Gordon Shumway wrote: Sorry, but I amended my previous post to include the problems I have with your tone and "facts." As to the Sotomayor qutoe, what exactly about it do you dispute? The fact that a Latina woman might reach a differing conclusion than a white male? We all all different in this country, always have been. That is our greatest strength. What is your problem with that?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sorry, but I amended my previous post to include the problems I have with your tone and "facts." As to the Sotomayor qutoe, what exactly about it do you dispute? The fact that a Latina woman might reach a differing conclusion than a white male? We all all different in this country, always have been. That is our greatest strength. What is your problem with that?
Im sorry you feel that way, your other post which you amended is pretty slanderous to say the least and very wrong in many ways. I am actually married with 2 kids and a 3rd on the way. Stereotypes exist for a reason, I have stereotypical Marine mannerisms for a reason. Feminazi's do in deed exist and your denial of their existence bewilders me because a simple search can find numerous stories about them. Heck, even the topic of this post is about feminists over reaching to show gender bias for females...that would be a feminazi trait.
Onto your statement. Sotomayor is saying that, She, a Latina woman has better judgement then a white male in the same job as her. That is both sexist and racist at the same time. I don't understand how you can not grasp that concept.
Sienisoturi wrote: Feminist Iniative, which does not seem to be for equality, as I recall that they for example proposed an extra tax only for males.
Source? I am fairly sure they just want women pushed up to equal level, nothing else. For example, taken from their website:
Spoiler:
Why a feminist party? The established political parties are not able to challenge gender power relations seriously. Investigation after investigation is added, but the important decisions for equality are endlessly postponed. Despite the rights of women that have been won through persistent work and hard struggle, today's political system fails to display a gender-equal society. Feminist Initiative has the policy to challenge the other parties and really push a feminist policy for a world free of discrimination. Feminist Initiative adds a new dimension in politics.
What kind of feminism does Fi stand for? Feminist Initiative has a vision of a society where everyone can fare well through life. It requires that society in all respects represent human rights and safeguard the equal rights to health, work, housing, education, social care and security. The policy should be used to secure the equal opportunities and outcomes regardless of gender, color, ethnicity, class, sexuality, functional ability or gender identity.
Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Equal pay for equal work is one.
It's better here than in any other countries, but the difference is still significant.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sorry, but I amended my previous post to include the problems I have with your tone and "facts." As to the Sotomayor qutoe, what exactly about it do you dispute? The fact that a Latina woman might reach a differing conclusion than a white male? We all all different in this country, always have been. That is our greatest strength. What is your problem with that?
She didn't say differing. She said better.
Pretty hilarious misquote by you.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
Ahh. So you just ignore the fact that she said "better."
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sorry, but I amended my previous post to include the problems I have with your tone and "facts." As to the Sotomayor qutoe, what exactly about it do you dispute? The fact that a Latina woman might reach a differing conclusion than a white male? We all all different in this country, always have been. That is our greatest strength. What is your problem with that?
She didn't say differing. She said better.
Pretty hilarious misquote by you.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
The context is that she has proven to be a racist/sexist in the past and is still one to this day. But I doubt that will make a difference to you because your either trolling that hard or you just can't see a differing point then your own. regardless of what you believe those are facts that are undeniable.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
Ahh. So you just ignore the fact that she said "better."
Got it.
Did you red the whole speech and do you understand the context of her statement? Please do. You might learn something.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
Ahh. So you just ignore the fact that she said "better."
Got it.
Did you red the whole speech and do you understand the context of her statement? Please do. You might learn something.
Yes, I did. And she still thinks her judgement is better. For someone that make so many measured efforts to talk about continued learning, she still used "better." She thinks her judgement will be 'better.' It's all there.
Because, you know, Latina women have "richer" life experiences than white men. What a load of gak.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
Ahh. So you just ignore the fact that she said "better."
Got it.
Did you red the whole speech and do you understand the context of her statement? Please do. You might learn something.
