|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said When manufacturing created new jobs, especially in the textile industry, men and women both worked those jobs. Women were paid less. Weavers are one of the few factory jobs that was almost exclusively done by women, most other factory jobs, even in the textile industry, employed male and female workers. Even more important for your argument is that non-farm menial labor and daylabor was almost exclusively a male job, and it payed even less than the textile work. If low value was the reason a job was considered "for women", (a) non-farm labor would have been considered a female occupation and (b) new jobs that were done by men and women would presumably have paid out equally. Instead women just get paid less, whatever their job, and regardless of whether the job is seen as stereotypically male or female.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Employers do rationally exploit the wage gap, though, and this isn't contingent on all women being paid 22% less in all occupations. The gap wouldn't exist if they didn't, but it's likely fewer women would be hired in such a situation and we would have a workforce participation problem instead. The issue at hand for feminists is gender imbalances in different occupational fields, not the existence of lower paying jobs (though that is worth looking into, as has been discussed on the previous page).
Ormi fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Do you really think that in a country of 300 million people, there is not enough employers who wouldn't have the intelligence to exploit that particular gap if it was there? The fact that one group of workers is cheaper than another is in many industries not a gap waiting to be exploited but rather understood as a sign that the cheaper group of workers is worse. It's at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy: Women are probably not very good at this job, therefore we should pay them less. We pay them less, therefore they're probably worth less. They're worth less, therefore they're probably not very good at this job. Evidence for any step of the argument comes in the form of the observation "most people working this job are male, therefore males are probably better suited to this job." It's not that these people are mouth-breathing idiots, the argument isn't even implausible on its face, it just happens to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:That's actually the opposite of what any stringing together of my posts would deduce I assume
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:They don't have to be mouth-breathing idiots for there to be a gap. They just have to value being sexist and various other qualities that have nothing to do with job performance (notoriously difficult to measure). Oh sure, I'm not debating the existence of the wage gap, I feel that would be incredibly foolish to do so. Mostly I'm thinking in terms of the degree of it and the gap being more reflected in the discouragement of women from participating in high paying jobs. Wouldn't the exploitation itself reflect in lower unemployment and higher percentage of participation in the labor market if it was 30% when everything else being equal, such as job choice? That's a withing breathing distance of getting labor at a 1/3rd discount, if I was an uncaring employer, my workforce would be almost totally women. Like I totally agree that people devalue "women's work" which is a ball of dog-poo poo, especially things that are often caregiver/educator roles (ones that are often more fundamentally important to a properly functioning society than many of the high paying jobs). I offer the perspective as that we should investigate how to end discouraging women from the higher paying jobs. OR To go from a funky angle, should men be encouraged into what are traditionally jobs that are considered "women's work". The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
If you control for everything the gap is ~5%, the majority of which comes from extremely high earning women who are less likely to negotiate than their peers. The women who are struggling to make ends meet are almost certainly making the same amount as their male peers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Women workers in every industry are more likely to choose jobs that offer greater flexibility in hours- probably as a result of the "double shift" that women are expect to work at home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If you control for everything the gap is ~5%, the majority of which comes from extremely high earning women who are less likely to negotiate than their peers. The women who are struggling to make ends meet are almost certainly making the same amount as their male peers. Where are you getting this figure from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
The rear end in a top hat of the internet, same as the other unsupported claims earlier in the thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The rear end in a top hat of the internet, same as the other unsupported claims earlier in the thread There are some articles that support some of it. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/ For a quick googling. It argues that job choice is the major component of the gap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Do you really think that in a country of 300 million people, there is not enough employers who wouldn't have the intelligence to exploit that particular gap if it was there? They don't have to be mouth-breathing idiots to hold prejudices. Sexism is still incredibly pervasive in our society, particularly among the older people who make up hiring managers and/or small business owners. E:f,b E2: Claverjoe posted:Wouldn't the exploitation itself reflect in lower unemployment and higher percentage of participation in the labor market if it was 30% when everything else being equal, such as job choice? Although why the gently caress do people keep bringing up the 30% rate when absolutely nobody ITT has claimed that as accurate? