Bumping up the controversy: Thoughts on feminism?

[CapoFantasma97]

IMHO, in this current day & age, in the western world, it's not so much sexism that is the problem but male priviledge (in reference to white priviledge)

 

For example, in a world where the social norm is that the women take care of children, men have the advantage that they are a more reliable workforce (less chance to take a leave, or take a shorter leave, for when they have children)

 

 

err ... women get paid less NOT because they work less, but because they end up doing more UNPAID work.

 

Men work on average 52 minutes per day more, yes - at a job, but women on average do more work around the house (18h vs 10h/week).

So if you are a lone male wolf 18+work+52 extra minutes per day? Lol

[Hyperqube]

So if you are a lone male wolf 18+work+52 extra minutes per day? Lol

... becasue lone male wolves are women??

 

if anything, 14 hours per week seems a more logical conclusion (as a two person household apparently takes 28 hours)

(but it doesn't take into account that one can't just divide it by 2, nor does it take into account possible differences between the sexes)

 

the lone man's at 14h/week + 52min*5 workdays, is about equivalent to the married woman's 18h

[The Penguins]

IMHO, in this current day & age, in the western world, it's not so much sexism that is the problem but male priviledge (in reference to white priviledge)

 

For example, in a world where the social norm is that the women take care of children, men have the advantage that they are a more reliable workforce (less chance to take a leave, or take a shorter leave, for when they have children)

 

 

err ... women get paid less NOT because they work less, but because they end up doing more UNPAID work.

 

Men work on average 52 minutes per day more, yes - at a job, but women on average do more work around the house (18h vs 10h/week).

While I agree that women are not technically "paid" for housework, in a way they are. Assuming they're married and it is a man they're married to, the man is obliged to share his earnings with her to pay for the bills, food, etc. 

[CUD]

Modern feminism is a joke.

[Hyperqube]

While I agree that women are not technically "paid" for housework, in a way they are. Assuming they're married and it is a man they're married to, the man is obliged to share his earnings with her to pay for the bills, food, etc. 

 

While I understand what you're saying, there's a flaw in your reasoning, in that you accidently skipped the problem: income inequality. if income is equivalent to time worked

 

Assuming they're married, the man person who works more is obliged to share the earnings with her the person who works less to pay for the bills, food, etc. as the person who works more, earns more

 

Because, the presented numbers give

 

Assuming they're married the man is obliged to share his earnings with her to pay for the bills, food, etc. because dispite working 4 hours less per week, he earns more

 

(if a man works 44h+10h, while a woman 40h+18h)

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

[Hyperqube]

...

for us non-native english speakers:

 

Mansplaining is a portmanteau of the words man and explaining, defined as "to explain something to someone, typically a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing."

...

It was included on The New York Times' 2010 word of the year list, nominated for the American Dialect Society's most creative word of the year honor in 2012, and added to the online Oxford Dictionaries in 2014.

...

Since 2010, journalists have used the word to describe people including the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney; Governor of Texas Rick Perry; MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell; various characters on the HBO drama series The Newsroom; music executive Jimmy Iovine; Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; actor Matt Damon; and consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader.

 

--- wikipdia.

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

I've never seen a female garbage collector...

 

Edit: On that note, I've never seen a female taxi driver, either.

[Hyperqube]

I've never seen a female garbage collector...

There are indeed professions that where the sexes are divided 50/50.

 

You recall the last time you saw a male cashier? (and opposite to garbage collectors, you're forced to interact with cashiers. How can you be sure you haven't mistaken a butch women dressed in an overall for a man. Do you pay that much attention to garbage collectors?)

 

Edit: On that note, I've never seen a female taxi driver, either.

you do realise that you live in australia right? (or that's what you indicate in location)

That three years ago, there was a fuss about cab drivers raping women, right?

That pink taxi's were introduced (taxis driven by women, only for women customers)

 

 

 

Also: beware of anecdotical evidence: as I've never met an Austrian in real life, we can all safely conclude Austria doesn't really exist ... right?

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

There are indeed professions that where the sexes are divided 50/50.

 

I want equal divisions in all jobs, just like all equality-seeking feminists.