Yes, I did. And she still thinks her judgement is better.
What was I supposed to learn, again?
The question is what did you learn? Do you think those graduates latched on to her use of the word "better"? Or do you think they actually got the point of the speech? Did you get the point of the speech? Doesn't seem like it. Seems like you latched on to one word.
It wasn't a misquote, hence the lack of quotation marks. I was remarking on the context of the entire speech, did you read it? It's actually a pretty inspiring speech. I thank Gaz for posting it and reminding me of her intelligence and enthusiasm.
Ahh. So you just ignore the fact that she said "better."
Got it.
Did you red the whole speech and do you understand the context of her statement? Please do. You might learn something.
Yes, I did. And she still thinks her judgement is better.
What was I supposed to learn, again?
The question is what did you learn? Do you think those graduates latched on to her use of the word "better"? Or do you think they actually got the point of the speech? Did you get the point of the speech? Doesn't seem like it. Seems like you latched on to one word.
Sienisoturi wrote: Feminist Iniative, which does not seem to be for equality, as I recall that they for example proposed an extra tax only for males.
Source? I am fairly sure they just want women pushed up to equal level, nothing else. For example, taken from their website:
Spoiler:
Why a feminist party? The established political parties are not able to challenge gender power relations seriously. Investigation after investigation is added, but the important decisions for equality are endlessly postponed. Despite the rights of women that have been won through persistent work and hard struggle, today's political system fails to display a gender-equal society. Feminist Initiative has the policy to challenge the other parties and really push a feminist policy for a world free of discrimination. Feminist Initiative adds a new dimension in politics.
What kind of feminism does Fi stand for? Feminist Initiative has a vision of a society where everyone can fare well through life. It requires that society in all respects represent human rights and safeguard the equal rights to health, work, housing, education, social care and security. The policy should be used to secure the equal opportunities and outcomes regardless of gender, color, ethnicity, class, sexuality, functional ability or gender identity.
Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Equal pay for equal work is one.
It's better here than in any other countries, but the difference is still significant.
Oh yes, that makes more sense in context, though it should be noted that the tax would not have been proposed had the salaries been equal between the two genders (and I am fairly certain it was just a political trick to draw attention - hardly something any Swedish politician is innocent of...).
A 'man-tax' would never happen in Sweden and she knows it. It's just to highlight the problem from another viewpoint.
The article you linked seems to dislike Schyman based on how it talks about her, although I think she's pretty cool. For example, how it mentions that being a feminist is a 'must' now in Swedish politics. There is no such law or rule, but I think it makes a lot of sense that politicians feel that they should be feminists to get public approval. After all, feminists just want a better situation for women in society; that it is worse for them than for men is sadly still the case. Most are simply silent on the whole topic, but if someone actively said they don't think women's status in society should be improved, then they should not be surprised when their popularity drops. That Schyman has changed the political climate to one where people are less likely to support a politician who says they won't support women's rights, and they know it, is a good thing!
We have a lot of Rule 1 transgressions going on. Everyone reel it in, some warnings have been given and I will give more. Cool it or you might get a warning and a holiday to boot.
Sienisoturi wrote: . Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.
That's not exactly a lack of rights. As far as actual rights are concerned, everyone is the same and has been for decades.
What causes the gender pay gap is residual aftershocks of when rights weren't actually the same, and almost certainly a hefty dose of confirmation bias(my pay isn't the same as my colleague, I'm a female and he's a male. It must be because sexism!). Give it another 50 years or so and things should even out. You're not going to change things instantly.
The Gender Gap is a huge lie. /Actual/ feminists consider the Gender Gap to be almost fully eradicated. Adjusted Gender Gap is what you really want to look at as this takes stuff like hours worked into account. The regular Gender Gap is used by radicals / idelogists who basically claim it's unfair that a man who works more earns more.
