When did feminism go completely crazy?

[Narz]

Yeah I saw that and started typing a response and then I thought, hmm, what can I say really? Speaks for itself.

His strategy makes sense in the Internet world of picking apart arguments. He assumes the less he says the harder it will be to pick it apart. But alas, his assumptions, as usual are wrong.

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't find speaking out against men sexist

Hahahaha, we're done.

Are women supposed to preface general critiques with specific numbers if they're critiquing rape culture or street harassment? That seems a bit ridiculous. Again, I think the thing is... these are general complaints, about men, in a male-dominated society. I don't expect that I or any other man should go unscathed, nor do I take something personally as long as I feel I am not contributing to it.

If someone says "men are bad because they do (insert thing here)" and I am a man, why wouldn't I take it personally?

 

[NovaKart]

If you guys can read that ridiculous caveat about what they need to do to make the numbers line up without lolling then idk what to say!

It really speaks for itself.

How is it ridiculous? You just assume any wage gap is solely to do with sexism even when presented with evidence to the contrary?

 

[Senethro]

Why aren't there more female MMA fighters? Is it sexism? Or maybe women are smart enough not to want to get their heads bashed in for our amusement. Who are you to force women into politics?

This is my favorite bit - when the critics of feminism try to explain statistics using their extensive knowledge of the behaviour of the human feeeeeemale.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

If you guys can read that ridiculous caveat about what they need to do to make the numbers line up without lolling then idk what to say!

It really speaks for itself.

I'm not sure you understand how science and research actually work. That "ridiculous caveat" isn't what they need to do to make the numbers line up, it what they HAVE to do if the number they arrive at is to mean anything. If you are trying to make a comparison, you have to control for variables to make sure it's an apples to apples comparison, or your results are completely meaningless. This is basic, basic academic and intellectual honesty.

 

[Narz]

If you guys can read that ridiculous caveat about what they need to do to make the numbers line up without lolling then idk what to say!

It really speaks for itself.

You simply don't understand the depth of what you're arguing about.

How many women are ambitious in the workplace to the point of dying from overwork? Do you not believe women should have the right to work as much or as little as they please? To raise families if they want to? If women were really paid less for equal work the thrifty corporation would fire all the men & replace them with equally competent women & keep the profit.

 

[caketastydelish]

As for the wage gap I believe it partially is accurate, partially isn't. The part that isn't is that men are simply working more amount of hours than women on average. If the average man works more hours, of course he's going to end up with more money.

That part of it that is actually sexism though, is that men are more likely to get the good positions and jobs. Men are more likely to be promoted (see the complete lack of women in running fortune 500 companies as an example).

If I recall with all of this in mind the real wage gap is more like 83 cents to the dollar rather than 77. Which is to say it still is a definite problem, but not to the degree feminists make it out to be.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not sure you understand how science and research actually work. That "ridiculous caveat" isn't what they need to do to make the numbers line up, it what they HAVE to do if the number they arrive at is to mean anything. If you are trying to make a comparison, you have to control for variables to make sure it's an apples to apples comparison, or your results are completely meaningless. This is basic, basic academic and intellectual honesty.

Those are variables they shouldn't control for because they are most definitely relevant to a proper investigation of different outcomes based on gender.

 

[Narz]

This is my favorite bit - when the critics of feminism try to explain statistics using their extensive knowledge of the behaviour of the human feeeeeemale.

Don't throw feminism under the bus, I'm trying to point out your idiocy. Most intelligent feminists have moved on from the workplace inequality issue which is a thing of the past.

Again, you are treating women as if they have no rights to choose their own paths. That the world won't be perfect until women are 50% of politicians, plumbers, garbage men (garbage persons) and coal miners.

Arguing with you is a waste, I'll leave it to someone with more free time.

 

[caketastydelish]

Men are actually much more likely to get promoted to manager in just about any company. Don't you think that's troubling?

edit: this is relevant to what I've been saying on the wage gap matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsB1e-1BB4Y

edit: upon re-watching the video it's 83 cents to the dollar, not 88. My mistake for remembering wrong.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Those are variables they shouldn't control for because they are most definitely relevant to a proper investigation of different outcomes based on gender.

They might be relevant in a bigger picture sense. Nobody is arguing that their math is wrong. If you want to have a larger conversation about why women are so much less likely to accept dangerous jobs like coal mining or crab fishing that pay more, that's fine. If you want to talk about the social pressures that cause women to more often major in areas that command lower salaries post-graduation, that's an important conversation to have.

But the context that this "77 cents on the dollar" statistic comes up in most is not that. The wording often used is "Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the same work." This claim is demonstrably false, and those who continue to trot it out for this purpose are incredibly intellectually lazy.

And, more germaine to this specific thread, countering the evidence that this claim has been debunked by just saying "lol" is not a compelling argument against it.

 

[NovaKart]

Those are variables they shouldn't control for because they are most definitely relevant to a proper investigation of different outcomes based on gender.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Researchers shouldn't control for variables? Why? Because they should automatically assume sexism?

 

[Senethro]

You simply don't understand the depth of what you're arguing about.

