Why You Will Never Get Equal Pay for Women

[warpus]

No I don't think they are at all. But then I don't argue that any difference between career paths chosen by men and women (on average) are a result of gender roles.

Some are, some aren't. In some professions it makes sense there to be domination by a particular gender. Cheerleaders are usually going to be female, it seems, while tough physical labour is better suited to men.

But why should HR only be staffed with female employees? That can't be conducive to a well functioning unit.

 

[Traitorfish]

Some are, some aren't. In some professions it makes sense there to be domination by a particular gender. Cheerleaders are usually going to be female, it seems, while tough physical labour is better suited to men.

I mean, that's not clearly a juxtaposition.

 

[warpus]

I mean, that's not clearly a juxtaposition.

Just two examples of jobs that tend to lean heavily towards one of the genders. Not sure why you think I needed to include two examples exactly on the opposite of the spectrum of each other? I'm not sure if that's even possible!

 

[Traitorfish]

The point is that high-level cheerleading is very physically intensive, and if we expect physically intensive jobs to be mostly filled by men, we would expect most high-level cheerleaders to be male. They're not, which suggests culture is a factor in what jobs its "makes sense" to treat as gendered.

 

[warpus]

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

I don't want to keep using the same examples, so what popped in my head were deep underground coal mining jobs. Those obviously don't exist anymore (or do they?) but I imagine such miners were usually men. Then I thought about it briefly and concluded that physically intense jobs are usually done by men, sporting activities excluded. Mind you I know even less about coal mining than I do about cheerleading, so maybe my examples are way off.

Can we just imagine I'm using good examples here? Let's do that!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But why should HR only be staffed with female employees? That can't be conducive to a well functioning unit.

I don't know. Is that actually the case or just a random example? Either way, I'd say it's a matter for HR departments and people interested in applying for HR roles to sort out between themselves. If there is an imbalance in favour of women then luckily this is in the direction that nobody actually cares about so they're unlikely to be interfered with.

Ironically, you actually are calling your typical knee-jerk defense of the status quo "basic logic" because you're just so immersed in your ideology that you can't even see it.

But I'm not defending the status quo. I'm saying that putting "what's the benefit to not changing things" as the primary question ahead of "what's the benefit of changing things" is silly. You're just assuming that putting effort into changing a system is somehow inherently beneficial without even bothering to examine if that's true. If I ask you to give some sort of reason as to why painting the Himalayas blue would be beneficial, before thinking it's reasonable to commit the massive amounts of time and resources into achieving that, that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of staunch defender of grey mountains, or having a knee-jerk reaction to defending the rock status quo. I'm just saying give a reason for wanting to change it. Beacuse that's how you go about logically defending the notion of wanting to change it. You don't just ask "well what's the benefit of NOT painting them blue?" as if that's some sort of zinger question. It's just daft.

For the record, I have never had any problem admitting I am 'immersed in ideology.' I have never, in the context of these discussions on feminism, claimed to be unbiased. You are the one who claims to be unbiased and non-ideological in approaching these questions

That's because the above genuinely is basic logial reasoning, and not knee-jerk defence of the status quo. You are labelling it incorrectly. Sorry.

Actually I said I do think there are benefits to having more female CEOs.

"Actually I said I do think there are benefits to having blue mountains [I'm just not going to say what they are and instead insist that you tell me what the benefits of not having blue mountains are]."

This whole line of logic is like a slaveowner saying "well, the slaves couldn't convince me that freeing them would yield any obvious benefit so I didn't free them."

Yes. Apart from the bit where you neglected to explain how having a smaller fraction of CEOs being women than men somehow equates to women, as a class, being enslaved. Which it doesn't. At all. This is just utter nonsense. How do you even justify saying something as asinine and meaningless as that? There's an obvious benefit, to the slaves, to freeing slaves. Where is the obvious benefit to women, as a group, to having a slightly larger tiny fraction of them be CEOs, as compared to the currently slightly smaller tiny fraction of them? Also, no "slaves" are even trying to convince me, it's just a bunch of men (who apparently aren't slaves, because a very slightly larger tiny fraction of them are CEOs, which makes all men "free").

Honestly... it's actually just really annoying that you would even try and pull that. You're the one advocating for change, so you justify the change. Don't demand people justify not changing things if you refuse to even demonstrate that there's a problem. And seriously don't compare them to supporters of slavery if they don't! Particularly when there's just no, and I mean no, parallel between "less than 50% of CEOs being female" and flipping slavery. You.... utterly annoying person. Stop it. Get some help.

 

[Ryika]

I don't want to keep using the same examples, so what popped in my head were deep underground coal mining jobs.

A bit of an off-topic fun-fact fiesta, but: The international labour organization states in the Underground work convention 45:

"No female, whatever her age, shall be employed on underground work in any mine."

Because of that, women in 98 states were not allowed to take part in these jobs. Of those 98, apparently 70 states still agree to follow that convention (that list might just not be maintained very well though).