I wouldn't say it's a huge lie, however a pay gap is definitely no longer a blanket statement. Yes, radical feminists tend to cry about it the loudest (radical feminism being colloquially called "feminazis"), and publish the most articles/journals, etc about it. The one article I was alluding to made the outright claim that the pay gap was still rampant in many industries, such as janitorial work. The problem I had with that article (and this was in a political science class discussion... i made a few people mad) was that when they said the janitor's pay was unequal, they used wildly different people to back their claim. The article made no mention at all that the male janitor in their "study" was working in NYC, and as such, was making NYC money, on the flip side, the female janitor in their "study" was from the midwest, I want to say it was a town like Lincoln, Nebraska, or Topeka Kansas or something... the point is, the male wasn't making more because he's male; he's making more because he works in a city with a much higher cost of living than the female. They attempted to claim the same thing for teachers. The problem was, the male was a HS teacher with a Masters degree, while the female was an elementary teacher with only a bachelor's.
I think that the closest I have seen in a common magazine to a "legitimate" study was done by either Men's Health or Esquire, in which they broke down not only the "pay gaps" but they showed fairly well the most common, or "average" reason for the gap. Basically, they had taken your common office type job. Mon-Fri 9-5 type work. They found that the reason why men tend to make more is due to societal norms. They found that the younger, single men often times took extended vacations more often throughout the whole year, and rarely put in overtime. Married men, especially with children took vacation time far less frequently, and put in nearly triple the overtime of any other category of worker. Women took the most sick days, particularly among the married with kids demographic, while single women without children had numbers that were almost equal to single men (go figure).
At least in the latter article, there was clear reasoning for "work more= paid more" that may be unpleasant to some, since it doesn't fit their particular narrative, but I honestly couldn't find much fault in the methods or data collection for that article.
If you only want to consider impact on the world (or America, but I guess that is the same thing to many Americans ) when selecting who goes onto your money, why is everyone on there not a scientist or engineer? The inventor of refrigeration has done more to shape modern life than any 10 politicians. The inventor of vaccinations against polio wiped out a disease that was responsible for shattering millions of lives and saving untold trillions of people.
And there have been plenty of female scientists, mathematicians and engineers who have had significant impact on their fields. So why are they not on your bank notes rather than some rather inconsequential rich white politicians?
Most of the gender wage gap exists due to difference in profession, hours worked, time spent out of the work force, etc between men and women. Economists who study this find that once you start adjusting for these factors the wage gap shrinks considerably.
So largest reasons for the gender wage gap are difference in behavior between men and women not sexism in the workforce.
I get a bit confused when people say that men working more is the explanation for the pay gap, so there's nothing wrong. Why are men working more, and/or in positions that pay more? Is it the case that women choose positions that tend to pay less, or that positions that women choose tend to pay less?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I get a bit confused when people say that men working more is the explanation for the pay gap, so there's nothing wrong. Why are men working more, and/or in positions that pay more? Is it the case that women choose positions that tend to pay less, or that positions that women choose tend to pay less?
First if you work less hours during your career in the workforce you will make less money per hour than people who worked more hours. Part time workers often make less hourly wages then those working full time, overtime is pays higher than normal wages, etc. Women work less hours than men on average so they make less money per hour than men.
Why does this matter? It matters because activists keep saying the reason is because of sexism in the workforce and employers are somehow either purposely or subconsciously choosing to pay women less. The research points to other reasons.
As far careers that women choose paying less, take teaching. Everyone pretty much knows in the US that teaching is not a career known for having high pay. Why this is probably has a whole host of reasons none of which has anything to do with gender. Yet even with that fact being well known, women still really want to be teachers. This maybe a little bit of shock to you, but maybe, just maybe these women are pursuing teaching as a career because they want to.
Oh yes, that makes more sense in context, though it should be noted that the tax would not have been proposed had the salaries been equal between the two genders (and I am fairly certain it was just a political trick to draw attention - hardly something any Swedish politician is innocent of...).
