Is feminism about equal rights?

alphabetmod · 2013-10-08T18:43:58+00:00

Exactly what legal rights do men have that women do not?...

[–]simaddict18Blue Pill Woman13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (203 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is about a number of things

First, equal legal standing, which has been largely achieved. There are still quirks, like parental rights (which go in her favour) and maternity leave (which goes in his favour, as her career is forcibly compromised and his isn't).

Second, equal social and economic standing, which hasn't. Women overwhelmingly work lower-paying jobs, and earn less money than men for the same jobs. Whatever the reasons for this are, feminism wants to correct them. 3 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. This is not OK and cannot be justified.

Third, equal sexuality. If a man has sex, good for him; if a woman has sex, good for her. Saying a woman is bad because of how many guys she fucks is like saying a man is bad because of how many women he fucks. Honestly I'm OK with slut shaming - people have the right to disrespect other people's choices - as long as men and women are shamed equally. It's the double standard that gets me.

There are others, but these are some of the big ones.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (110 children) | Copy Link

Women overwhelmingly work lower-paying jobs

Women choose the things they choose. There is no social pressure on women to work lower-paying jobs. On the contrary, women but not men, are told their entire lives that they can be and do whatever they want. A large part of the "problem" that you're pointing to here is actually caused by the culture created to solve the problem.

By telling an entire generation of women that they can do whatever they want, we've raised a generation that often says, "okay, I want to focus on my art or my writing or I want to be a humanities major or a women's studies major."

And of course, women are much more likely to want to focus on children once they have them, thus taking time off from work.

That's why women work the jobs they work. It's not a result of oppression. In fact at this point, it's kind of the opposite: it's the result of privilege - it's because they can.

and earn less money than men for the same jobs.

No, they don't. At least, not when you factor in all relevant variables.

Whatever the reasons for this are, feminism wants to correct them.

But you can't say that. That's like a doctor saying, "whatever is wrong with you, I want to operate."

You have to identify the cause of the problem before you can say, "feminism is the cure."

3 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. This is not OK and cannot be justified.

Sure it can. Men and women are different. We have different innate motivations. In particular, testosterone is a hell of a drug. Why should we expect equal numbers of men and women in any particular field or position?? Who are you to say what is the "correct" ratio?

We should strive for equal opportunities, and for acceptance of everyone regardless of race or gender. But there is no reason why we should expect equal outcomes in every field.

as long as men and women are shamed equally.

I think you'll find that men are shamed far more often, and in a more insidious way. "Virgin" is the way that men are shamed. Men are shamed by saying, "no women has found you worthy."

Women are told by our culture that they are wonderful and special and have value no matter what - specifically, no matter what men think. "A woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle" right? Men do not set the value of women, in our society.

However, women do set the value of men in our society. There is no equivalent phrase, nothing you'll see on bumper stickers to suggest that a man without a woman is anything other than a strange creepy guy - probably a rapist, right?

There is nothing in our society to bolster the self esteem of boys, but the self esteem of girls is a topic of constant discussion. There's also no acceptable way to criticize women in our society. A politician who starts a sentence like, "women really need to ..." is torpedoing his career. But on the flip side, criticizing men is super okay. Hell, the president has done it several times, saying things like, "men really need to be knocked upside the head"

So yes, men are shamed. But there's no popular movement to raise your awareness of it.

[–]simaddict18Blue Pill Woman15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

At least, not when you factor in all the relevant variables.

Yeah, but that's my point. There are so many variables that cause women to earn less than men, and we can start tackling them. Mandatory paternity leave would deal with one. (Mandatory that the man and women take the same amount, not mandatory that they must take any at all.) Gender-blind resumes can be another. (Note I'm not just pro-women - I also want gender-blind custody.)

The cause of the problem IMO is multifaceted and difficult to solve, but we can throw our hands up in the air or we can try to fix what we can.

Who are you to say what is the "correct" ratio?

I don't know what the correct ratio is. I do know that men are not inherently better at running a company by virtue of being born with a dick. Even if testosterone confers a bonus, there are plenty of women that are more capable than plenty of men. If that means the true ratio is 2:3, that's still better than 3:97.

I think you'll find that men are shamed far more often

Then let's stop that! Instead of slut-shaming women, which TRP does SO OFTEN, stop. And if for every man who stops slut-shaming, a woman stops virgin-shaming, the problem will be solved in no time. Just because men have a similar problem doesn't mean that slut-shaming is no big deal. Incidentally, equality between genders would fix that one too.

Please remember - just because men have problems, doesn't mean women don't, or womens' issues aren't important. Mens' issues are important. I don't think that they're as important, but that's my personal subjective opinion, just as you likely think that feminism isn't as important as mens' rights activism. I just don't see why the existence of a problem for men means that women have it good. Women and men have different issues, and they all suck and should all be fixed.

[–]SudoTheAdmin6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]simaddict18Blue Pill Woman7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]simaddict18Blue Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]simaddict18Blue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spartacus321 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Spartacus3212 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't even think that the current job distribution trends are due exclusively to traditional gender roles, but even if they were, all you would do by forcing a more even split is enforce a new set of gender roles: everyone has to make the numbers equal! Like you said, if we did that there would be a significant portion of people very upset with and/or unsuited for their jobs.