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They don't have to be mouth-breathing idiots to hold prejudices. Sexism is still incredibly pervasive in our society, particularly among the older people who make up hiring managers and/or small business owners. Yes, and those held prejudices would encourage them to only pay for women at a lower rate, I'm fine with that statement. Why would prejudice be stuck at the line of "never hire women, they aren't any good at working". Besides, my point was that the gap was largely about job choice, and the sexism behind that, not a 30% wage gap that is touted in most of the news articles I see. quote:Although why the gently caress do people keep bringing up the 30% rate when absolutely nobody ITT has claimed that as accurate? My apologies, I was going off the 72% value that is often repeated in the media. Would you like to offer a percentage value for a starting point of discussion? I have zero issue going with a different starting point. EDIT:To spell out where I'm coming from: I'm in agreement there is a wage gap, based largely in sexist attitudes, but that the origins are a bit more subtle than what is considered common wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Yes, and those held prejudices would encourage them to only pay for women at a lower rate, I'm fine with that statement. Why would prejudice be stuck at the line of "never hire women, they aren't any good at working". Where are you still seeing that percentage lately? Every single serious source I've read in the last decade all say it's somewhere in the mid single digits range, between 4-7%. The only places I ever see 30% in this day and age is on MRA blogs bitching about how it's not actually 30% because *shits pants uncontrollably*. Edit: To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm just confused as to who you're saying it too because almost every other poster here has already said the same things. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
botany wrote off the following interview because the interviewee wasn't self-righteous enough but actually it is pretty good and explains a lot of the subtle reasons for the gap, which people have been recently been talking about in the thread.Fansy posted:Short answer: it's complicated. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:22
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where are you still seeing that percentage lately? Every single serious source I've read in the last decade all say it's somewhere in the mid single digits range, between 4-7%. The only places I ever see 30% in this day and age is on MRA blogs bitching about how it's not actually 30% because *shits pants uncontrollably*. Pew determined the total gap, before looking at occupational structures and the like, at 16% in 2013.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where are you still seeing that percentage lately? Every single serious source I've read in the last decade all say it's somewhere in the mid single digits range, between 4-7%. The only places I ever see 30% in this day and age is on MRA blogs bitching about how it's not actually 30% because *shits pants uncontrollably*. Well, for examples of recent mainstream news articles I offer these two as examples: http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/18/news/gender-pay-gap/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-announce-new-rules-closing-gender-pay-gap-n506941 So, how serious should we take mainstream media is the question I suppose. I don't think it is particularly contentious that the general narrative is shaped by the media conglomerates, and to ignore it is to write off our understanding of how the wage gap is perceived in popular discourse. At the risk of appealing to in-group vanity, I'm perfectly happy to assume D&D is somewhat more informed, but not at the risk of not starting the discussion at the point that is presented by the popular media. EDIT: Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. That's nice, that forms a nice yin-yang with the people who would say the opposite. Your powers combined, you'll make sure no progress is made on either issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's nice, that forms a nice yin-yang with the people who would say the opposite. Your powers combined, you'll make sure no progress is made on either issue. What can I say, I'm a progressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. Good thing it's not a zero-sum game? Claverjoe posted:Well, for examples of recent mainstream news articles I offer these two as examples: Fair enough. I guess it just seemed like you were trying to seriously dispel a myth for the benefit of people who aren't even in this thread. But if that's not the case then I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Good thing it's not a zero-sum game? So, as a thought on the (I assume agreed upon) job choice issue, what do you think would help? Paternity leave that must be equally taken by both parents? I've seen arguments for it in articles like: (under argument 2) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/10/want-better-dads-happier-mums-and-healthier-kids-make-men-take-paternity-leave
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. First of all there's a lot of overlap between the victims of sexual or gender based discrimination and the victims of racial discrimination. Second of all, both these problems are aggravated by a lot of fanciful free market mythologizing -- some of which we've seen in this very thread -- which means that in many cases there is no reason to treat these problems in isolation, since they have some common causes. Finally, the historical record seems to suggest that building a sufficiently strong political coalition to challenge the status quo regarding either form of inequality is probably going to require combining several different demographics and convincing them that the best way to better their situations is by working together. If we look back at the limited but real successes of 20th century movements then it's clear that the experiences of the anti-segregation movements, the anti-war movements, womens lib and later gay rights all built upon and were strengthened by each other. I don't know what your particular intention is making that post but I find quite often these kinds of comments are used opportunistically to try and shut down any criticism of the status quo. "Oh how can you be talking about this issue when there's some other issue that you aren't addressing! First fix that issue!" There are some real problems with lefty or progressive groups focusing on one category of discrimination, such as gender or class, at the expense of others, such as race. It's a particularly big problem in America where race plays so deeply into every other form of politics. But, having acknowledged this, I don't think it follows that we have to choose between addressing racial discrimination rather than gender discrimination, because by far the most effective strategy is to try and fix both of them (and a number of class related issues as well) at the same time, by building effective grass roots and populist movements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't know what your particular intention is making that post but I find quite often these kinds of comments are used opportunistically to try and shut down any criticism of the status quo. "Oh how can you be talking about this issue when there's some other issue that you aren't addressing! First fix that issue!" Holy poo poo, this could be BernieBros.txt right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
It's a fairly generic lefty analysis of social change actually. So far as I can tell Sanders doesn't qualify because he isn't really building a movement, he's just running a campaign that will disappear after it inevitably fails to win the primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