 

You recall the last time you saw a male cashier? (and opposite to garbage collectors, you're forced to interact with cashiers. How can you be sure you haven't mistaken a butch women dressed in an overall for a man. Do you pay that much attention to garbage collectors?)

 

Yes: Friday afternoon (not even two days ago). As for the collections, I stand by my initial claim. If women are successfully convincing me that they're men then that (which they're doing) is none of my business.

 

you do realise that you live in australia right?

 

I believe that this is true and my certificate of birth confirms this. However, I can't be certain that it's not a woman in disguise.

 

That three years ago, there was a fuss about cab drivers raping women, right?

 

I agree! It's an outrage that our taxi drivers are of such low class! As every feminist will surely agree, we need to encourage more women to apply for these jobs so as to gain significant representation within this industry.

 

That pink taxi's were introduced (taxis driven by women, only for women customers)

 

I've never seen one because I don't live in Melbourne. I hear that they're quite exclusive, presently. This inequality is absurd! We need those everywhere!

 

Also: beware of anecdotical evidence: as I've never met an Austrian in real life, we can all safely conclude Austria doesn't really exist ... right?

 

If Austria never existed then Hitler had no birthplace so must've been a fairy tale. (I invoked my feminist-given right to use my feminist's logic to mansplain that.)

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

err ... women get paid less NOT because they work less, but because they end up doing more UNPAID work.

 

Men work on average 52 minutes per day more, yes - at a job, but women on average do more work around the house (18h vs 10h/week).

 

 

Assuming they're married the man is obliged to share his earnings with her to pay for the bills, food, etc.

 

Wait a minute! Does this not suggest that, in a traditional marriage, the woman is receiving payments for the unpaid work that she's not being paid for? I wish that I got paid for my unpaid work. Cooking and cleaning is quite time-consuming so I should be compensated for doing it (even if it only satisfies my own, personal needs).

 

I surely hope that they both work sufficiently enough so that they're both satisfied with the arrangements.

[♠Derpeh♤]

err ... women get paid less NOT because they work less, but because they end up doing more UNPAID work.

 

Men work on average 52 minutes per day more, yes - at a job, but women on average do more work around the house (18h vs 10h/week).

 

The fact is the more time you spend at your job more you get paid, making the argument that you should get paid more per hour because you dont spend as much time at a job so you can spend time at home to satisfy your personal needs is stupid. Tho this is basically saying men on average are much more slobs than women xD

[planescape]

reading replies like this make me cringe that some of you are allowed to own computers

[Hyperqube]

@Julia, the second quote "Assuming they're married the man is obliged to share his earnings with her to pay for the bills, food, etc." is from The Penguins - not me (I was quoting him/her)

 

The fact is the more time you spend at your job more you get paid, making the argument that you should get paid more per hour because you dont spend as much time at a job so you can spend time at home to satisfy your personal needs is stupid.

Stupid, you say? That's interesting ... because it was YOU who poined out

 

The main claim that women get paid less they ignore the amount of time worked

But when faced with the reality - that women actually work more then men - suddenly it's OK to ignore the amount of time worked?

 

... No, I'm sorry, but ESPECIALLY since we (more specifically, you) were talking about comparing pay for time worked - trying to ignore work you get don't get paid for, is just ... welll ... wrong.

That would be like saying there's a 100% emplyment rate, becasue you don't count the people without a job.

[♠Derpeh♤]

Stupid, you say? That's interesting ... because it was YOU who poined out

 

The main claim that women get paid less they ignore the amount of time worked

But when faced with the reality - that women actually work more then men - suddenly it's OK to ignore the amount of time worked?

 

... No, I'm sorry, but ESPECIALLY since we (more specifically, you) were talking about comparing pay for time worked - trying to ignore work you get don't get paid for, is just ... welll ... wrong.

 

Again for the third time Im talking about employment i.e at a 5-9 job, how many hours you work at said job dictates how much you get paid, you work less hours you get paid less it's simple. Unpaid work mainly consists of housework/shopping which isnt a job and because females on average spend more time doing unpaid work it means they are spending less time at their employment and more at home.

