Why I Fight.

[Johnny Novgorod]

Not to sound inflammatory but... do you actually do anything or is fighting to you the same as posting about it online?

 

[Saetha]

The post he quoted asked:

Do you consider the pay gap, or the incidence of harassment and sexual assault to be of importance?

... which he entirely avoided answering.

I'm assuming he cares about these things a bit, like most pleasant people would, but just didn't think to answer.

Hey, sorry if you're not the one who really asked this question, but I just saw this quote and had to comment - the Pay Gap isn't actually a result of discrimination. Maybe four or five cents is (They haven't been able to figure it out) but for the most part it comes down the women choosing between their family and their career, and how that drags down the national average for women.

(Source:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 )

I'm also not sure I'd qualify sexual harassment and assault as a feminist issue, seeing as nearly half the victims of such crimes are men, but if the quote deals with sexual assault being a general issue, then... sorry again.

(Source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html )

Also sorry if you've seen this information before, but people need to start talking about it, the second one especially.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

However, it does piss me off, to no small degree, when someone tries to reduce a person's standing by claiming the opinion is less relevant because it came from a woman. I can only reply to such statements with: So what? What difference does it make if it came from a man, a woman or an invertebrate? Even if the statement annoys you because it goes against what YOU believe in, there's no reason to start being unreasonable and attacking their person. It's not how discourse works, and if that's how you're going to react to it, then you have no place in the public room.

Done by all sides everywhere.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why this "civilized" society keeps maintaining its old fashioned ideas of lesser worth because of gender?

Source?

Why women are treated like nothing more than "cum-dumpsters", to be taken advantage of and cast aside once you're done? That since they're "lesser beings", their feelings are not worth considering?

A source that isn't some dudebro asshole or some facetious person?



Look, yes. There are issues with women's rights. We all know that. The issue is that feminism (and other kinds of activism) has been taken over by radical tumblerites and like-minded folk, who think that people looking at women in revealing clothing are 'literally raping' her and who do not understand that "look, if you're going to go out alone, be mindful of your drinks" is meant to be sound advice, instead of victim blaming. They're the people who think that any voice who disagrees with them must be a women-hating piece of scum and should be silenced and shunned.

And you yourself are a victim of this as well, OP. As you said: you think you may look intimidating to women, women specifically. Either you're thinking they're weak-bodied pixies who need to be protected from possible threats, in which case you're clearly not accepting women to be equal to men, or that they somehow deserve the special treatment because of years of being oppressed by men, in which case you're not wanting anything egalitarian.

The Bureau of Labour Statistics also tracks earnings within job categories, rather than between them, and found a pay gap does exist [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf].

So, it really doesn't seem as if differences in employment trends between the sexes actually accounts for the pay gap. There's significant evidence that it exists within job categories, and in the same professions.

Just out of interested: the data doesn't seem to be normalised for working hours/experience/training. Can you find anywhere if it is or not?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

The point isn't whether it exists (pretty much all the authors agree it does) but why it exists. If you compare the salary of someone who works at McDonald's and someone who is a Petrochemical Engineer, even if they both work exactly 40 hours a week, there is going to be a significant "wage gap", but that doesn't mean the gap is morally wrong, unfair or the result of discrimination.

Likewise, as the articles and Dr. Farrell point out, the long-held use of the "wage gap" was to try and make the point of "women earn less money than men on average, therefore discrimination, sexism, patriarchy, etc.", when in fact numerous easily explainable and demonstrable factors show why and how the gap exists, and when factoring in the aforementioned reasons, any remaining effects that can be attributed (but almost never actually proven) to "discrimination" are, at best, extremely small.

Putting it down entirely to job differences seems just as reductionist as putting it down entirely to discrimination, doesn't it?

A pretty good read about differences in pay within occupations can be found here [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?_r=0]. More in-depth stuff is here [http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf].

The Bureau of Labour Statistics also tracks earnings within job categories, rather than between them, and found a pay gap does exist [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf].

So, it really doesn't seem as if differences in employment trends between the sexes actually accounts for the pay gap. There's significant evidence that it exists within job categories, and in the same professions.

Actually, Claudia Goldin's study (the 2rd link you posted and also the basis of the 1st article) pretty much explains it all:
"What, then, is the cause of the remaining pay gap? Quite simply the gap exists because hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous. That is, in many occupations earnings have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours. A flexible schedule often comes at a high price, particularly in the corporate, financial, and legal worlds."

