Why so much hatred for feminism?

[epepke]

the article says that its only unmarried childless women, so geeee I think I said something about "having children" and "getting married" having a lot to do with the wage gap because of childcare issues. And that was totally blown off. Hmmm

That might be a factor, and then again, it might not, but it certainly isn't the only possible factor.

Unfortunately, series P-60 only publishes that category. I couldn't find anything that broke out simply by age and not conflating it with marriage and having children.

Back in the early 90s, I noticed that women in that category made about 87% of what men in that category made. Now they are 20 years older. It wouldn't surprise me much if the same pattern exists in that age cohort. Most people get raises proportional to what they are making at the time.

 

[cyborg]

What large scale measure of power would you like to discuss?

I'm not making the choices here.

Two centuries of female presidents wouldn't be equality, it would be immoral, sexist revenge.

So again the question no one wants to answer - what number of female presidents would not be immoral, sexist revenge but would show the end of gender inequality?

You either don't understand what we are saying at all or you are being sarcastic.

No, I'm being completely serious and I understood it perfectly well when I was told that 234 years of male US presidents is an indicator of sexual inequality.

It really isn't my fault if there is no thought as to the consequences of using such a unrepresentative indicator - one can merely concede that the use of this statistic is designed to be emotionally manipulative and in actuality is basically unhelpful and should not have ever been brought up by anybody who is serious about social inequality.

Instead I suppose it is just too hard for Skeptic Ginger's pretty little head and has caused the mouth to open but merely an empty yawn to escape, the brain having reached the critical limit of information capacity for a woman.

Either way, you aren't helping.

Apparently not since the message isn't getting through.

 

[Dipayan]

I couldn't find anything that broke out simply by age and not conflating it with marriage and having children.

Just trying to understand your thought process. Why would this give a better understanding of the wage comparison?

 

[Naive1000]

Hmm, sorry KingMerv00, I was going to go into my earlier posts and reply to yours, but seems pointless looking at everything since then.

 

[KingMerv00]

*snip*

I'm done with you. See next post.

 

[KingMerv00]

the article says that its only unmarried childless women, so geeee I think I said something about "having children" and "getting married" having a lot to do with the wage gap because of childcare issues. And that was totally blown off. Hmmm

I'm seriously trying not to snap at you.

You said that you ignored statistics because they are always twisted to suit the arguer's needs. You said you didn't want to discuss specific issues like the wage gap. You said that you've been trying to answer the title question.

What happens when someone posts an article in your favor? You nearly snap your neck doing an about face. You suddenly cite it as statistical evidence you've been right all along about that specific issue we've been discussing that in no way realates to the title question!

Stop it. Please. Take a good long critical look at yourself. I pray to Forumax the Wordy, lord of message boards, to grant me the strength to ignore you in the future.

 

[KingMerv00]

EDIT: Almost complete edit to simplify position.

I understand that KingMerv, and I of course agree with it. And I don't believe my post suggested otherwise. Let me rephrase in simpler terms.

SG's claim is:

More Gender Equality = More women in parliament
Less Gender Equality = Less women in parliament.

While this seems like common sense, the logic does not compute for countries such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, which actually have much less gender equality than in the US and still have more political representation for women.

If that's what SG is claiming (not saying she is) she is wrong. Simply looking at political representation is not enough. I'll say it is highly suspicious but no single issue is controlling.

So if anybody has any evidence that the American political situation is a direct result of the equality imbalance , I will of course accept it and end this discussion. I hope my position is crystal now.

I don't know if you can measure something like that directly. It would require you to monitor the thoughts and deeds of everyone in America. I do think there is halfway decent indirect evidence though:

If we take this data at face value, the political arena is slanted 15% in men's favor. The gap isn't gigantic and that's encouraging but it's there. I'd be dishonest if I didn't show this data as well:

The data creates a paradox. It seems like women are more liked overall but aren't worthy of getting elected. Pew gives potential reasons for the paradox in the text. Regardless of what side you're on, I recommending it.

Personally, I find the sexism on both sides disturbing.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm not making the choices here.

