Mr_Odwin Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 There's a lot of evidence for the gender pay gap (in the UK at least) on the Office for National Statistics website. Here's one piece on it.
Diageo Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/ This might be a decent starting point for people who want to learn more/find out how much they really know about this Anyone else find this site incredibly annoying to navigate?
MoogleViper Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Is women getting paid less actually true? I mean on a per hour basis. If so I'd like to see some recent evidence of it, rather than people just saying it. I always see this come up and as far as my research goes it simply isn't true. Men just work more overtime and take less leave(for various reasons, not because I am insulting women). No they don't get paid less. Yes there's a pay gap, but it's not because women get paid less. On of the main reasons for it is that women have children, so there' a period of about a year where they aren't working and moving up the ladder (generally speaking, they can't be discriminated against, but it's hard to get promoted when you're not there, although my sister-in-law did get promoted while she was on maternity). There's also the fact that many women neglect their careers once they have children (such as staying home or working part time during school hours). The pay gap is about 11% between men and women. However if you take the pay gap for men and women under 30, then it's about 1%. Hardly much of a gap. There's also a pay gap between single men and married men, but that doesn't make for as good headlines as sexism/feminism. There are plenty of pay gaps, including race. But it generally isn't due to sexism/racism/xenophobia etc. For example you complain that women get paid less, you are a feminist fighting for equality, but you complain that jews get paid more (which is true), you get called an anti-semite.
Diageo Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I've read that women are more likely to take jobs that pay less if they are more fulfilling and are what they want to do in life, whereas men prefer to take the money. Women earn less, but I don't think they get paid less.
heroicjanitor Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 There's a lot of evidence for the gender pay gap (in the UK at least) on the Office for National Statistics website. Here's one piece on it. This is what I mean, they take into account yearly earnings or average hourly earnings all the time, but if men work more overtime it is only natural for them to A) earn more yearly and B) earn slightly more per hour on average ( due to the higher earnings in working overtime). From your link I found this too part-time women earn more than part-time men in larger firms (500 or more employees), where the hourly pay is £7.39 for women and £7.05 for men, resulting in a gender pay gap of –4.8 per cent (a negative pay gap indicates that women earn more than men). which furthers my point that in a career environment men put more in and get more back, but it isn't necessarily true for part-time environments. Anyone else find this site incredibly annoying to navigate? Yeah and it was really fucking pretentious too. You are here most likely because you are an idiot. The smart feminists have no time to explain to idiots. Therefore we made this site. You must follow a trillion links and on each page you will be spoken down to. If you come out the other side you are worthy of reading our faq. For anyone wanting the faq it is here: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/
Yvonne Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I'd like to see a citation on those overtime figures, in my industry there isn't a difference. Also the reason it's called glass ceiling is because the inequality gets worse the further up the chain you get (or don't get, as the case may be). If you've spent any time on feminist blogs or anywhere with comment spaces, you will pretty quickly get a snapshot of the kind of troll posts (frequently from dudes from game forums ) they get flooded with. It's no wonder they start with low expectations from visitors! The main thing I want people to take away from the resources I've posted in this thread is that feminists are not the enemy of men. The gender equality movement's purpose is to get us to stop hurting each other and ourselves, and to discover mutual respect, so we can all have better lives. Sometimes that means checking your assumptions, analysing your own privileges, and doing some active research
heroicjanitor Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I'd like to see a citation on those overtime figures, in my industry there isn't a difference. Also the reason it's called glass ceiling is because the inequality gets worse the further up the chain you get (or don't get, as the case may be). If you've spent any time on feminist blogs or anywhere with comment spaces, you will pretty quickly get a snapshot of the kind of troll posts (frequently from dudes from game forums ) they get flooded with. It's no wonder they start with low expectations from visitors! The main thing I want people to take away from the resources I've posted in this thread is that feminists are not the enemy of men. The gender equality movement's purpose is to get us to stop hurting each other and ourselves, and to discover mutual respect, so we can all have better lives. Sometimes that means checking your assumptions, analysing your own privileges, and doing some active research The point is you believe what you are told without researching it in either case. Calling their figures into question isn't being