In Germany, it was active until 2008 when the European Court of justice determined it to be a violation of equality laws.

So clearly, underground coal mining is dominated by men because of cultural factors. It was such an important issue to the people making the work conventions at that time that women should be protected from that kind of work, that it was made illegal to allow women to take part in that work, even if they wanted and fulfilled the physical requirements.

Not that it would really look too much differently if those laws hadn't been there.

 

[Lexicus]

But I'm not defending the status quo.

I'm just saying give a reason for wanting to change it.

You are defending the status quo. And the lengths you will go to deny that obvious fact are somewhat astonishing. You will argue something while simultaneously claiming you are not actually arguing it, all to maintain your pose of objectivity. No ideology here folks, just "basic reasoning."

If I ask you to give some sort of reason as to why painting the Himalayas blue would be beneficial, before thinking it's reasonable to commit the massive amounts of time and resources into achieving that, that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of staunch defender of grey mountains, or having a knee-jerk reaction to defending the rock status quo.

This metaphor is inapplicable because we're talking about an outcome in human society that is assuredly not "natural" the way that the Himalayas are naturally unpainted. Maintaining the status quo where 90+% of CEOs are men has various costs in terms of time and resources. But you don't see the status quo as something to be investigated or explained; you see it as something to be unquestioned and assumed to be natural, handed down by the ancestors or the gods or something.

"Actually I said I do think there are benefits to having blue mountains [I'm just not going to say what they are and instead insist that you tell me what the benefits of not having blue mountains are]."

Conversely, if I ask you a simple question you should just answer it instead of expressing multiple pages of indignation that I would dare ask it. I would say for rhetorical effect that I'm not really sure why you're getting yourself so worked up about the question, but I know the simple answer is that you're heavily invested -emotionally, intellectually, and probably other ways - in patriarchy (though of course you will indignantly deny this and probably insinuate that I am mentally ill for saying it).

I don't agree with your backwards logic, therefore I support slavery.

Yeah, this is not what I was saying at all. I understand that mention of slavery makes you really emotional but try reading it again, a little more carefully, and you'll see I didn't accuse you of supporting slavery. Rather, I simply accused you of totally ignoring the gendered power dynamics inherent in discussing the "benefits" of having more women in positions of power.

No... I'm just a horrible person for not accepting this as the massive human rights injustice that you're insisting it is for some reason.

I don't think it's a "massive human rights injustice," but it is an injustice and should not be trivialized.

 

[warpus]

So are men just able to survive longer in such conditions, or what? Or is it that most countries did not want to put the child bearing segment of their population at too much risk?

You're just assuming that putting effort into changing a system is somehow inherently beneficial without even bothering to examine if that's true.

Men and women are different. We have different biology and even different psychology. If you staff a position with all women or all men, especially in a role that directly affects other people to a great degree (teacher, manager, HR, etc.), your unit is going to be at a disadvantage, as it will be missing key points of view relevant to the human condition.

For instance if you only put men in charge of our schools, they will likely tailor education to revolve around the needs of males, ignoring the needs of the females. There is a lot of overlap there of course, as both men and women are human after all, but there are certain nuances there that you will be missing out on.

 

[Senethro]

So are men just able to survive longer in such conditions, or what? Or is it that most countries did not want to put the child bearing segment of their population at too much risk?

Depends on the decade and country. Heres a sort of starting point in UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_and_Collieries_Act_1842

And some speeches and testimonies gathered: https://web.archive.org/web/20110721022926/http://anglais.u-paris10.fr/spip.php?article88

A bit too worried about souls and moral degradation of women than welfare generally, but I guess thats inevitable in an era with no shortage of misery. https://web.archive.org/web/20110721022926/http://anglais.u-paris10.fr/spip.php?article88

Not that it would really look too much differently if those laws hadn't been there.

Hah!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Men and women are different. We have different biology and even different psychology. If you staff a position with all women or all men, especially in a role that directly affects other people to a great degree (teacher, manager, HR, etc.), your unit is going to be at a disadvantage, as it will be missing key points of view relevant to the human condition.

Not necessarily the case at all. All the people who empty my bins are male. I don't think having some women part of the crew would make the bin-emptying any more efficient. Most jobs are about getting something done, not reflecting a key point of view of the human condition. As long as the job gets done, it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman or an aardvark doing it.

Granted, emptying bins isn't one of the roles you said "especially" about, but... a CEO is there to run a company. That may involve managing people (probably indirectly), but only in as far as furthering the goals of the company. Again, it's in no way a given that broadening the represenation of the key points of view of the human condition is beneficial to this role. Particularly as any particular company can only have one person in this role anyway. So it's just going to come down to what that individual is like.

Maybe there are benefits to society as a whole to have a greater number of female CEOs, but I don't find this line of argument to be very convincing.