It's ridiculous to me. More girls go to school for higher education now that boys do, so they have the choice of whether or not to go into fields like STEM (or any other male-dominated field that pays more). No one's forcing them into a major that may pay less on the other side; they just go into those majors because they want to do so.

One thing that I've noticed: when this conversation about evening out jobs pops up, it's always about "CEO's" and "Lawyers" and "Engineers". It's always about the highest paying jobs that people get upset about women not inhabiting. Not construction workers or janitors or firefighters. The jobs that don't pay as well aren't discussed. I mean, I get it; people who want the advancement of women won't want women in similar or even lower paying jobs. That would defeat the purpose of advancing women. But if we're going to frame this discussion as one of simple numbers equality (which it seems to be), then we can't be hypocritical and say that we just want to make women even out the numbers in "better" jobs. If making each sex have equal representation in each profession was the goal, then men would have to take more jobs hairdressing and teaching and women would have to take more jobs as cops and manual laborers. But the fact of the matter is that I know few men who would want to do jobs like hairdressing, and the same goes for women when it comes to working construction. Regardless of the source of the desire to go into these fields, what to study and where to work is still each individual person's choice, and it's clear that women choose jobs like education more often than men.

If there actually is discrimination based on sex preventing women from working in their preferred jobs, then that needs to be examined and fixed. But it seems to me like these differences can be better explained by looking at the differences in drive, aggression, comfort, and interest between the two sexes than by claiming things like having more male CEO's is due to sexism.

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But the fact of the matter is that I know few men who would want to do jobs like hairdressing, and the same goes for women when it comes to working construction. Regardless of the source of the desire to go into these fields, what to study and where to work is still each individual person's choice, and it's clear that women choose jobs like education more often than men.

I agree with your entire post. But there are people out there that refuse this as a valid explanation. It challenges their worldview that men and women are choosing these jobs because of patriarchy or gender constructs or whatever other terminology they feel like using.

It's a long video but it was pretty telling to me how the people making the claims that these differences in gender are social constructs or caused by gender roles absolutely refuse to consider any other possibility. While the researchers attributing at least some of this to biology are open to other viewpoints. The video was posted elsewhere in this thread but here it is.

[–]SudoTheAdmin3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]simaddict181 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bonig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Liberty is granting the individuals control over their own agency, either economic or social. It means the individual should be FREE FROM external compulsion or coercion. The individual should be free to fulfil their potential, and thus should be free from socially limiting constructs such as racism. What you propose is extremely anti liberty.

By abolishing slavery we granted the slaves liberty. By making sure their rights were equal to rights we granted them liberty.

Equality is ensuring equal opportunity based on individual choices, that's why the wage gap exists. Because men choose certain fields vs the fields chosen by women. The opportunity should exist but equal outcomes should not be enforced for you'd limit liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

Remember we live in a free society

[–]Bonig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So why not allow the $200,000 to not take maternity leave while or lesser earning husband stays at home?

Well, that's the way it currently is, right? (Sorry I'm not as familiar with US law as you appear to be. At least that's the situation in my country.) I'm not saying it's wrong or bad as it is, but I'd nonetheless appreciate a change because it would improve the overall situation.

With a glimpse on your country's situation I wouldn't even try to enforce it there soon (if I were in the position to decide, which I am not). Your society has way more important equality problems to solve, e.g. functioning healthcare for everyone, so you are totally right, fix that and the other issues first and then care about maternity leave and secondary stuff.

Edit: Something just came to my mind. I just realized: Is it the case that in the US, maternity leave it not at all paid for by the employer and the government? Is that where your aversion comes from? Because you would lose a lot of money?

[–]cipahs2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

BUT TO NOT MAKE employees take said leave if they do not want to.

Then what is the point of having it? The point of rules and laws is that they are enforced, otherwise, people will just go around them.

Take waitressing in a right-to-work state. Your boss doesn't have to pay you minimum wage because you're supposed to make up for it in tips. But if you don't make minimum wage for your pay session, you have the right to tell your boss and your boss has to make up the difference. But your boss also has the right to fire you for any reason. You're not likely going to open your mouth about your loss in income for fear of keeping your job. Now, you can certainly take him to court about it, but that's going to cost more and take significantly more effort than it would if you just shut up and left it alone.

The same rules would apply to this "optional" paternity leave. An employer will see who chooses to take paternity leave, and just like any business, they will want to keep those who won't take it because they're the better investment, or they'll get rid of or fire those who do take it and it will solve absolutely nothing. Or a man will sacrifice quality time helping his wife and seeing his newborn baby out of fear of losing his job.

You have about 9 months - that is more than enough time for you to plan and get your shit together with savings and arrangements for your family to survive 12 weeks of non-employment so you can take care of the children you decided to bring into the world.

I understand your point about how it is important for people to make their own choices, but since men and women are different biologically and neither should have to choose between family or career, the only way to make things completely and totally equal between them is to give them both forced maternity/paternity leave.