Men, on average, work longer hours than women, are more willing to have an inflexible schedule, and they are also significantly less likely to switch to part-time work (or drop out all together) when children are born, no matter what occupation they are in (hopefully you can read this link, but if not several articles above also explain much of the same, including Dr. Farrell's speech).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296

So in other words, even when you attempt to compare two people in the same occupation, you're still not comparing apples to apples. A male lawyer who is willing to work 80 hours a week with an inflexible schedule will not only obviously make more overall than a female lawyer who only works 40 and wants a flexible schedule, he's more likely to get promoted faster and get raises as well, thus leading to more average earnings.

Now, one could argue that the fact that women are more likely to drop out of the workforce or go part-time is the result of sexism and women expecting to maintain "traditional roles", and that would be a very legit point, but that is very different than out and out discrimination.

 

[Silvanus]

Actually, Claudia Goldin's study (the 3rd link you posted and also the basis of the 2nd article) pretty much explains it all:
"What, then, is the cause of the remaining pay gap? Quite simply the gap exists because hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous. That is, in many occupations earnings have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours. A flexible schedule often comes at a high price, particularly in the corporate, financial, and legal worlds."

Men, on average, work longer hours than women, are more willing to have an inflexible schedule, and they are also significantly less likely to switch to part-time work (or drop out all together) when children are born, no matter what occupation they are in (hopefully you can read this link, but if not several articles above also explain much of the same, including Dr. Farrell's speech).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296

So in other words, even when you attempt to compare two people in the same occupation, you're still not comparing apples to apples. A male lawyer who is willing to work 80 hours a week with an inflexible schedule will not only obviously make more overall than a female lawyer who only works 40 and wants a flexible schedule, he's more likely to get promoted faster and get raises as well, thus leading to more average earnings.

Now, one could argue that the fact that women are more likely to drop out of the workforce or go part-time is the result of sexism and women expecting to maintain "traditional roles", and that would be a very legit point, but that is very different than out and out discrimination.

It certainly looks like a factor, yes. It's notable, though, that while the wage gap is smaller for women who do not have children, it still exists [http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/orazem/anderson_motherhood-penalty.pdf]. There's a better source I had on that point a while ago, and I'll post it once I've found it again.

It often seems to me that people are willing to reach pretty far to believe a problem doesn't exist. I'm not accusing you of this; I just feel it's generally the case with certain issues. We want to believe there's one thing fewer to worry about, when really, I find it rather difficult to think that differences in flexibility can account for the size and consistency of gap-- especially considering the attitudes people had in the very recent past regarding women in the workplace.

It seems tremendously unlikely to me that traditional, entrenched attitudes, which pervaded society on all levels just a few decades ago, have now all but disappeared.

 

[Directionless]

Snip

Actually I ran this past a friend of mine who is good with science and he said that when it comes to this stuff and how the brain works, atoms don't matter at all. It all comes down to chemical reactions. I'm just gonna post what he said.

We can control the reactions by sheer belief, based primarily on physical actions associated with the belief, what we eat, where we are, who is around us, and if you want to put things in your intense, deep nerve stimulation technologies, the last of which directly influences how parts of the brain perform.

You can argue that the inherent reactions in our brain will determine if we will react in chemistry-changing ways, and how we change that chemistry based on outside input, but that's chaos theory, and proving that will take considerable effort.

You cannot control the reactions with sheer belief. The point is that whatever thoughts you have are already the results of atomic reactions. There can be a perceived feedback loop, but if you think about it, even the actions taken to manipulate brain chemistry are already pre-determined by atomic attraction and subsequent reactions, by their very nature.

Sure, chaos theory comes into it. But it doesn't change the atomic reactions. It means they are not wholly predictable, but that doesnt change anything about this idea.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It certainly looks like a factor, yes. It's notable, though, that while the wage gap is smaller for women who do not have children, it still exists [http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/orazem/anderson_motherhood-penalty.pdf]. There's a better source I had on that point a while ago, and I'll post it once I've found it again.

I've actually heard the opposite: at least in their 20's, women without kids actually earn MORE (on average) than men without kids:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html

It often seems to me that people are willing to reach pretty far to believe a problem doesn't exist.

I honestly think the problem is the complete opposite: I think people are far too willing to believe anything they're told just so long as it matches up with their perception of "how the world is".