For instance if you only put men in charge of our schools, they will likely tailor education to revolve around the needs of males, ignoring the needs of the females. There is a lot of overlap there of course, as both men and women are human after all, but there are certain nuances there that you will be missing out on.

Well they'd be doing a very bad job if that were the case, because their role isn't to fulfil the educational needs of people with the same genitals as them, but to do that for all pupils. And again, any individual school is only going to have one person in charge, so are some schools going to be better for male students and some for female? Should all schools be single-sex, determined by the sex of the headmaster/mistress?

But in any case, headmasters/mistresses aren't CEOs, schools aren't companies, and students aren't employees. The point of a school is to look after and educate its students. That's not the role of most companies. The employees are there to fulfil a specific role and cater to the company, not the other way round as with schools.

I'm only talking this whole CEO thing, nothing more general.

 

[Senethro]

What gets me is this willful blindness, and inability to question why a society is the way it is. Just this incurious acceptance that the particular circumstances are entirely natural.

Like this cup of water poured into a hole in the ground to make a puddle. The puddle cannot conceive that it would be a different shape if poured into a different hole.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Better to be a puddle that takes it as read that the hole it's in is unfair, and cannot conceive of the idea that maybe it's just a hole.

Obviously only the puddles that want to change everything about the hole they're in are the ones who've really thought about things. They're the bestest puddles. All other puddles should listen to them, no matter how unwilling they are to actually explain why their holes are all wrong. Blindly listening to those puddles would be the true indicator of intelligent puddlehood.

 

[Senethro]

I dunno man, I think changing things has a pretty good recent track record just generally, and that women in leadership positions would improve decision making through gathering of diverse input and skillsets, provision of role models and mentors, and just maybe increase the status of women in society generally. (as others have basically already said tbh)

You're also a bit of a hypocrite for saying others are unwilling to explain stuff, because you are the man of no stated opinions. In a whole bunch of years I have never seen you state an affirmative opinion. Only that you disagree with and are against stuff. Sometimes people have fingered you for an anti-feminist and you've copped to this. I do hope just for your own sake that you do hold positions that aren't just reactions to things and that you're just somewhat anxious about stating them.

 

[Ryika]

I think changing things has a pretty good recent track record just generally

Has it really? I mean sure, changing things has brought women's position in society closer to men's position... but then at the same time, you have a steady decline of female happiness while all of these changes were happening. Maybe pushing women into the man's template isn't that much of a good idea.

Of course correlation does not imply causation. Maybe it's just coincidental that pushing women away from the things they naturally gravitate towards and telling them that they should do the things that you think they should do has nothing to do with that decline.

 

[Lexicus]

Has it really?

You claim to be female, right? Maybe we can go back to the days before spousal abuse and rape were considered legal problems. Maybe after the fourth or fifth time your husband/boyfriend that you have to rely on for financial support because no one will give you a job (because, you see, you don't "naturally gravitate" towards working for a living) beats the crap out of you and the police don't lift a finger to stop it, you will realize how idiotic you're being.

 

[Ryika]

You claim to be female, right? Maybe we can go back to the days before spousal abuse and rape were considered legal problems. Maybe after the fourth or fifth time your husband/boyfriend that you have to rely on for financial support because no one will give you a job (because, you see, you don't "naturally gravitate" towards working for a living) beats the crap out of you and the police don't lift a finger to stop it, you will realize how idiotic you're being.

If women in that time have, on average, felt happier than they do now, isn't that pretty scary to you?

Obviously I'm not arguing that we should go back to past injustices, but to argue that "changing things" has a good track record "just generally" just seems pretty questionable, given the situation. There are changes that are good, and there are changes that are not good, and any attempt to change something should be evaluated by its merits, not on some claim of a rather terrible track record.

 

[Senethro]

Maybe it's just coincidental that pushing women away from the things they naturally gravitate towards and telling them that they should do the things that you think they should do has nothing to do with that decline.

Probably worth its own thread if you've got a traditional womens roles manifesto handy.

 

[Lexicus]

If women in that time have, on average, felt happier than they do now, isn't that pretty scary to you?

It would be a little weird but since it's definitely not true there's nothing to worry about.

Obviously I'm not arguing that we should go back to past injustices, but to argue that "changing things" has a good track record "just generally" just seems pretty questionable, given the situation.

You're typing this on a computer in a secular liberal democracy. If you want to claim change is bad, put your money where your mouth is and go live in a cave, and stop bothering the rest of us.

 

[Senethro]

You're typing this on a computer in a secular liberal democracy. If you want to claim change is bad, put your money where your mouth is and go live in a cave, and stop bothering the rest of us.

Would it be possible to rephrase this as: You have the freedom within many of our societies to live by your beliefs and advocate for them to others. I mean, maybe some judgemental people would disapprove but noone is coming to force you to be a CEO and I don't much care so long as you aren't trying to restrict the freedoms of others.