Whatever happens after that is completely in the hands of the couple, as it should be. If they've prepared (and they should be, considering you get about 9 months or more if you've planned the pregnancy) then they will make arrangements to survive the 12 weeks. If they haven't made arrangements, then they'll flounder - but that is the repercussion for not being prepared. All of that boils down to the individuals of the situation and their social network, so we can go forever about "what if the couple..." cases, but my point still stands. It's not about saving everyone, it's about giving everyone equal opportunities.

And for whatever it is worth, in the house I grew up in, when my parental figures started having kids the father figure was stressed and upset that he had to keep working and couldn't take the time off that he wanted to see his children. He would have loved to have forced paternity leave, especially if it came with the guarantee that he wouldn't lose his job for it.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I figured I'd reply to your comment with some statistics to back up your claim, and then you can reply to angatar_ and/or the other guy if you want.

It's sort of a trap though. When you reply, "here's a study that shows women marry up" people like angatar_ will just say, "oh well that's our sexist culture and its glass ceiling giving women no choice" - really, women marrying up is oppression don't you see?

Anyway, here you go:

Hatfield and Rapson - Love and Sex: Cross-Cultural Perspective - 1996. "women more often than men value marriage partners who possess status and have good financial prospects."

Feingold - Gender Differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model - Psychological Bulletin 112 - 2002. "women accord more weight than men to socio-economic status"

Khallad - Mate Selection: Effects of socio-economic status and culture - Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22 - 2005. "women prefer men that are extroverts, socially dominant, and have wealth"

The okcupid blog also supports the notion that women, but not men, want to "marry up"

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/

"We did a little investigating as to whether a person's stated income had any real effect on his or her online dating experience. Unsurprisingly, we found that it matters a lot, particularly for men."

[–]RobotPartsCorp3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

here you go

It's very interesting because of that growing trend, high-income earner marrying a high-income earner, and a low-income earner marrying another low-income earner, apparently the idea is that leads to greater income disparity. It makes sense for it to lead to a lot less social mobility anyway.

Anecdotally, there have only been a couple times where I have dated a guy who earns more than me. I generally seem to get in relationships where I really earn as much or just a tiny bit more. My last LTR, my boyfriend earned maybe a fifth of what I do. My current SO and I oddly had, up until a month ago (he then took a new and much better paying position but I think my side-projects still even us out), earned the same exact salary. I like that because I don't have to worry about being a leach, or about being put in a bad position if we break up, or depending on him, so I can just enjoy him for who he is and visa-versa. I would have no problem if I made more either, depending. Like I said, a previous boyfriend made a fifth of what I made, he was really hard working and handy though and brought a lot to the relationship outside of income, while another ex made little money as well but he was lazy and felt entitled for me to pay for things (while at the same time I would have no trouble paying for the other poor exes food and drinks).

I get the appeal of, when one is young and in college and having to work through the minimum wage jobs, of dating someone with more money but beyond that, if you are established in a comfortable middle or upper class income based on your own earnings, you tend to worry less about what your partner has to make. It's much easier to find a good match when you already have your shit together and don't have to rely on another persons to get your shit together for you.

Another thing that makes sense about people bring a bit more homogenized than we think...think about where couples generally meet. In college, at work, in the same social circles.... They are generally meeting people coming from similar economic backgrounds and who have similar income potentials. People marrying within the same income bracket doesn't surprise me.

this page says that women earning more than their husbands went from 4% in 1970 to 22% in 2007. So the trend is for women to put less weight in a mans financials and take on some of the burden themselves. I think that's a good thing, equality and all. Not there yet but it's a good trend nonetheless.

[–]alphabetmod3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I figured I'd reply to your comment with some statistics to back up your claim, and then you can reply to angatar_ and/or the other guy if you want. It's sort of a trap though. When you reply, "here's a study that shows women marry up" people like angatar_ will just say, "oh well that's our sexist culture and its glass ceiling giving women no choice" - really, women marrying up is oppression don't you see? Anyway, here you go:

Hatfield and Rapson - Love and Sex: Cross-Cultural Perspective - 1996. "women more often than men value marriage partners who possess status and have good financial prospects."

Feingold - Gender Differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model - Psychological Bulletin 112 - 2002. "women accord more weight than men to socio-economic status"

Khallad - Mate Selection: Effects of socio-economic status and culture - Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22 - 2005. "women prefer men that are extroverts, socially dominant, and have wealth"

The okcupid blog also supports the notion that women, but not men, want to "marry up" http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/[1] "We did a little investigating as to whether a person's stated income had any real effect on his or her online dating experience. Unsurprisingly, we found that it matters a lot, particularly for men.

"whores don't care about lumber," - Bill Burr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQQZMiHQhX8

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What are you talking about? Paid leave comes from employers. It has nothing to do with income levels. If you make minimum wage, then you get minimum wage. If you make $6,000/month, then you get $6,000/month.

Paid leave would give more of an incentive for middle to wealthy families to have children. Also, in Europe it's largely dependent on how many kids you've had. With you're first and second kid you get all kinds of employee benefits, but after that they taper off. That way you can't game the system and have kids all the time.

I'd support a system like that. On the first and second child, 12 weeks of paid leave for the mother and father followed by 6 months at 50% salary up to $20,000 a year. On the third child, no paid leave. This would give a huge incentive for middle class working couples to have children.