sexist, feminists need to challenge their viewpoints too. Blindly believing either side doesn't help anyone. The difference in overtime is in Odwin's link btw. The preferred method is to use hourly earnings excluding overtime for full-time employees. Including overtime can skew the results because men work relatively more overtime than women. Including part-time employees could have a similar effect because women make up a much bigger proportion of part-time employees than men and there is a large difference in hourly rates between full-time and parttime employees. Additionally, using weekly earnings would not take into account that women generally work fewer hours in the working week than men They actually say that they exclude overtime in the calculations so that is that out the window. However before the age of 30 the pay is the same, and women get paid more between the ages of 22 and 29. Childbirth probably has a lot to do with this, especially since it just says full time employment and doesn't take into consideration the length of time in the job or the type of job. Also I do believe pay gaps need to be changed, I'd just like citations
EddieColeslaw Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 The main thing I want people to take away from the resources I've posted in this thread is that feminists are not the enemy of men. The gender equality movement's purpose is to get us to stop hurting each other and ourselves, and to discover mutual respect, so we can all have better lives. Sometimes that means checking your assumptions, analysing your own privileges, and doing some active research Then why is the word "feminism", and not "equalism"? (This is not a challenge, but asked out of genuine curiosity.) Hmm. From finallyfeminism101: This question implies that one must be either one or the other. People and philosophies are far more complicated than that. A feminist may also be both a humanist and an equalist. Isn't feminism a subset of equalism? That is, if you believe in equal rights for everyone, you already believe in equal rights for women. The special and distinct problem of misogyny both oppressing and directly harming women, pure and simple. Unless misogyny is directly addressed and acted against, general equalist activism will not be enough. ... After some more research, I found the term "equality feminism", which is "fundamentally at odds" with "difference feminism". I give up. Why does it have to be so complicated? Can't everyone just BE NICE to each other and have respect for ALL living things? Maybe I'm just not immersing myself into the finer details enough, or because I'm lucky enough to live in a time during which there isn't blatant oppression of women (e.g. the work of suffragettes, we have lady presidents now, etc.)? I think the main problem I have with the word "feminism" is that it excludes LGBT rights. EVERYONE should have equal rights and opportunities. We shouldn't just be fighting for women.
MoogleViper Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Then why is the word "feminism", and not "equalism"? (This is not a challenge, but asked out of genuine curiosity.) I agree with this. Not only is the word "feminism" sexist. But you can't claim you're fighting for equality if you're a feminist. You're fighting for women's rights to be equal to men's. You could claim to be fighting for gender equality, but that's implying that gender shoiuld be equal but other things shouldn't. What about racial equality? Women should have equal rights but black people shouldn't? Is that equality not as important?
ReZourceman Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I believe people with lumps on them deserve better rights than everyone else. I'm Cystist.
Yvonne Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Moogle I'm sure you're better than that gross oversimplification and series of logical leaps. Intersectionality is inevitable. There's proof in this very thread - we started on feminism, went to black and civil rights issues, and now are back at sexism. It's a network of oppression, and rarely do you find a feminist who is not also an advocate for civil rights, LGBTQI* positive, fat positive, pro disability rights etc. This is where it gets down to the personal level, and generalisation is impossible. I would pick feminist as the term most accurately describing myself but that's purely because it was my entry point into the world of anti-oppression ideology. I mean, look at your statement. Without meaning to, you've essentially erased the existence of black women by presenting the false dilemma of fighting either for women's rights or for black rights, as if the intersection of the two with their own unique issues did not exist. That's not to say that by declaring yourself feminist or as part of any number of anti oppression groups you are immune from mistakes or wrong headedness - the first wave feminists fighting for suffrage were still very racist and classist, and tackling homophobia wasn't exactly top of the list in the 60s. As soon as you reduce the world to mere dichotomies you sell yourself short and buy into the kind of tribal us vs them, zero sum game mentality that I see festering in this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality check out the section titled "Interlocking matrix of oppression", and bell hooks if you have time. Eddie - again, the mistake being made is that people are thinking about the taxonomy (i guess that's the right word?) as if it is a mutually exclusive thing. I am pro LGBTQI*, a feminist, pro civil rights, pro disability rights, fat positive and many other things. If you tell me you like pasta I don't respond by saying "oh, well why don't you like pork?"