No I'm just saying that is pretty much the exact thing Bernie supporters said to TNC re: reparations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. So from this I take it to mean the wage gap disappears entirely when women don't decide to have kids?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:So from this I take it to mean the wage gap disappears entirely when women don't decide to have kids? It narrows significantly, yes. When that's taken into account, the disparity between women and racial minorities becomes enormous, and it makes you wonder why people are focusing on such a small gap when such a huge one exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It narrows significantly, yes Hmm so by "yes" you mean "no." Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:Hmm so by "yes" you mean "no." Sorry for disagreeing that narrowing a single-digit gap is less important than narrowing a double-digit one. Or is it just that white women stand to be helped more than minority women that compels you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No I'm just saying that is pretty much the exact thing Bernie supporters said to TNC re: reparations. I guess that's a really interesting and insightful comment for you to make in some bizzaro world alternative universe where we were having a conversation about whether or not the candidates who won't win the Democratic primary should be advocating for a policy that the Democrats won't support anyway. There was a point in Martin Luther King's life as an activist when he considered running in the 1968 presidential election, but he realized how pointless and wasteful such an exercise would be so instead he threw his energy into the "Poor Peoples Campaign", which tried to link racial grievances with more general economic issues. That was unfortunately cut short by his death. I would consider that a much more interesting topic of discussion than whatever boring obsession you have with the Democratic primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
You seem to have missed the point, which was that there always seems to be a reason why minorities need to play second fiddle to social reforms that, just by happenstance, benefit the white population as much or more than minorities. Your explanation of why they need to take a back seat to women's issues was equally as tonedeaf as those of Berniebros, a common topic of discussion on this forum. I'm not really sorry that I didn't personally interest you, but hopefully you're not too offended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
If you want to unpack why you think that having different social movements ally together is going to hurt the cause of the less privileged parts of the movement then I'll happily engage with you. It's an important and much discussed topic and it doesn't lend itself to easy solutions. You might start by actually outlying what kind of model you have for how social change gets enacted -- perhaps furnished with some examples of past successes. If you just have some ax to grind with the Sanderistas then you can probably find more eager playmates than I because that stuff is deadly dull.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
botany posted:When manufacturing created new jobs, especially in the textile industry, men and women both worked those jobs. Women were paid less. Weavers are one of the few factory jobs that was almost exclusively done by women, most other factory jobs, even in the textile industry, employed male and female workers. Even more important for your argument is that non-farm menial labor and daylabor was almost exclusively a male job, and it payed even less than the textile work. If low value was the reason a job was considered "for women", (a) non-farm labor would have been considered a female occupation and (b) new jobs that were done by men and women would presumably have paid out equally. Instead women just get paid less, whatever their job, and regardless of whether the job is seen as stereotypically male or female. There are low value jobs that weren't traditionally women's work for various reasons including physical intensity but that's kind of irrelevant. We were talking specifically a professions that are considered "women's work" so naturally assumed you were talking about weavers. Yes women historically were paid less when working "men's" or true coed work because there were viewed as less valuable then a man, I'm not sure why you think that has anything to do with what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Sorry for disagreeing that narrowing a single-digit gap is less important than narrowing a double-digit one. Or is it just that white women stand to be helped more than minority women that compels you? Uh oh, the gap is still there within race too! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:Uh oh, the gap is still there within race too! Thanks for proving exactly what I'm saying - that white women still have it worlds better than any minority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Thanks for proving exactly what I'm saying - that white women still have it worlds better than any minority. It really is a shame that there's only so much progress to go around and any advancement in one issue must necessarily come at the expense of another related issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:It really is a shame that there's only so much progress to go around and any advancement in one issue must necessarily come at the expense of another related issue. Last time I checked, progress does come incrementally and doesn't affect all issues equally. Don't get me wrong, I'd be for the "I'm for everything getting better at exactly the same pace" platform if it gelled with reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
  I guess I should be surprised that trolling through obtuseness is a thing in D&D. The sad thing being it will definitely work because some dumb statements are just too enticing for posters not to reply to. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Thanks for proving exactly what I'm saying - that white women still have it worlds better than any minority. So yes the gender wage gap exists, regardless of race. Race wage gap is a thing that also exists. Weirdly, both can be regarded as important and dismissing one for the existence of the other is some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Radbot posted:You seem to have missed the point, which was that there always seems to be a reason why minorities need to play second fiddle to social reforms that, just by happenstance, benefit the white population as much or more than minorities. Your explanation of why they need to take a back seat to women's issues was equally as tonedeaf as those of Berniebros, a common topic of discussion on this forum. Who says they have to take a back seat? They can easily be pursued simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:15
|
|