[–]SudoTheAdmin2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We are back to the magic money tree problem again. This will kill small businesses. You want employers to be forced to pay people for not doing work. But the work still needs to get done so the owner needs to hire new employees therefore putting the owner in the hole even more.

What about self-employed people? Who pays for their time off? A plumber doesn't magically get money for 12 weeks while he doesn't do any jobs.

Small businesses make up 99.7% of employers in the US and account for 50% of all private sector jobs. The burdens you want are going to be paid by Mom and Pop, not the big bad corporations. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

And you completely disregarded all local, state, and federal government employees. Who pays them? Taxpayers. That means we need to tax more in order to fund 12-24 weeks paid vacation per year.

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have to be kidding. Every time I have said it is paid though:

Taxes, or
Forcing employers to foot the bill.

Literally every comment. I don't know how you miss this. That is how other countries have this benefit.

And it isn't $115 per family. Your math is way off because you are counting citizens, not workers or households, and you are counting people who don't pay income tax.

Let's do a real math example. The top 10% of households pay 70% of the income tax, so they will foot 70% of this bill.

115M total households in US * 10% = 11.5M households paying 70%. 70% x $40B = $28B

$28B / $11.5M = $2,400 per household in the 10% (average).

You just raised taxes $2,400 on those people.

Your plan boils down to 1) more free stuff, and 2) doesn't fix the problem of high earners having fewer kids than lower income people who get the free stuff.

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't know why I said family.

Let's do a real math example. The top 10% of households pay 70% of the income tax, so they will foot 70% of this bill.

Is this a joke? 10% is way to big of an income range. That's anywhere from $100,000 to several million dollars. People in the $100,000 range would be paying roughly $600. People in the $500,000+ range would be paying a few thousand.

doesn't fix the problem of high earners having fewer kids than lower income people who get the free stuff.

Yes, it does. The vast majority of the 30% at the low income scale of mothers don't have full time employment, so they would receive no paid leave. It would primarily effect the working to upper classes. It's pretty well established that these types of policies encourage more working people to have children. You're only giving these benefits to people who have full time employment.

[–]SudoTheAdmin2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but that's my point. There are so many variables that cause women to earn less than men, and we can start tackling them.

What if, and I'm just throwing this out there, women want jobs that just so happen to be lower paying. IMO, far too often these wage gap studies can factor in seemingly every possible cause for that remaining 8% less that women make but then discredit themselves by just guessing that the 8% is obviously discrimination. Why can't it just be overall women's preference to work these jobs/work less hours.

Could it be biological? Everyone is so quick to dismiss this and point to social constructs for everything. But when studies show that men and women handle stress differently, could that not be why more men than women choose high stress/high paying jobs? And if it's just preference why is everyone so hellbent on making women do jobs that they may have no interest in doing.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

Sure it can. Men and women are different. We have different innate motivations. In particular, testosterone is a hell of a drug. Why should we expect equal numbers of men and women in any particular field or position?? Who are you to say what is the "correct" ratio? We should strive for equal opportunities, and for acceptance of everyone regardless of race or gender. But there is no reason why we should expect equal outcomes in every field.

Yeah, 3% is way too small. The difference between men and women isn't that large. I don't think you'll find many people who agree with you on this one.

In fact, looking at what we do see in differences between men and women such as social intelligence, it would appear women are ever so slightly better suited to modern management positions.

In particular, testosterone is a hell of a drug.

Exactly. There are plenty of studies that link testosterone to anti-social behavior. You'd think that would be a detriment.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

3% is way too small.

Again, what is your metric for that? You don't have one. You're just pulling it out of your ass. 3% doesn't "feel right" to you because you've been told that it should be 50%.

The difference between men and women isn't that large.

Small differences in input make for huge differences in output. We're nearly identical to chimpanzees, yet we've sent spacecraft to other planets, while the pinnacle of chimpanzee technology is licking a twig so that termites will stick to it.

How big is the average physical difference between men and women? Doesn't seem very large. But look at the difference in performance in any sport. Look at the difference in times on a marathon.

You can do the same analysis for racial differences. Are East Africans really all that different from everyone else? The differences are small, yet in the last 30 years, 80% of the winners of the Boston Marathon have been from Kenya or Ethiopia.

Small differences in input make for huge differences in output.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

You completely ignored my point that women could be better suited for leadership positions than men.

Oh I'm sorry if I forgot to rebut one of your points. I'll do that now: proficiency is irrelevant to this question.

There is no prime minister assigning people to jobs based on their proficiency at that job. It's a free market. People do what they want. What I explained to you is that testosterone makes men more likely than women to pursue certain things.

You asked why there are fewer women CEOs. I said: "men and women are different. We have different innate motivations."

They score better on almost every test of social cognition and interpretation.

That's awesome - and also immensely politically correct. It's true. Women are awesome!!

Out of curiosity, is there anything good about men, in your opinion?

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not proof, but should be interesting none the less

That was fascinating. Thanks for the link.

You asked why there are fewer women CEOs. I said: "men and women are different. We have different innate motivations."

I already accept that there may be innate minor differences, but I guess I should have been more specific about what I was asking for. The innate differences we think exist, they don't seem to explain in any way why men try to climb the corporate ladder while women don't. Maybe future research will bear this out.