A 'man-tax' would never happen in Sweden and she knows it. It's just to highlight the problem from another viewpoint.
The article you linked seems to dislike Schyman based on how it talks about her, although I think she's pretty cool. For example, how it mentions that being a feminist is a 'must' now in Swedish politics. There is no such law or rule, but I think it makes a lot of sense that politicians feel that they should be feminists to get public approval. After all, feminists just want a better situation for women in society; that it is worse for them than for men is sadly still the case. Most are simply silent on the whole topic, but if someone actively said they don't think women's status in society should be improved, then they should not be surprised when their popularity drops. That Schyman has changed the political climate to one where people are less likely to support a politician who says they won't support women's rights, and they know it, is a good thing!
I am still curious as to what are these rights that women lack in Sweden, considering that the pay-gap was shown to be false?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I get a bit confused when people say that men working more is the explanation for the pay gap, so there's nothing wrong. Why are men working more, and/or in positions that pay more? Is it the case that women choose positions that tend to pay less, or that positions that women choose tend to pay less?
First if you work less hours during your career in the workforce you will make less money per hour than people who worked more hours. Part time workers often make less hourly wages then those working full time, overtime is pays higher than normal wages, etc. Women work less hours than men on average so they make less money per hour than men.
Why does this matter? It matters because activists keep saying the reason is because of sexism in the workforce and employers are somehow either purposely or subconsciously choosing to pay women less. The research points to other reasons.
Thank you for explaining a concept that I'm already familiar with that wasn't part of my question.
Blood Hawk wrote: As far careers that women choose paying less, take teaching. Everyone pretty much knows in the US that teaching is not a career known for having high pay. Why this is probably has a whole host of reasons none of which has anything to do with gender.
Citation needed.
Blood Hawk wrote: [This maybe a little bit of shock to you, but maybe, just maybe these women are pursuing teaching as a career because they want to.
And why do they want to? Why is it that the fields that women want to work in seemingly have lower wages than male-dominated fields? This may come as a shock to you, but you didn't actually answer my question at all, you just lorded your supposed superior understanding over me without having understood my question in the first place.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish you were right, your assertion is a myth with little basis in reality. Let's take the US, because most in this thread are from there.
Spoiler:
Internet accessible-sources on the pay gap (beyond the fact that the data in the OP as well as the footnotes validates the existence of a pay gap):
Graduating to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after College Graduation explores the earnings difference between male and female college graduates working full time, one year after graduation using the latest nationally representative data available. The report compares “apples” to “apples” by looking at the pay gap after controlling for various factors known to affect earnings, such as occupation, college major, and hours worked. The report also looks at one immediate effect of the pay gap for many women, high student loan debt burden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: I am still curious as to what are these rights that women lack in Sweden?
Equal pay for equal work is a big one, and fixing it would go a long way.
My sincere apologies, again, for veering offtopic now.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish you were right, your assertion is a myth has little basis in reality. Let's take the US, because most in this thread are from there.
The response to this is going to be that it's all down to women not choosing to work and effectively that no one is ever shaped by society in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I get a bit confused when people say that men working more is the explanation for the pay gap, so there's nothing wrong. Why are men working more, and/or in positions that pay more? Is it the case that women choose positions that tend to pay less, or that positions that women choose tend to pay less?
First if you work less hours during your career in the workforce you will make less money per hour than people who worked more hours. Part time workers often make less hourly wages then those working full time, overtime is pays higher than normal wages, etc. Women work less hours than men on average so they make less money per hour than men.
Why does this matter? It matters because activists keep saying the reason is because of sexism in the workforce and employers are somehow either purposely or subconsciously choosing to pay women less. The research points to other reasons.
Thank you for explaining a concept that I'm already familiar with that wasn't part of my question.
If you were familiar then you shouldn't say you get confused by it then. I thought you where actually confused and so I explained it. Simply misunderstanding then.