heroicjanitor Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Feminism is far bigger though, you see so many resources poured into it as opposed to other equality movements. I'd prefer it to be spread out a bit more. For example (not feminism's fault I know, I'm just using it as an example of why feminism getting such a huge proportion of media attention may be bad) breast cancer. Breast cancer is far too exaggerated and gets way too much funding, with breast cancer sufferers getting better treatment/beds/nurses/doctors etc. They scare people with misleading statistics like "1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lives", based on the unrealistic assumption that no woman will die of any other disease before the age of 95. It obscures the reality, which is that about ten times as many women will die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer. Their screening consistently finds non life-threatening cancers as opposed to serious ones too, so they just support people who likely would have been fine anyway. I'm all for feminism, just try to keep it in proportion with everything else. I think you're the one with the "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
chairdriver Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) After some more research, I found the term "equality feminism", which is "fundamentally at odds" with "difference feminism". I give up. Why does it have to be so complicated? Can't everyone just BE NICE to each other and have respect for ALL living things? Maybe I'm just not immersing myself into the finer details enough, or because I'm lucky enough to live in a time during which there isn't blatant oppression of women (e.g. the work of suffragettes, we have lady presidents now, etc.)? [because some people can't really ignore/get over 3000 years of oppression very easily.] / People have differing reactions to things, different perspectives and different attitudes. Just do as you are, as a person. Do what feels right to you. But be responsible, politically and culturally. Challenge stuff that you think is wrong. Set an example. Be an atom in a molecule. Be ür hair. I believe in you. I think the main problem I have with the word "feminism" is that it excludes LGBT rights. EVERYONE should have equal rights and opportunities. We shouldn't just be fighting for women. I view LGBT rights as a subsection of feminism, actually. Bear in mind queer theory was borne from Judith Butler's perspectives on what it means to be a woman, and what it means to have a gender. Feminism is on the surface about pay gap, prostitution etc etc [boring pragmatic stuff that will be irrelevant when the revolution comes ], but at its core it's concerned with gender disparity. Edited July 14, 2011 by chairdriver
heroicjanitor Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Isn't it inevitable that a woman's right to choose will lead to an annihilation of the gay population though? :s I mean as soon as science makes it possible to tell the sexuality of a child, and change it, anyone religious will likely choose a straight child. Even emotionally parents would want a child to share their sexuality, especially since the decision will be subject to doctor-patient confidentiality. I amn't saying I don't like a woman's right to choose. I always feel like I have to leave a disclaimer down the bottom
Yvonne Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 w...what? Am going to need a moment to fully take in the wrongness of that post
heroicjanitor Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I don't agree with the sentiments in it! I just think it will happen. I'm in trouble amn't I I just have a low opinion of religious people.
chairdriver Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Don't underappreciate the cultural importance of the LGBT movement in the context of the history of the past half-century. It's one of the most immediate consequences of the general social liberation and cultural hyperaction of the past 50 years. [Also, notice that many of the most relevant modern artists have been gay ] I think as attitudes progress further, there will become a point where it will be a thing to do to design one of your kids to be gay, in a sort of nod to cultural memory. Also, I think by the point we have that technology overpopulation will be a legitimate concern, and the amount of gay children will actually increase (certainly in the middle and upper classes).
heroicjanitor Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 That is a possibility too, but populations in developed countries are actually decreasing, it is just immigration propping up the numbers. I hope you are right though. Suddenly being controversial... New to me. I mean you can say my post was "wrong" but I wasn't trying to express a mean viewpoint. Whenever someone makes a statement I try to think of a counter-example where it isn't the case.