Out of curiosity, is there anything good about men, in your opinion?

Sure. I'm a man, so I'd hope so. Men are physically stronger and faster, which makes for more entertaining sports. There are also studies that link testosterone during brain development to risk taking, which I think can be an important trait among humans. Without prominent risk takers, we might be too cautious as a species.

Obviously, science knows very little about the innate difference between men and women; we can see a few, but the brain remains largely unexplored and mysterious. My issue is that from what we can observe, there seems to be a lot of psychological gender overlap. Psychologically, some men are more "feminine" than women and some women are more "masculine" than men. Because of that overlap, I think it's important that we have a society that allows and promotes gender neutrality in political, economical, educational, and professional environments.

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because of that overlap, I think it's important that we have a society that allows and promotes gender neutrality in political, economical, educational, and professional environments.

TRP agrees with you, men and women should have equal opportunities available to them, if a woman is equally capable as a man and equally willing as a man, she should be allowed to fix toilets too. The problem for us comes into play when you say things like "More woman should be on the Forbes list".

First, of all understand that there are woman on the list. You said so yourself. So, this means that your condition is satisfied. Capable and willing women are able to become rich. They capably made it into the top richest people, despite anything (including oppression) standing in their way.

Second of all, what you’re essentially asking is "why aren't there more women"? Well, neither you nor I know the real answer to this is, but I have a hard time believing its oppression, due to the first statement. What you're implicitly assuming by asking this question is that this is a position that should be desirable to women. See, there's a reason no one closely examines the gender discrepancy in road workers, plumbers, miners, garbage collectors, and other types of blue collar labor, because no one, not even the men, want those jobs. Men take the jobs out of necessity when they're under educated, but nobody closely examines why women don't do the same thing. The reason they don't is because it's a good enough rationality to say "women don't want those jobs, that's terrible, hot, dangerous work". So instead, we switch the conversation to cushy, well paid, jobs that women should want, and insist that because it's the type of thing that people should want to have, that women should want to have it too. Well, stop assuming you know what women want, and stop treating women as a conglomeration that could or could not be just as ambitious as men. Start treating them as individuals who choose things.

If a woman chooses to become a house mom that is one woman who will never be on the Forbes list. Are you willing to tell that woman that she made the wrong choice, just so you can sleep better at night knowing that there are more rich women in the world? Are you going to tell her she wouldn't have made that choice if she wasn't oppressed her whole life? Of course you're not, because you want to respect her ability to make choices as a human being. "But FleetingWish", you say, "that's just one woman, there lots of other women who have the potential to be rich". Well again, start treating them as individuals. What about all the other house moms in the world? What about your friends, what about your coworkers, what about your hair dressers, and your classmates? How many of them would you go to and tell them that you want them to be more ambitious, and are not doing everything they could be in their life? As individuals it's easy to see that individually they are choosing to not make the choices they need to make in order to be on the Forbes list, and you, as a feminist man, should respect their choices. Stop envisioning some hypothetical woman somewhere who has the capacity and the willfulness and the tenacity to become rich, but is stopped due to "oppression", she doesn't exist.

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FleetingWish1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All traits are expressed at varying levels, typically forming a bell curve.

I'm not sure why you're surprised that there are outliers.

If I point out that biology makes men taller than women, are you going to reply, "here's a really tall woman and really short man - do they have different biology??" as though that statement in any way refutes the fact that men tend to be taller than women as a result of biology.

However, you do give me a great opportunity to make a moral criticism of "blue pill" ideology and show how TRP is, in this instance, morally superior - so, thanks for this.

I believe, and other TRPers believe, that the behavioral differences we observe are natural. What do we think about someone whose behavior is outside the norm? We think, "that's cool - this person is an outlier." Blue pillers believe that everyone is basically the same, but that observed differences are the result of an evil oppressive ever-present conspiracy called "patriarchy." Blue pillers believe that "normal" gender roles are actually imposed on women, and are the instrument of oppression. So what do blue pillers think about someone who prefers the norm? They think, "this is unacceptable! This is not a choice that a woman should make! She is siding with the oppressors! She's an uncle tom (the newer term is special snowflake)"

I can show examples of people saying exactly those things.

So there's the moral superiority. Someone who doesn't conform to what I think is natural and normal is just an outlier. "Go in peace" I say to them. More power to them. I am totally accepting of everyone. But someone who doesn't conform to what a blue piller thinks is normal is shamed and demonized.

Hmm.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cask_Strength_Islay1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

It's impossible to know for sure without scientific understanding. You can't assert things unless they've rigorously be subjected to the scientific process.

Why does that apply to me and not to you?

We observe that fewer women are CEOs. You assert that this is "wrong" and is not "the ratio that should be" - well gee, it's impossible for you to know that without "scientific understanding"

Come on. Scientists are not clergy. We're allowed to argue this out for ourselves.

I respect your opinion, which boils down to the belief that men and women are the same, and that it's only our culture that make us behave differently. I've offered you an alternative explanation: that sex hormones lead to differences in behavior.

You don't have to blindly accept my explanation, but don't bury your head in the sand either. "It's impossible to know for sure" is a though-terminating cant.

