, I will respond in kind. Yes, women are entitled to, at worst, inexpensive childcare and in my opinion, it should be free. We have to look into raw numbers if my views are to hold any weight, but I can support them.

Married mothers enjoy a disproportionate amount of income in comparison to their single counterparts. In 2012, single mothers made just under $26,000 on average while married women enjoyed a family income of just over $81,000.

Meanwhile, the average costs of a day care alone are just under $12,000 and the child hasn't even eaten yet off of that $26,000 or even been clothed. Does that not scream problematic to you?

An article I read recently goes a lot more into detail on the subject, for those of y'all that are curious.

The cost of child care fees for two children exceeded housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage in 20 states.

Child care fees for two children in a child care center exceeded annual median rent payments in every state.

The annual average cost for an infant in center-based care was higher than a years tuition and fees at a four-year public college.

That's outrageous. When you combine this with the fact that 24% of families are headed by single mothers, as opposed to 4% by single fathers, you get a good picture of while I feel there is blatant sexism going on. And we're not even controlling for race yet, where the number really start to stick out like a sore thumb.

[Theda Baratheon]

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.

I can have a look at journals and books available to me through my University, and pile up some studies and articles later on.

[LongRider]

I just stumbled across these threads and WOW! I'm so glad to see them! Lotsa catching up to do.

I'm in the USA and reeling over the US Supreme Courts decision to allow companies to discriminate against women to provide health care in the form of contraceptives, based on their religious beliefs.

Here it's official>>>corporations have more rights than women.

Next up, denying the HPV vaccine.

:tantrum:

[Robin Of House Hill]

I'm waiting for someone to utter, "not all corporations".

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Not all corporations.

[LongRider]

The ruling was for "closely held" corps. a-hahahahahaha!!

Now there's a slippery slope.

:stunned:

ETA: the company I work for is "closely held" and I see a quote somewhere else saying "Business reports from the NYT estimate that 90% of US companies are "Closely held."

Haven't verified the quote tho.

[Athias]

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.

People discriminate all the time in various contexts. It can be based on sexual preference, personality, appearance, intellect, talent, so forth and so on. Why should the workplace in particular void one's discretion in making a discrimination--even if it's unfavorable to women?

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.

I was once told that individualism is not inconsistent with feminism. Though, I did argue against it. My "purpose" in this thread is to make a point, not to derail any conversations about feminism. In fact, I did not mention feminism at all. (If I had a desire to criticize feminism, I would have.) Your mentioning that I'm derailing this thread--which to my knowledge, I have not violated your stipulations--out of some "ultra individualist" view, is, in fact, a "derailment" since it has nothing to do with purpose or the context of my statement. I would create my own thread, but my participation in this forum is rather infrequent. It would be a waste of both my time and possibly of any prospective participant. So, responding to posts seems to be the only feasible option for me. And I DID respond to a post, if you care to peruse my history in this thread.

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.

That's not what I said. As far as it concerns the employer's participation in the trade that we know as employment, the terms to which he is willing to partake is at his whim. Similarly, the terms to which I decide to partake in this trade should also be at my whim. If we can't not decide on terms that would serve a mutual benefit, then we are both, obviously, free to seek to effectuate our terms elsewhere.

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.

I've never read "Atlas Shrugged." I imagine that there are many things with which Ayn Rand and I agree. Nevertheless, I don't see what Ayn Rand's works have to do with my participation in this thread. I wouldn't presume to characterize this discussion as libertarian, especially on my part. If you have a rebuttal or a counterargument, then please share, Lyanna. If you seek to end my participation because my views do not sparkle with you, then you're out of luck. If you have a problem, let that dictate your participation -- not mine.

As for information regarding the wage gap, here's a study that I read a while back concerning the issue:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Because you were polite, I will respond in kind. Yes, women are entitled to, at worst, inexpensive childcare and in my opinion, it should be free. We have to look into raw numbers if my views are to hold any weight, but I can support them.

Married mothers enjoy a disproportionate amount of income in comparison to their single counterparts. In 2012, single mothers made just under $26,000 on average while married women enjoyed a family income of just over $81,000.

Meanwhile, the average costs of a day care alone are just under $12,000 and the child hasn't even eaten yet off of that $26,000 or even been clothed. Does that not scream problematic to you?

An article I read recently goes a lot more into detail on the subject, for those of y'all that are curious.

That's outrageous. When you combine this with the fact that 24% of families are headed by single mothers, as opposed to 4% by single fathers, you get a good picture of while I feel there is blatant sexism going on. And we're not even controlling for race yet, where the number really start to stick out like a sore thumb.

It is problematic from a parent's perspective, I suppose. But why does the increase costs in child care inform a right to inexpensive/free care? That is, why does the parent have a claim at the expense of the vendor selling the goods and services? Unless by free, you mean coverage by taxation -- in which case it would not be free/inexpensive. It would just be a diversion of financial obligation.

[sologdin]

people discriminate all the time in various contexts.

sure. why should competition on the labor market be burdened with irrational discrimination such as animus based on sex, as opposed to rational discrimination, such as selection based on bona fide occupational credentials? does not the former impede market efficiency, whereas the latter enhances it?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just so we are all clear, the Scotus explicitly declined to reach the constitutional question in Hobby Lobby. The majority based its opinion on a reading of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and found it trumped the ACA mandate in the case of "closely held corporations" (whatever the hell that means). So this case can in theory be nullified by congress passing a law that changes the Rfra. So this is explicitly not a statement of constitutional rights, it is a statement of which statute trumps (not to say I think they reached the correct answer - haven't digested the opinions enough).