Yvonne Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I'm not sure how abortion and religion came up (though that's not to say they aren't relevant), though I find they represent possibly the only cans of worms bigger than making the suggestion that people of all genders should be treated fairly. I feel a bit scattered so I will number my points and they might go back and forth a bit but bear with me. 1. The question of science ever being able to predict the sexuality of a person is a big if at best. There has been some research into it though, and I have heard the theory that as homosexuality is more prevalent in more dense populations (I think including various species of animals) that it could be partly a response to resource management - a gay organism could act as another ally to look after the species without adding more strain on resources through procreation. Citation needed again, will try to track this down (apologies for not having time so far to do any deep research per post). That's one possibility, which would mean in a way everyone has a "gay" design. Another possibility is a gay gene, but this flies in the face of evolutionary theory, unless there is something especially beneficial to the populations that gay organisms bring. This seems shaky, I don't see any advantages/disadvantages. The other possibility or rather factor that could contribute, is that upbringing and environment plays a part. Don't know any papers off the top of my head on this. 2. the suggested link between reproductive rights and eugenics - I think this is the part that upsets me the most, because this is the kind of argument anti-choice advocates love - the narrative that people who seek abortions are choosy selfish sinners. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it inadvertently demonises the extremely vulnerable population of pregnant women already struggling for their own autonomy against all kinds of political attacks, and I think it's really important not to fall into this trap. Currently in america there is a war on reproductive rights going on. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/07/number-of-day_13.html Over here it's catching on too - I believe there is legislation in the works to take the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Chip chip chip... 3. the assumption that people would want to eliminate homosexuality/the assumption that people would want to have sexuality in common with their children - not so much outrage here as just strong disagreement 4. the false dilemma posed between accepting homosexuality or protecting reproductive rights for women - this kind of choice is only ever going to be presented by the republican house to obama... 5. (previously) the false dilemma posed between saving breast cancer patients versus other patients. Massive slippery slope. When you start making comparisons like this where do you end? With the education money for a severely learning impaired child, you could heat X number of homes for old folk? If we unplugged the life support on this coma ward we could reduce the deficit? slip slip slip Also you could use your argument for prostate cancer too - I'm sure everyone here has heard of movember. And you know what, it's good that people are aware of these things and getting checked! A breast exam where a tumour is not found is NOT a wasted exam! If there is a gem like good access to cancer screenings (which is a massive privilege and only available in some countries) and other things aren't doing as well, that's not a viable criticism of feminism. That's showing it works! And that everything else could be so much better too. Feminism's gain is not anyone else's loss. Finally I'd like to say that we shouldn't get adversarial. What I am trying to fight is oppression and the attitudes it perpetuates, attitudes that in turn perpetuate oppression. There's a lot of work to do.
chairdriver Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 1. The question of science ever being able to predict the sexuality of a person is a big if at best. There has been some research into it though, and I have heard the theory that as homosexuality is more prevalent in more dense populations (I think including various species of animals) that it could be partly a response to resource management - a gay organism could act as another ally to look after the species without adding more strain on resources through procreation. Citation needed again, will try to track this down (apologies for not having time so far to do any deep research per post). That's one possibility, which would mean in a way everyone has a "gay" design. Another possibility is a gay gene, but this flies in the face of evolutionary theory, unless there is something especially beneficial to the populations that gay organisms bring. This seems shaky, I don't see any advantages/disadvantages. The other possibility or rather factor that could contribute, is that upbringing and environment plays a part. Don't know any papers off the top of my head on this. I find this really interesting. [i don't actually buy evolutionary arguments, in general. It's my one bastion of spirituality -- that there's more to existence than survival.]
Diageo Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) So many ideas in head. Holding back. Drunk. Fuck off about ur hair Chair.... Edited July 15, 2011 by Diageo Automerged Doublepost
jayseven Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 Diageo; make a new, interesting thread! Potential.
Diageo Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 Ideas relating to this thread. Not others. Although every time I make a thread people just want to argue with me specifically. I don't like to make threads. I created a tumblr. There I can voice myself and not have a flurry of "you evil bastard your kids will hate you". I haven't written anything in it yet though, Only made it today.
Recommended Posts