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why does that apply to me and not to you? We observe that fewer women are CEOs. You assert that this is "wrong" and is not "the ratio that should be" - well gee, it's impossible for you to know that without "scientific understanding"

Because there are studies that show wage and hiring discrimination based on gender. Two CVs are presented, the man is more likely to be hired and make a better wage.

I respect your opinion, which boils down to the belief that men and women are the same, and that it's only our culture that make us behave differently. I've offered you an alternative explanation: that sex hormones lead to differences in behavior.

My belief is that we don't know enough about gender or sex differences to assert everything TRP asserts, and until we do we should work to achieve equal opportunity for both genders.

Of course there are innate differences. There are also innate similarities. Until we have all of those figured out, we should have mostly gender neutral socio-economic policies.

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well all of this came out of left field. You sure like arguing straw mans unrelated to our discussion.

It is not bias nor discriminatory hiring to prefer one class over another when it can be proven that the preferred class has tangible skills that the other class does not.

Examples:

NFL teams don't have to hire any women to play football. 100% men there and nothing women can do about that. Athletic trainer is a different story.
An OB/GYN office can hire female doctors exclusively if they can demonstrate that their patients want a female doctor and the male doctor would not be able to effectively practice. No law forces an employer to hire that doctor who will see 2 patients per year.

So this brings us back to what you wrote, namely women work less and sacrifice less. If that is true, any employer could hire men instead of women provided the job requires male working hours and sacrifice. If the job did not require those traits at male levels then, and only then, discrimination would be present.

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link

Third, equal sexuality. If a man has sex, good for him; if a woman has sex, good for her. Saying a woman is bad because of how many guys she fucks is like saying a man is bad because of how many women he fucks. Honestly I'm OK with slut shaming - people have the right to disrespect other people's choices - as long as men and women are shamed equally. It's the double standard that gets me. > quoted text

The double standard for sex will always be there. Being a man who gets a lot of girls take work. You have to be a high quality man to be able to consistently get women. Women are not lining up to be with a bummy guy. Now a girl will have guys lining up to have sex with her just because she has a vagina. She can be bummy and still get high numbers so there is a difference. Her sleeping with alot of guys requires almost zero effort.

I know the lock and key metaphor has been used numerous times so I will try a different approach.

A guy who gets alot of girls is a self made millionaire. He bust his but day after day to improve his financial situation. He forgoes vacations and partying to work. So when he finally reaches that million, he can be proud of that accomplishment. Other people respect and praise him because they know it didn't come easy.

Women with high number is similar to kids who inherit a large sum of money. They didn't have to work constantly to get to this level. It was a birthright. Since they didn't work for the money they don't understand the true value it has. Since they do not understand the true value they become arrogant. They believe that their millions should be valued at the same levels as the self made millionaire. People should respect them too. They have money, why do people look down on them when they talk about how much money they have. Because you didn't do any work to get there. So you have the money but none of the skills it required to get it.

The praise a man receives for getting girls is based on his skills. It requires a lot of work to be a man of value. Society has told men there value is based on being accepted by women. So his value has been reaffirmed numerous times. That is why guys getting girls will receive praise, and why no amount of seminars will alter this double standard.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

Why do men have to work harder than women to have sex?

Because females (of all sexual species) are more selective than males.

Our instincts are old, and often vestigial. There's really no longer any reason for human women to be so selective, but the instinct is still there, and our culture is a reflection of it. If you want to know the instinct's purpose - if you want to know why it evolved and what selective advantage it offered, I'll paraphrase Dawkins (I think it's Dawkins and I think it's from The Blind Watchmaker but I don't have it in front of me): a woman who becomes pregnant has at least a nine-month time investment. If a better male comes along during that time, she's out of luck.

To put that another way, among our ancestors, those women who were more picky missed fewer of these "better male" opportunities and thus left more and healthier offspring.

With birth control and abortion, that instinct no longer serves any purpose, but we still have it.

Also, this is the sort of thing that is incredibly obvious to most people. It's amazing to me that we seem to have this "emperor has no clothes" culture where we can brainwash people into pretending they don't see the obvious. Men and women are different.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]slithy-tove1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]slithy-tove1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

it's indisputably the weakest part of the evolutionary model, and there's a sizable amount of biologists who don't even think it's a thing.

Can you or anyone else find a paper arguing contra sexual selection as a factor in evolution?

by virtue of the fact that they don't die.

No, it selects the ones who leave offspring.

No. No it isn't. Expecting organisms to "know how to evolve" is like expecting a rain cloud to know how to rain. Evolution isn't willed, it's the name for a process that just happens.

Sorry if I was unclear. My point is, organisms "knowing" what traits are the most viable is not a requirement for sexual selection, they just have to be attracted to the best traits/signs of genetic fitness. If there is a consistent association between a trait and fitness then said attraction, thus sexual selection, is exactly what will evolve.

it's never females that do the selecting.

That's not what the link says. Did you mean to link to a different page?

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_FallacyBot_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Like your assumption that sexual selection is a thing;

"is a thing" is a funny social justice cant. It's a rhetorical tool that you think carries some weight, but really doesn't.

Perhaps a more intelligent way to say what you're trying to say would be: You assume that sexual selection is a valid explanation for evolutionary adaptation.