Would it help if I ordered you?

You can't tell us we are cherry-picking and then refuse to show us where we are wrong.

So again the question no one wants to answer - what number of female presidents would not be immoral, sexist revenge but would show the end of gender inequality?

Again, the answer to your question is "mu" because the measurement needs to be taken in context with other figures.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but there was a study in 2010 that showed that single, childless women have higher salaries than men in 147 of the 150 cities that were polled. I cannot get my hands on the study itself, but here's a write up about it in the Times.

Thoughts?

Thank you very much for this. I think it may be a sign that the wage gap is closing but I don't think it means the gap is closed. Here's some of my concerns:

1. The data only looks at a very small portion of the workforce (young, childless, city-dwellers). The wage gap is normally calculated across a wider spectrum so the data ignores women already deep into their careers. I won't call it "cherry-picking" because there is useful information to be had here. In particular, it gives a hint at the future. On the other hand, it doesn't give a fair presentation of the whole.

2. According to the article, this portion of women make more than men because of the current gender education gap.* Does the wage difference remain if we control for education in this group?

3. It doesn't address whether or not the "glass ceiling" still exists.

4. It doesn't address what happens when/if these women get married and have children. This chart shows that marriage and children boost men's salaries while lowering women's:

5. The study doesn't address the stay-at-home gap. I pointed out earlier in this thread that women become stay-at-home parents at a rate 32.5 times higher than men and their salaries drop because of it. Some people dismiss the role socialization plays in the choice to stay home. Because of data like this, I am not prepared to do that as easily:

Taken as a whole, we see that most Americans are open to the idea of women in the workplace but a sizable minority are not.

* The male/female education gap should be a concern to everyone. While it is nice to see society has undone the education gap of the past, I worry that young men will be on the receiving end of their own brain drain. Hopefully, the numbers equilize.

 

[truethat]

I'm seriously trying not to snap at you.

You said that you ignored statistics because they are always twisted to suit the arguer's needs. You said you didn't want to discuss specific issues like the wage gap. You said that you've been trying to answer the title question.

What happens when someone posts an article in your favor? You nearly snap your neck doing an about face. You suddenly cite it as statistical evidence you've been right all along about that specific issue we've been discussing that in no way realates to the title question!

Stop it. Please. Take a good long critical look at yourself. I pray to Forumax the Wordy, lord of message boards, to grant me the strength to ignore you in the future.

Would you stop it? Sheesh now I'm going to lose a bit of respect for you. You don't need to "ignore" me and you also don't need to reply to any of my posts.

I'm not doing an about face and there are no SIDES or in my FAVOR to talk about. This is one of the biggest problems with feminists is that they say they are looking at the statistics but really before even getting started it's all about blame and sides and problems. I pointed it out not to discuss it. As you can see I didn't discuss it, DID I? Nope. I just pointed it out because you SAY you want to discuss it but you dismiss everything that doesn't add up to your preconceived notions.

The truth is we will never figure out these "reasons why there is a wage gap" because the answer is not going to be "one reason" or "reasons across the board."

It could be any number of things. Women may simply be willing to work for less money because they know they are traditionally responsible for domestic work and subconsciously might feel that by accepting a lower salary they will have less obligation to bust their butt at work. Men might demand more because they are establishing their financial status. I have one sister who is a fierce negotiator in her salaries because her goal is to make $100,000 a year before she's 40 and she's almost there.

The point is you can find statistics that prove anything. As these statistics clearly show. You think I didn't know about these statistics already? You want me to find more?


I told you pages ago that childcare and domestic issues have something to do with it and you ignored it. Why? Who's the one with the whiplash in this thread that keeps changing what he's saying every three seconds and getting pissed off and overly emotional? Who keeps saying they want to have a conversation now, but really you want to push an agenda.

Which is why I posted. This is also a reason people don't like feminists. Because they are usually showing up with an axe to grind.

Child please.

 

[KingMerv00]

*Snip*

For the reasons discussed above, I didn't read your post.