How many women are ambitious in the workplace to the point of dying from overwork? Do you not believe women should have the right to work as much or as little as they please? To raise families if they want to?

Please tell me in what decades in USA/UK/Australia that rigid social roles became less significant than a womans personal choice.

We started from obviously sexist societies, we can't be sure what a non-sexist society would look like, so it seems a bit much to claim that it is already here and that individuals truly are not constrained by culture.

If women were really paid less for equal work the thrifty corporation would fire all the men & replace them with equally competent women & keep the profit.

Competition and the free market did a really great job at eliminating racism!

 

[caketastydelish]

They might be relevant in a bigger picture sense. Nobody is arguing that their math is wrong. If you want to have a larger conversation about why women are so much less likely to accept dangerous jobs like coal mining or crab fishing that pay more, that's fine. If you want to talk about the social pressures that cause women to more often major in areas that command lower salaries post-graduation, that's an important conversation to have.

But the context that this "77 cents on the dollar" statistic comes up in most is not that. The wording often used is "Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the same work." This claim is demonstrably false, and those who continue to trot it out for this purpose are incredibly intellectually lazy.

Women are more likely to be nurses (a good paying job), librarians (also a surprisingly good paying job), etc. You have some number of jobs that overwhelmingly favor males and some that overwhelmingly females. But the problem is the "gender neutral" jobs almost all have male managers.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Women are more likely to be nurses (a good paying job), librarians (also a surprisingly good paying job), etc. You have some number of jobs that overwhelmingly favor males and some that overwhelmingly females. But the problem is the "gender neutral" jobs almost all have male managers.

That may be true, but I don't think it's overt sexism, if anything I think it's likely to be a cultural problem similar to the differences in college major. For example, one of the variables that the 77 cents on the dollar figure failed to control for is that men are overwhelmingly more likely to negotiate themselves a better salary, while women are more likely to simply accept the first offer without negotiation. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the same personality traits (which can be heavily influenced by cultural norms) that make men more likely to negotiate salaries also makes them more likely to aggressively put themselves forward for promotion. Which is a legitimate gender issue. But one that is cultural, which means it's wrong to then jump straight to "corporations are sexist".

 

[NovaKart]

I've heard the 77 cents on the dollar figure since the 1980s. Is there a more recent example? Interestingly, I read an article recently that lesbians typically make more money than straight women.

 

[Narz]

Men are actually much more likely to get promoted to manager in just about any company. Don't you think that's troubling?

Depends on how many women actually applied to be a manager. Being a manager is not all glamour & glory, responsibility is a pain. Society tells us we should all try to be chiefs & not indians but in reality we cannot all be nor should we all want to be. I'm ambitious in my own way but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be manager in most of my jobs.

Men are often totally identified with work & making money (often to win the affections of women or because men are more obsessed with status generally) whereas women often have rich lives outside of work & aren't as single-mindedly driven in that regard. Probably a healthier outlook tbh.

 

[caketastydelish]

That may be true, but I don't think it's overt sexism, if anything I think it's likely to be a cultural problem similar to the differences in college major.

Men who major in engineering or Computer Science are not going to be managers because their specific skills for those tasks get wasted being a manager. Humanities subjects help develop critical thinking skills and articulate talking/writing points, which is what managers actually need. As far as college major ratio is concerned, it should if anything be the other way around.

For example, one of the variables that the 77 cents on the dollar figure failed to control for is that men are overwhelmingly more likely to negotiate themselves a better salary, while women are more likely to simply accept the first offer without negotiation.

How do you know this?

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the same personality traits (which can be heavily influenced by cultural norms) that make men more likely to negotiate salaries also makes them more likely to aggressively put themselves forward for promotion.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's a problem that needs fixing.

 

[Senethro]

Depends on how many women actually applied to be a manager. Being a manager is not all glamour & glory, responsibility is a pain. Society tells us we should all try to be chiefs & not indians but in reality we cannot all be nor should we all want to be. I'm ambitious in my own way but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be manager in most of my jobs.

Men are often totally identified with work & making money (often to win the affections of women or because men are more obsessed with status generally) whereas women often have rich lives outside of work & aren't as single-mindedly driven in that regard. Probably a healthier outlook tbh.

More antiquated stereotypes than in an Evo Psych class.

 

[jackelgull]

That may be true, but I don't think it's overt sexism, if anything I think it's likely to be a cultural problem similar to the differences in college major. For example, one of the variables that the 77 cents on the dollar figure failed to control for is that men are overwhelmingly more likely to negotiate themselves a better salary, while women are more likely to simply accept the first offer without negotiation. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the same personality traits (which can be heavily influenced by cultural norms) that make men more likely to negotiate salaries also makes them more likely to aggressively put themselves forward for promotion. Which is a legitimate gender issue. But one that is cultural, which means it's wrong to then jump straight to "corporations are sexist".

No the 77 to one dollar gap came from a wonky method of comparing salaries. Basically teachers and librarians were being lumped in with doctors and lawyers when comparing salaries. In a truly apples to apples comparison, the wage gap seems to be 94 cents to a dollar. Also I don't think women operate differently from men when negotiating salaries. Still the advancement rate for females who are willing to work the hours is distressingly low.