Oh, and yes, it very much is a valid explanation.

it's indisputably the weakest part of the evolutionary model

No, it isn't. It's one of the most important parts.

there's a sizable amount of biologists who don't even think it's a thing.

No, there aren't.

how could an organism possibly be cognizant of what genes are best suited for survival?

No individual is conscious of the source of its instinctive drives. I didn't suggest anything of the kind. That you believe I did only highlights your own ignorance of the science behind biological evolution.

The way it works is, in each generation there are a variety of instinctive preferences. Those females who just so happen to have preferences that provide a selective advantage produce more and healthier offspring - and they produce offspring that tend to share their preferences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

ironically, that's the purpose of a cant.

Right?

Irrelevant. You're talking to me, not to whatever imaginary amalgam of "TRP" that you have constructed in your mind.

TRP ideology doesn't exist now? You guys are a trip. This is why I love arguing with you guys; I never know what you're gonna say next! Your bizarre twists of logic keep me on my toes. And I appreciate that! I really do.

I use the term correctly. I'm right. You haven't come anywhere close to impeaching a single word that I've said.

Damn, you're right, I must have skimmed over all those awesome links and peer reviewed studies that you linked. My bad!

To any outside observer, you look very bad in this thread.

Damn, my internet reputation is gonna be ruined! You know how much my self-worth rests on the standards of others, especially fifteen year olds who frequent an internet support group populated by individuals who use pseudo-science and completely bizarre generalizations as a subterfuge for their (completely transparent) desire to conquer the one thing in their life that's created a debilitating sense of inadequacy. But that'll probably wear off when I'm sober.

Oh well. Time to make a new account!

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You assert that sexual selection based on primal drives that we are completely unaware of is a prominent deciding factor in human sexual strategy.

Not really. If you want a citation for a claim, then please quote the claim. You've wasted so much of everyone's time and added nothing to the conversation. This post right here hours ago and about 6 posts back, should have said the following:

first you should have quoted my claim, like this:

females (of all sexual species) are more selective than males.

Then you should have politely asked for a source citation, like this:

"I disagree with this, can you cite a source?"

You can do that here and now, and I'll gladly provide a source (the authors are Todd, Penke, Fasolo and Lenton). Or you can go back and reply to the top post with that question. But what I wont respond to is you changing my claim, after wasting all this time.

[–]spechickdon't take pills from strangers.2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spechickdon't take pills from strangers.0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

If an average girl ask 10 guys at a bar, "hey do you want to have sex?" Most guys would take her up on that offer. In most cases she wouldn't need to do anything besides be available for sex.

If an average man did the same thing he would be shot down by the majority of women. Do they want sex? Possibly, but not just from anyone. They have more options so they are more selective.

So in order to get a women as a man you have to be able to show high value. What constitues value is different for every woman. But what remains constant is men can't get girls by just showing up. A men has to set himself apart from the horde of other man who would gladly have sex with her. I have to demonstrate what makes me better then the other men around me. That takes work. So I think it is fair to say that men work harder for sex then women do.

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I don't think we need a scientific study to agree on something that is easily observable, especially in the United States.

According to this, women are the ones with lower standards. Men rate women fairly, but only message the upper brackets. Women rate men harshly, but message them anyway. How do you explain that? Why do men work as hard on their attractiveness as hard as women do?

And keep in mind I'm not talking about standards for an average, but standards for initiative.

Women have more guys offering them sex. That allows them to be more selective in who they choose to have sex with.

This is just superficial. If you want to say that a double standards exists, has existed, and always will exist, you've got to explain it thoroughly. This is inadequate, to be honest. If there's an inherent difference, you've got to explain that. Just pointing to a situation and saying "it is so", and extrapolating that to "it will always be so" is fallacious.

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you think that women have a harder time convincing men to sleep with them then men have convincing women to sleep with them there is no point in continuing this discussion. It is not going to go anywhere. You are either being intentional dishonest or live in a world that is completely different then the world inhabited by 99.9% of the population.

I never claimed this. I don't know why you think I did.

In general women can get laid easier then man is a statement of fact. Sorry I don't have "studies," to back it up. Do I need a study to convince you water is wet?

You claimed (or agreed) that men have lower standards than women and said that it was easily observable. I gave you evidence to the contrary.

Evidently, it's not common sense and you need to back your claims up.

But if you have nothing to say, so be it.

[–]cipahs -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peteriscoo69-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly I'm OK with slut shaming

You shouldn't be. The only reason girls do it is because there's another lady being easy and lowering the sexual market value for all women. The other girls don't want to "give it up" so easily so they shame her into raising her price of sex.

When guys shame girls it normally has something to do with being bitter over a girl not reciprocating his sexual advances. I've heard guys say things like "Of course she'd go fuck some other guy, she's a slut." And you know what that does? It tenses up the party really fucking quickly. Will girls act loose if they think you're just going to bash them once they leave? No one wins from slut shaming.

Also, I don't think I've EVER heard of a guy being slut shamed. Normally guys on a hot streak are rewarded with high fives from his bros.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1998 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There's a good article on the topic here: Project on a mechanism to address laws that discriminate against women. I assume you're asking from an American perspective despite the fact that not all of us are from there (or even from a Western country).