 

If the male spent more time at his job than the female counterpart then why should he be not paid more to reflect the extra time he has spent at his job? Why should the female who has spent less time at her job be entitled to more $ per hour because she decided to spend more time on personal errands/personal needs? Hence it's stupid.

[Hyperqube]

Again for the third time Im talking about employment i.e at a 5-9 job,

And for the second time - that's your mistake. If you don't look at the full data set you're not able to make proper conclusions.

 

Why should the female who has spent less time at her job be entitled to more $ per hour because she decided to spend more time on personal errands/personal needs? Hence it's stupid.

That's a priori reasoning. It's like asking "Why shouldn't a tyrant be able to kill who ever he wants?"

Explaining a situation and a priori presume that the situation is 'normal' doesn't allow for a decent conclusion.

 

Pretty much by definition, a tyrant is able to kill people, and if you a priori presume that such a situation is normal, you won't see the problem (being that people are dying). It's missing the point - it's missing that there's a difference between Explenation & Justification.

Yes a tyrant is able to kill people (explenation). But that doesn't make it right (lack of justicifaction).

 

Likewise, one could simply point to a wage gab and note "well, men do more better paying jobs, so there is no problem." And they are - seeing as unpaid jobs don't pay. So yes ... if you do more better paying jobs, you get more money. That's explenation. But let's look to justification, shall we?

 

 

 

Let's take a very simple example: housekeepers (or any other job a job equivalent to housework at home). According to the statistics, at the end of the week, The woman has 4 hours less spare time; and oppositely, the man has earned more money.

 

You asked the question: why should this woman, be entitled to more $ ?

 

The answer is obvious.

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

This reasoning permits me to demand payment for every breath that I take.

[The Penguins]

Wage gap debate in a nutshell: Liberals and conservatives yelling at each other on what warrants a higher wage

[Hyperqube]

This reasoning permits me to demand payment for every breath that I take.

I ... guess ... so .... if you get $10 for taking 10 breaths, and someone else gets $11 for 9 equivalent breaths, then yes, you should demand more money for your breath ...

 

though in fairness, I think your hyperbole is lost on me.

[CapoFantasma97]

And for the second time - that's your mistake. If you don't look at the full data set you're not able to make proper conclusions.That's a priori reasoning. It's like asking "Why shouldn't a tyrant be able to kill who ever he wants?"

Explaining a situation and a priori presume that the situation is 'normal' doesn't allow for a decent conclusion.

Pretty much by definition, a tyrant is able to kill people, and if you a priori presume that such a situation is normal, you won't see the problem (being that people are dying). It's missing the point - it's missing that there's a difference between Explenation & Justification.

Yes a tyrant is able to kill people (explenation). But that doesn't make it right (lack of justicifaction).

Likewise, one could simply point to a wage gab and note "well, men do more better paying jobs, so there is no problem." And they are - seeing as unpaid jobs don't pay. So yes ... if you do more better paying jobs, you get more money. That's explenation. But let's look to justification, shall we?

Let's take a very simple example: housekeepers (or any other job a job equivalent to housework at home). According to the statistics, at the end of the week, The woman has 4 hours less spare time; and oppositely, the man has earned more money.

You asked the question: why should this woman, be entitled to more $ ?

The answer is obvious.

So the women should be paid more because they have more housekeeping?

The sense of my previous message is that housekeeping isn't a real work but rather a genderless need.

I am grate for my mother and how she spent her time for me, but she wasn't thrown around my country doing the most different jobs with extenuating routines and often sleeping 4h a day like my father did to not make us live bad. So I wouldn't put housekeeping as a n unpaid job counted as an explanation to give more money to women.

First world countries have no real problem, parity already exist. I would give reason only in feminist associations and activists that have a real and important objective, like the ones fighting for parity in countries where it doesn't exist, where women can't go in universities, have to wear stuff that damages her health or covers her for the sake of traditions, can't be employed in jobs that men instead can do, don't have access to the same services, and their rights are legally limited in any other way.

Also I believe that while legal parity must be seeked (in countries where it lacks) men and women aren't and won't be the same. They are phisically and mentally predisposed for different activities in family and society.

[♠Derpeh♤]

Let's take a very simple example: housekeepers (or any other job a job equivalent to housework at home). According to the statistics, at the end of the week, The woman has 4 hours less spare time; and oppositely, the man has earned more money.