To give a perfect example, look at the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal (Wikipedia it if unfamiliar). In a nutshell, three white lacrosse players at Duke University (a very prestigious and "preppy" school) were accused of raping a poor black stripper. Immediately it dominated the airwaves, and many people had basically already decided long before any evidence came out that they were guilty. Why? Why no presumption of innocence in this particular case?

In my opinion, it's because those people wanted it to be true, because it so perfectly fit their perception of "how the world is". 3 rich, white, probably right-wing kids taking advantage of a poor black woman and thinking they'd get away with it thanks to them being rich and having "white male privilege"? You couldn't write propaganda this perfect if you tried.

So people wanted it to be true, and therefore they didn't bother to check facts or wait for evidence or anything, they just needed vindication to know that their worldview was correct. And to me, this is why people so often swallow anything they're told without bothering to check on it.

 

[Silvanus]

I've actually heard the opposite: at least in their 20's, women without kids actually earn MORE (on average) than men without kids:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html

Well, it's claim against claim. For what it's worth, that Farrell article seems pretty perfunctory, short, and uncited.

If I can find the source I had before, I'll edit and post it.

I honestly think the problem is the complete opposite: I think people are far too willing to believe anything they're told just so long as it matches up with their perception of "how the world is".

To give a perfect example, look at the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal (Wikipedia it if unfamiliar). In a nutshell, three white lacrosse players at Duke University (a very prestigious and "preppy" school) were accused of raping a poor black stripper. Immediately it dominated the airwaves, and many people had basically already decided long before any evidence came out that they were guilty. Why? Why no presumption of innocence in this particular case?

In my opinion, it's because those people wanted it to be true, because it so perfectly fit their perception of "how the world is". 3 rich, white, probably right-wing kids taking advantage of a poor black woman and thinking they'd get away with it thanks to them being rich and having "white male privilege"? You couldn't write propaganda this perfect if you tried.

So people wanted it to be true, and therefore they didn't bother to check facts or wait for evidence or anything, they just needed vindication to know that their worldview was correct. And to me, this is why people so often swallow anything they're told without bothering to check on it.

People almost always tend to assume guilt in publicised criminal proceedings; it's not unique to cases that fit that particular narrative.

People react in different ways, because these are different kinds of problem. If somebody has been arrested for a crime, and the papers are carrying descriptions of the crime alongside their face, many often assume guilt-- a major reason is that it's just one (or two, or a few) people at fault. If they are found guilty and charged, people feel that the problem is dealt with. Rage is assuaged and it's off their minds by the time it's all over.

Compare this with issues like the pay gap, or global warming. These cannot be solved by arresting a few perpetrators, because they are problems that society as a whole would have to deal with. They are too big, too difficult to get your head around, too ongoing.

That's when people start arguing that they don't exist at all. The common thread is that in both cases, many people opt to believe the most comfortable scenario: the crime was committed, but the perpetrator has been caught; the big issue, which cannot be dealt with quickly or easily, doesn't exist.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

SNIP

Farrell has written several books on the subject, recommended reading. I especially like him because, as I've noted, he's an ardent feminist (the only man in history elected to be the NOW President 3 times) and was once a true believer in the "wage gap".

Ok, to give another example(s): the anti-GMO movement, as well as the anti-vaccine movement. Despite the fact that there's barely a shred of evidence that GMO foods are worse for you than non-GMO foods, or that vaccines cause autism, people have jumped on the "GMOs and vaccines are bad" bandwagon like it's going out of style. Why?

In my opinion, because it fits their worldview. "GMOs and vaccines are made by corporations, and corporations are evil, therefore GMOs and vaccines must be evil", and thus people immediately subscribe to that belief without asking difficult questions or bothering to do any research.

 

[Silvanus]

Ok, to give another example(s): the anti-GMO movement, as well as the anti-vaccine movement. Despite the fact that there's barely a shred of evidence that GMO foods are worse for you than non-GMO foods, or that vaccines cause autism, people have jumped on the "GMOs and vaccines are bad" bandwagon like it's going out of style. Why?

That's a pretty interesting question, I'd agree.

I would think the difference is that those conspiracy theories put the government and/or companies at fault, rather than average people. Complaining is all that is necessary or manageable on their part. The idea that women and men are still not equal, on the other hand, would suggest there's something we need to do.

I can see where you're coming from, though.