Sorry you spent time typing that much just to have it snipped. If it helps any, I know exactly what it feels like.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't blame you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

 

[KingMerv00]

 

[truethat]

For the reasons discussed above, I didn't read your post.

Sorry you spent time typing that much just to have it snipped. If it helps any, I know exactly what it feels like.

The thing that surprises me the most about you is how upset you got over the "snipping" and keep trying to do it to me to make me feel bad.


The fact that you are pointing it out that I should care that you snipped it is a bit silly don't you think?

LOL. No "it doesn't bother me" No need to say "sorry."

When I post it's not just for the person I'm responding.


And guess what (shhhhh whispers......even though you snipped it in the quote people can still read it in my own post! Sorry about that.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
SG's claim is:

More Gender Equality = More women in parliament in Western countries
Less Gender Equality = Less women in parliament in Western countries

While this seems like common sense, the logic does not compute for countries such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, which actually have much less gender equality than in the US and still have more political representation for women......

ftfy

The logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.) But one key indicator cannot prove inequality does not exist. (Proving the negative in this case you have to look at all indicators overall.)

When you address the logic problem your straw man includes, it turns out India and the US, UK, Canada, etc are simply not comparable on dozens of other measures of gender inequality.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This is an example of the kind of Feminism that I think is a bit too emotional, even though many of the things the writer says are true. But the tone is undisputedly on the defensive and many times, condescending, thus insulting.

Part of the problem is, for example, sentences that start by saying "Men do this", "Men do that". It already sounds like it's referring to all men, even though the writer does say that she acknowledges that not all men are like that. But why then, does she not say "Some men do this", "some men do that"?

There's a part where the writer says

No, I don't hate men.



It would, however, be fair to say that I don't easily trust them.

So on one hand, she says it's not that she hates men... but she doesn't trust them. It is still a defensive attitude against "men", obviously based on her previous experiences. There's this armor we build to protect ourselves against future attacks, and we become defensive. We create a mentality of putting everyone on a "Guilty until proven otherwise" status.

Also, many of the descriptions that the writer makes, make assumptions about what "all men" think. For instance:

There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status.

In this bit, the writer is assuming that all men who make such jokes, are doing so just to get a raise out of her.

Still, the writer says many true things about the men who do those things. But in her tone and way of writing, one can tell she suspects this from all men.

 

[KingMerv00]

*Snip*

Same as above.

 

[truethat]

This is an example of the kind of Feminism that I think is a bit too emotional, even though many of the things the writer says are true. But the tone is undisputedly on the defensive and many times, condescending, thus insulting.

Part of the problem is, for example, sentences that start by saying "Men do this", "Men do that". It already sounds like it's referring to all men, even though the writer does say that she acknowledges that not all men are like that. But why then, does she not say "Some men do this", "some men do that"?

There's a part where the writer says



So on one hand, she says it's not that she hates men... but she doesn't trust them. It is still a defensive attitude against "men", obviously based on her previous experiences. There's this armor we build to protect ourselves against future attacks, and we become defensive. We create a mentality of putting everyone on a "Guilty until proven otherwise" status.

Also, many of the descriptions that the writer makes, make assumptions about what "all men" think. For instance:



In this bit, the writer is assuming that all men who make such jokes, are doing so just to get a raise out of her.

Still, the writer says many true things about the men who do those things. But in her tone and way of writing, one can tell she suspects this from all men.

Well put. I agree especially with the part when you discuss how feminists will start of saying they don't mean "all men." They nicely put that in as a disclaimer and then generalize men throughout the rest.

The other interesting thing is that I rarely ever see feminists talking about men on their own terms, things that matter to men or changes in the way men have been treated.

It's usually the typical litany about how men are some how complicit in all the injustices against women, as if women themselves are not.

 

[KingMerv00]

ftfy

The logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.) But one key indicator cannot prove inequality does not exist. (Proving the negative in this case you have to look at all indicators overall.)

When you address the logic problem your straw man includes, it turns out India and the US, UK, Canada, etc are simply not comparable on dozens of other measures of gender inequality.

It might help to repeat what I said earlier in the thread: It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to prove inequality.