 

You asked the question: why should this woman, be entitled to more $ ?

 

The answer is obvious.

 

The woman has 4 less hours at her job because placed housework/personal errands over her job, the man has earned more because he spent more hours at the job he was paid at.

 

If you're going to ask for equality thats the complete opposite. E.g you get paid 1$ an hour for work as a lawyer, the man works 14 hours at said firm and gets paid 14 hours for his time spent as a lawyer. The female spent 10 hours at said firm and is paid 10$ to reflect the amount of time she has spent working as a lawyer. As it stands now she is complaining that the man gets paid more and that she should be paid 1.4$ per hour so she earns the same as the man disregarding the fact that he had spent more time on the job than her.

 

More time you spend at your job, the more overtime you take the more you earn it's simple. Demanding you should get paid more when you made the choice to spent less time on the job than everyone does not make sense. Deciding to spend more time house keeping (where the largest difference come from) which is a personal errand is not a valid reasoning to entitle you to have more $ per hour.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Everyone is kinda missing the point here. Women's employers have no responsibility to pay them for the unpaid work they do at home, that would make no sense. But that doesn't mean that the cultural norms that result in housework and child-rearing being women's responsibilities aren't sexist.

 

Why is everyone so completely unable to stop thinking in black and white over stuff like this? It's incredibly complex, with endless intersecting factors. Another example that keeps coming up is shitty jobs that are mostly male, like being a garbage man; well... classism also exists? Sexism is not the only thing fucking people in this world. It's all far more complicated than can be chatted about in a clickbait headline thread. I feel I've said this before, but... why don't y'all go read some feminist theory if you actually have interest, rather than arguing about things that you have a very shallow understanding of at best. And if you don't have interest then... what are you doing in this thread?

[t0night]

Why is everyone so completely unable to stop thinking in black and white over stuff like this? It's incredibly complex, with endless intersecting factors. Another example that keeps coming up is shitty jobs that are mostly male, like being a garbage man; well... classism also exists? Sexism is not the only thing fucking people in this world. It's all far more complicated than can be chatted about in a clickbait headline thread. I feel I've said this before, but... why don't y'all go read some feminist theory if you actually have interest, rather than arguing about things that you have a very shallow understanding of at best. And if you don't have interest then... what are you doing in this thread?

you expect too much from a group of mainly teenage boys.

 

also there is an issue in terms of accessible feminist writing; a lot of it is academic in form; otherwise it tends to be responsive to specific issues and fields which are news-worthy or journalistic; which is absolutely fine but i'm yet to see a solid generic intro to key points about feminism that isn't excessively simplistic or actually wrong in places.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I mean you can't do a generic intro to feminism because there are lots of different viewpoints and arguments, sometimes in opposition to each other. It's a complex subject.

[Hyperqube]

The woman has 4 less hours at her job because placed housework/personal errands over her job, the man has earned more because he spent more hours at the job he was paid at.

 

Derpeh, I think you're confused in to thinking I don't get your point. I do get it. Your argument keeps boyling down to the same thing:

The thing the guy statistically does more of gets payed more then the thing the woman statistically does more. ... so there is no problem.

 

And that's where we fundamentally disagree. Seeing as it possibly being the exact same thing as the women does (as indicated by the housekeeper example). That's where the unfairness comes from.

 

As long as the housekeepr example holds true - where, one person worked more and the other - dispite doing physically the exact same thing, earns more, there's a flaw in the system.

 

Demanding you should get paid more when you made the choice to spent less time on the job than everyone does not make sense

Suggesting silly solutions and pointing out they don't make sense isn't a decent argument why the issue at hand wouldn't be a problem.

 

That's like arguing, that if a tyrant can't be dethroned, it's OK for him to kill people.

It obviously isn't - regardeless of the easyness of a solution, if there even is one to begin with.

 

But that doesn't mean that the cultural norms that result in housework and child-rearing being women's responsibilities aren't sexist.

indeed. Hence I use the term 'male privelege' - because conceptually, it doesn't differ from white privelege. It's not 'direct' discrimination, but a society/system/... that benefits one over the other.