Blood Hawk wrote: As far careers that women choose paying less, take teaching. Everyone pretty much knows in the US that teaching is not a career known for having high pay. Why this is probably has a whole host of reasons none of which has anything to do with gender.
Citation needed.
On what exactly? That teachers in the US make less than people in other professions like doctors? Or most people know that? These are well known. Or is it that teaching as a profession not making as much as doctors for example due a host of reasons? Seems like common sense to me.
Blood Hawk wrote: [This maybe a little bit of shock to you, but maybe, just maybe these women are pursuing teaching as a career because they want to.
And why do they want to? Why is it that the fields that women want to work in seemingly have lower wages than male-dominated fields? This may come as a shock to you, but you didn't actually answer my question at all, you just lorded your supposed superior understanding over me without having understood my question in the first place.
Ok you missed my point, I am saying that hypothetically if a woman came to me and said "I had other opportunities in my life but I choose to become a teacher because I wanted to", I am willing to credit that person with free agency. You seem to be suggesting that woman in the example choose what she did because she was socially engineered to do so. I think we should give each other more credit than that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I get a bit confused when people say that men working more is the explanation for the pay gap, so there's nothing wrong. Why are men working more, and/or in positions that pay more? Is it the case that women choose positions that tend to pay less, or that positions that women choose tend to pay less?
First if you work less hours during your career in the workforce you will make less money per hour than people who worked more hours. Part time workers often make less hourly wages then those working full time, overtime is pays higher than normal wages, etc. Women work less hours than men on average so they make less money per hour than men.
Why does this matter? It matters because activists keep saying the reason is because of sexism in the workforce and employers are somehow either purposely or subconsciously choosing to pay women less. The research points to other reasons.
Thank you for explaining a concept that I'm already familiar with that wasn't part of my question.
If you were familiar then you shouldn't say you get confused by it then. I thought you where actually confused and so I explained it. Simply misunderstanding then.
I probably should've worded it at bit better. What I meant was "I get a bit confused; people say that "men working more is the explanation for the pay gap, so there's nothing wrong."" To me such a statement would seem to imply that women are choosing to work to a lesser degree than men (or that men work more, same difference).
Blood Hawk wrote: As far careers that women choose paying less, take teaching. Everyone pretty much knows in the US that teaching is not a career known for having high pay. Why this is probably has a whole host of reasons none of which has anything to do with gender.
Citation needed.
On what exactly? That teachers in the US make less than people in other professions like doctors? Or most people know that? These are well known. Or is it that teaching as a profession not making as much as doctors for example due a host of reasons? Seems like common sense to me.
The part where it has nothing do do with gender. I know it's next to impossible to prove a negative, but fortunately I'm not the one making the claim.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish you were right, your assertion is a myth has little basis in reality. Let's take the US, because most in this thread are from there.
The response to this is going to be that it's all down to women not choosing to work and effectively that no one is ever shaped by society in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish you were right, your assertion is a myth with little basis in reality. Let's take the US, because most in this thread are from there.
Adjusted Gender Pay Gap. That's the one that matters. If you just look at the regular Gender Pay Gap, you make the claim that people who work less should gain more.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish you were right, your assertion is a myth with little basis in reality. Let's take the US, because most in this thread are from there.
Adjusted Gender Pay Gap. That's the one that matters. If you just look at the regular Gender Pay Gap, you make the claim that people who work less should gain more.
The part where it has nothing do do with gender. I know it's next to impossible to prove a negative, but fortunately I'm not the one making the claim.
So what you want me to admit that it could be possible? Fine it is possible that gender could be a part, but I doubt that it is. If you really think gender plays a role your welcome to state your case.
) when selecting who goes onto your money, why is everyone on there not a scientist or engineer? The inventor of refrigeration has done more to shape modern life than any 10 politicians. The inventor of vaccinations against polio wiped out a disease that was responsible for shattering millions of lives and saving untold trillions of people.