For some laws that are still present in the US, you can read through these ones even though they are not really enforced any more. I'd say the biggest ones still relevant to the US would be things regarding reproductive rights, where women are arrested for things like having miscarriages.

As discussed by others, the bigger problems are more social and economic - like the fact that women are paid significantly less than men for the same work. Yes, I know people are going to object here about this being a 'feminist lie' and that the gap is due to different work hours and choices in career and maternity leave expenses, etc, but that's wrong. The unadjusted wage gap includes all of those factors and presents the raw difference, but the adjusted wage gap takes into account all of those variables and compares like with like and still finds a wage gap of about 8%. This can only be explained by discrimination (and a lot of the unadjusted gap is due to more general discrimination practices as well). There's a good article on the topic here: Addressing the gender pay gap: Government and social partner actions.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd say the biggest ones still relevant to the US would be things regarding reproductive rights, where women are arrested for things like having miscarriages[3] .

The "chemical endangerment" law (the one you provided the link for) is appalling to me. Nonetheless, it's debatable whether or not it's an unjust law. That depends on your stance on abortions and fetuses and shit that frankly I just don't want to get into. I see why one might consider it unjust though.

As discussed by others, the bigger problems are more social and economic - like the fact that women are paid significantly less than men for the same work. Yes, I know people are going to object here about this being a 'feminist lie' and that the gap is due to different work hours and choices in career and maternity leave expenses, etc, but that's wrong. The unadjusted wage gap includes all of those factors and presents the raw difference, but the adjusted wage gap takes into account all of those variables and compares like with like and still finds a wage gap of about 8%. This can only be explained by discrimination (and a lot of the unadjusted gap is due to more general discrimination practices as well).

I don't see how you can make this claim. It can't possibly take into account every other variable leaving discrimination as the only viable reason that 8% gap exists. From your last link:

The remaining unexplained part of the gap is then referred to as the adjusted gender pay gap and is interpreted as being discriminatory. Behind this approach lies a productivity-based concept, which assumes that all differences in pay – apart from the gender discriminatory part – can be attributed to differences in individual productivity resulting from age, experience or education, or to differences in market forces. The recent research policy debate has however advanced further: adjusting for observed differences, while interesting in itself and providing insights into the determinants of the gap, may be misleading when it comes to addressing the level of discrimination. Not only may the unexplained component – the adjusted gap – still contain variables that simply have not been observed: the explained components could also still reflect the result of discriminatory processes. Overall, the findings are blurred. Comparative studies that do not take into account institutional, societal or distributional impacts on the gender pay gap might result in ‘biased’ findings regarding the calculated level of discrimination – even after the adjustment of individual characteristics. The question seems to be unsolvable without applying a rather holistic approach as discussed by Rubery et al (2005), who put a strong emphasis on the work environment – the general wage structure, job and workplace characteristics and the role of the social partners.

It's often just assumed in these studies that discrimination plays a role where there is no scientific proof of it.

[–]mrsamsa6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The "chemical endangerment" law (the one you provided the link for) is appalling to me. Nonetheless, it's debatable whether or not it's an unjust law. That depends on your stance on abortions and fetuses and shit that frankly I just don't want to get into. I see why one might consider it unjust though.

I think the unjust part applies more to how it's enforced, given that in the example I linked to, their is no evidence that the woman's cocaine habit had any contribution to the miscarriage. What this means is that women can be tried for murder based on very normal bodily processes, through no action (inaction) of their own.

I don't see how you can make this claim. It can't possibly take into account every other variable leaving discrimination as the only viable reason that 8% gap exists.

They really do, the level of thoroughness in their analyses is incredible.

It's often just assumed in these studies that discrimination plays a role where there is no scientific proof of it.

Firstly, these studies do take all these factors into account, including experimental studies where employers are presented with two identical CVs, where one has a male name and another has a female name, and we can see massive differences not only in their wage designations but also in the rates in which they would be hired.

There is no way to explain this through differences in merit, qualifications, history, skills, etc. The only difference must be an assumption about differences between men and women which are entirely unrelated to the actual individuals applying for the job.

Secondly, the "assumption" the researchers are discussing there goes the other way. It is a problem that the adjusted pay gap is assumed to be the area of discrimination because, as the authors state, we have enough evidence to conclude that aspects of the unadjusted pay gap are also discriminatory.

The assumption they're referring to isn't that the adjusted pay gap is evidence of discrimination (most researchers agree with that claim), the assumption is instead that the adjusted pay gap is the only evidence of discrimination. What they're referring to is the fact that things like career choice and hours worked aren't easily disentangled from discriminatory practices.

Also, there's no such thing as "scientific proof". Science is a tentative method and so never proves anything; it only finds evidence to support a conclusion which we then conditionally accept unless new contradictory evidence arises. It may sound pedantic but it helps understand how scientists present their results - e.g. when they refer to "theories", they don't mean 'guesses' or shots in the dark.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hayleyk2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saurabh19960 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Is feminism about equal rights?
Author	alphabetmod
Upvotes	10
Comments	175
Date	October 8, 2013 6:43 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1o03qm/is_feminism_about_equal_rights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-feminism-about-equal-rights.286713 https://theredarchive.com/post/286713

Comments