historical roles vs female submission

[where]

Hm. Possibly, though maybe it's you who doesn't understand the connection between the two.

I wasn't seriously suggesting a jellyfish egg's activities were a gender issue.



At this rate, no doubt next we'll be enriched with the 'women earn 77 cents/pence for every male dollar/pound' canard soon.

And of course, let's not forget, construction workers and soldiers are fantastically well paid all over the world, and the job isn't shitty at all.

The thing is, it just isn't as straighforward as you suggest. You have a point, but it's a narrow perspective. There are a multitude of reasons for who does what job, and yes, sexism is one of them (that is to say sexism in general, not just male sexism) but in modern 'western' economies, its not as big a part as is often trumpeted.

Men this, women that. Must things really come down to that so often? This is why I will never join the feminism movement or the mens' rights movement. Ick.

'The truth is that the vital difference is not between men and women but between women with dependent children and everyone else, whether male or female. The hourly rate of pay for women who are neither married nor cohabiting is slightly higher than for men in the same situation' http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidgreen/9666597/The_gender_pay_gap_does_not_exist/

When like is compared with like (years of service, hours worked, overtime worked, amount of time off/career breaks, qualifications, experience.....etc) the gap is pretty small. When lifestyle/career choices come into the equation, I have seen reports of University studies here in the UK and studies by (male and female) economists in the USA which suggest that the pay gap shrinks to low single figures, maybe even 1-2% (though personally, I think that's a bit low). Which is not good, obviously. No gap is good.

you are quite right, the difference between women who are childless/free and parents is great, but given that only about 20% of UK women are childfree at 40, it's another red herring, because again, fatherhood has no impact on a man's employment prospects and thus the overall pattern is that women are paid less than men and their jobs are also valued less.

you can squirm and cry about the nasty feminists being irrelevant to your life all you like, but those are the cold solid facts, so unless you make the decision from an early age to be sterilised and be prepared to to prove it in an interview (and no kidding, a friend of mine runs a medium sized business and won't employ young women in case they get pregnant) you just have to either suck patriarchy up or at least be aware that you are socially disadvantaged.

I think you may also find it useful to actually look at the women's lives on a global, rather than on a purely western privileged perspective as well, because you will soon see that women are also soldiers and construction workers. They do long hard hours in dangerous environments, often right alongside and get paid less. The WHO disability stats bear this out.

And of course, we haven't even gone into how women experience more rape, sexual and domestic violence, forced prostitution and so on than men.

 

[Yesspleasse]

you are quite right, the difference between women who are childless/free and parents is great, but given that only about 20% of UK women are childfree at 40, it's another red herring, because again, fatherhood has no impact on a man's employment prospects and thus the overall pattern is that women are paid less than men and their jobs are also valued less.

Some day, no doubt, men will get wombs, and we can achieve equality in this regard. Seriously, the decision to have or not have children is a personal one, or made between a man and a woman. I have some sympathy with employers, because I'm honestly not sure why an individual employer (or even the taxpayer generally) should subsidize/facilitate employees' personal choices, especially on an overcrowded planet. By subsidizing I mean paying money during maternity/paternity leave and also disadvantaging those who choose not to have children, I mean if their career progresses further or faster without children, why should the childless be 'penalized'? Employers will (generally) get more out of non-parents. This is also a cold, hard, non-sexist fact.

you can squirm and cry about the nasty feminists being irrelevant to your life all you like....

I'm an egalitarian, who sympathizes with women's rights issues, and probably someone who would have considered becoming a feminist, but I have some issues with the overall biased paradigm. If you think providing some counter-examples constitutes squirming and crying about nasty feminists then I think you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting badly.

I think you may also find it useful to actually look at the women's lives on a global, rather than on a purely western privileged perspective as well,.....

Fair point. I'm talking about western privileged women. In fact, I'd say that western feminists could be spending a lot more time to tackle 'overseas' issues, where they are a lot more serious and clear cut, more often.

... because you will soon see that women are also soldiers and construction workers. They do long hard hours in dangerous environments, often right alongside and get paid less.

I only mentioned those professions because you said that men were seldom willing to do low status, low paid jobs, not because women don't also do them. As for getting paid less, I accept there is a gap, but when all factors are taken into account, it's a lot smaller than is often cited by feminism.

And of course, we haven't even gone into how women experience more rape, sexual and domestic violence, forced prostitution and so on than men.

Exactly, operative word being 'more'. As I have said many times, my only gripe with feminism (as a biased philosophy, not individual feminists or even individual issues) is that it really only addresses certain gender issues and then only from the point of view of one gender, or at least, seems to address things this way far too much, IMO. With bias comes misrepresentation, divisiveness and gross generalization. I accept that you can also find examples of where feminism is more egalitarian.

 

[Netzach]

Some day, no doubt, men will get wombs, and we can achieve equality in this regard. Seriously, the decision to have or not have children is a personal one, or made between a man and a woman. I have some sympathy with employers, because I'm honestly not sure why an individual employer (or even the taxpayer generally) should subsidize/facilitate employees' personal choices, especially on an overcrowded planet. By subsidizing I mean paying money during maternity/paternity leave and also disadvantaging those who choose not to have children, I mean if their career progresses further or faster without children, why should the childless be 'penalized'? Employers will (generally) get more out of non-parents. This is also a cold, hard, non-sexist fact.

I understand the temptation, as a voluntarily childfree person, to equate children with some other person's *decision* but the problem is that punishing adults for having children, or failing to acknowledge the value in taking care of children as a society in some way doesn't punish the adults. It punishes the generation you are going to have to cope with in 15 years. If you sense a decline of mores around you more profound than you thought it would be, look around at the schools and the amount of time parents get to spend *with* their children versus working for subsistence.

God, people have no concept of "enlightened self interest" or a world beyond the next fiscal year.

Incidentally this whole "well that's because women wanted to work" meme is crap. Working class women have ALWAYS been at work.

 

[Netzach]

Exactly, operative word being 'more'. As I have said many times, my only gripe with feminism (as a biased philosophy, not individual feminists or even individual issues) is that it really only addresses certain gender issues and then only from the point of view of one gender, or at least, seems to address things this way far too much, IMO. With bias comes misrepresentation, divisiveness and gross generalization. I accept that you can also find examples of where feminism is more egalitarian.

More as in hugely vastly ridiculously more - women and children. So sorry if that takes up more airtime.

 

[Yesspleasse]

I understand the temptation, as a voluntarily childfree person, to equate children with some other person's *decision* but the problem is that punishing adults for having children, or failing to acknowledge the value in taking care of children as a society in some way doesn't punish the adults. It punishes the generation you are going to have to cope with in 15 years. If you sense a decline of mores around you more profound than you thought it would be, look around at the schools and the amount of time parents get to spend *with* their children versus working for subsistence.

When my Dad was born (he's still alive) there were 2 billion of us hooman beans on the planet, now there's 7 billion. (I'm not suggesting it's his fault, even if he was a bit of a Lothario, apparently). Most of us eat something and flush the loo at least once a day. At some stage, I guarantee you, we will have to do something about the trend. Arrange the words 'the', 'nettle' and 'grasp' into a sentence of your choice.


I do hear the point you are making though. Seems like several of us on this thread are making valid points past each other, as if any one of them contained the nub of the issue. :]

God, people have no concept of "enlightened self interest" or a world beyond the next fiscal year.

I refer you to paragraph 1 above.

Incidentally this whole "well that's because women wanted to work" meme is crap. Working class women have ALWAYS been at work.

Did someone mention this meme?

 

[Netzach]

When my Dad was born (he's still alive) there were 2 billion of us hooman beans on the planet, now there's 7 billion. (I'm not suggesting it's his fault, even if he was a bit of a Lothario, apparently). Most of us eat something and flush the loo at least once a day. At some stage, I guarantee you, we will have to do something about the trend. Arrange the words 'the', 'nettle' and 'grasp' into a sentence of your choice.


I do hear the point you are making though. Seems like several of us on this thread are making valid points past each other, as if any one of them contained the nub of the issue. :]

I agree with you. How well is that convincing people of the value of ZPG thing going?

Pretty crap for me. I find that the idea of getting reproductive control INTO the hands of women tends to have some impact. They generally don't want to have 19 babies, octomom notwithstanding.

 

[Yesspleasse]

More as in hugely vastly ridiculously more - women and children. So sorry if that takes up more airtime.

Rape, yes, vastly more.

Prostitution, yes, a lot more.

Sexual violence. Yes. more (if domestic/relationship violence included, if not then a lot more)

I'm not denying or downplaying any of these.

 

[Yesspleasse]

I agree with you. How well is that convincing people of the value of ZPG thing going?

Pretty crap for me. I find that the idea of getting reproductive control INTO the hands of women tends to have some impact. They generally don't want to have 19 babies, octomom notwithstanding.

No quarrel here. Reproductive control, education and (especially important here in what will become Eurabia - thank goodness, irony alert, for all the counter-breeding fundamentalists in the 'merican corner of the empire) irreligion. :]

 

[where]

More as in hugely vastly ridiculously more - women and children. So sorry if that takes up more airtime.

I've had this discussion with the notorious troll, le jacquelope, so I had to put in the qualifying 'more' simply to avoid a lecture on how men get sexually abused too.