Equal Pay for Equal Work?

Homepage Forums Politics Equal Pay for Equal Work?

This topic contains 22 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Glen D 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26601

    Davis
    Participant

    Yes Unseen you are totally right. When academic research begins to support ideas you don’t like…you can always start finding flaws in it. I personally remember the first time I questioned research methods I never question otherwise, when the results went against everything I believed. I also like how, once, when I was horrified to read research that disagreed with something I cared about…I suddenly demanded that research is meaningless unless you know EVERYTHING and can read the mind of humans and know precisely why everyone makes any decision.

    If intellectual conversation has regressed to dismissing research you don’t like anymore (which you have done multiple times by the way Unseen…not just in this intellectually sad way) and it comes down to trying to guess whats going on in the mind of managers…then contemplate the possibility of SEXIST BIAS. Of course, we cannot really go anywhere here anymore because none of us can know everything nor account for every variable in the universe. And since none of us are mind readers…its really just becomes a case of personal instinctive assumptions. So fine…I say that inherant sexist bias explains a lot of it. The evidence does but the evidence is moot because it doesn’t meet super human cosmic invincible qualities that unseen only seems to expect when he disagrees with you…but I also say inherent sexist bias because that’s my intuitive assumption and that’s all we have left. Now if only we could reduce all of our conversations to intuitive assumptions and quickly disregard intellectual and academic standards that result in conclusions we don’t like…then atheistzone could become the ultimate forum of intellectual excellence. Get ready to become an online sensation. And you’ll get to say “yeah…I was a user here before the website took off on it’s epic voyage of intelligent discourse”.

    #26602

    Ivy
    Participant

    @unseen I think your observation about the #metoo movement is totally bullshit. Speculation and personal opinion. Normal healthy male businessmen aren’t changing anything. Because they weren’t doing anything wrong to begin with and they still aren’t…. And it’s not making it any harder one way or another for a woman to get a job or get promoted.

    The only sort of backlash side effect you might consider is that for those men who were already abusive assholes, they have just become more so.  There are pockets of them all around us. I don’t think that they even think twice before doing anything. If anything they are just more condescending and stick out like sore thumbs. Trump has empowered them to be assholes.

    #26619

    Unseen
    Participant

    @unseen I think your observation about the #metoo movement is totally bullshit. Speculation and personal opinion. Normal healthy male businessmen aren’t changing anything. Because they weren’t doing anything wrong to begin with and they still aren’t…. And it’s not making it any harder one way or another for a woman to get a job or get promoted. The only sort of backlash side effect you might consider is that for those men who were already abusive assholes, they have just become more so. There are pockets of them all around us. I don’t think that they even think twice before doing anything. If anything they are just more condescending and stick out like sore thumbs. Trump has empowered them to be assholes.

    More men are uncomfortable interacting with women at work since #MeToo, study says

    Will #MeToo turn into #NotHer? Movement may come with unintended workplace consequences

    Men on Wall Street are so spooked by the #MeToo movement they’re avoiding women at all costs

    I guess it depends upon what you mean by “bullshit.”

     

    #26623

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    at what juncture does the government have sufficient standing and interest to intrude in hiring and and promotion matters.

    Recently I’m thinking that there’s too much negative impact on small companies, and too much litigation necessary to prove and “remedy” alleged gender bias… but “affirmative action” as a solution can be reasonable if it’s treated as a societal issue rather than a company hiring issue, and if it’s legislated as a temporary compensation based transparently on contemporary statistics on known, overall hiring practice inequalities. E.g. pay companies to hire more females, and minorities when the statistics bare out the unequal hiring practices in an area.

    I know that producing such statistics and choosing which statistics seem most credible could be contentious and costly, but it’s a more pro-active approach than the costly, after-the-fact litigation approach per individual hire and individual company.

    Ivy ( @asianne ), does that make any sense to you? I haven’t researched any of this. I just know as a veteran that there have been some very effective programs similar to this, providing vocational education to veterans, and helping companies to hire them. I feel that motherhood is generally a critically necessary but “under-compensated” role here in USA.

    #26625

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    One major reason for discriminating against women, especially in businesses too small to be subject to fairness in hiring laws is a result of #MeToo.

    This sounds too much (to me) like framing the issue as if it’s the victim’s fault. Like, “How were you dressed when you got raped?”. Or it refocuses the issue as a reverse discrimination problem, e.g. “think instead of all the men who are falsely accused”. Sure, a woman might dress provocatively enough to set a man on randy edge [winking Satan or Taliban emoticon here], and sure, some women falsely accuse men of rape or inappropriate sexist behavior. And sure, the reaction to progressives speaking up on racial and gender abuse cases probably sparked a white male backlash that helped get Trump elected.

    But that doesn’t mean there was no case for sexism (or racism) being a valid, contemporary issue. Maybe you’re not totally intending to debunk the progressive position that sexism/gender bias still exists as a significant problem, and maybe you’re not feeling (say) that #MeToo people are just irritatingly whiny.

    Or are you?

    Meanwhile, on a more constructive note (I hope), I go back to considering how to mitigate any inequality by treating this as a societal dysfunction with social-based remedy, rather than as a blame game focusing on remedies requiring litigation. Maybe the real enemy here is the reactive, conservative attitude that proscription, prescription, and prosecution by law of a specific human or specific company’s behavior is the only possible treatment for merely anecdotal or  purportedly sparsely occurring evil. (Well ok, most liberals seem to be thinking this way too.)

    #26628

    Unseen
    Participant

    One major reason for discriminating against women, especially in businesses too small to be subject to fairness in hiring laws is a result of #MeToo.

    This sounds too much (to me) like framing the issue as if it’s the victim’s fault. Like, “How were you dressed when you got raped?”. Or it refocuses the issue as a reverse discrimination problem, e.g. “think instead of all the men who are falsely accused”. Sure, a woman might dress provocatively enough to set a man on randy edge [winking Satan or Taliban emoticon here], and sure, some women falsely accuse men of rape or inappropriate sexist behavior. And sure, the reaction to progressives speaking up on racial and gender abuse cases probably sparked a white male backlash that helped get Trump elected. But that doesn’t mean there was no case for sexism (or racism) being a valid, contemporary issue. Maybe you’re not totally intending to debunk the progressive position that sexism/gender bias still exists as a significant problem, and maybe you’re not feeling (say) that #MeToo people are just irritatingly whiny. Or are you? Meanwhile, on a more constructive note (I hope), I go back to considering how to mitigate any inequality by treating this as a societal dysfunction with social-based remedy, rather than as a blame game focusing on remedies requiring litigation. Maybe the real enemy here is the reactive, conservative attitude that proscription, prescription, and prosecution by law of a specific human or specific company’s behavior is the only possible treatment for merely anecdotal or purportedly sparsely occurring evil. (Well ok, most liberals seem to be thinking this way too.)

    It would be silly to claim there’s no discrimination against women. It would be even sillier to suppose that fear of sexual harassment claims and litigation has no effect on business practices, including hiring. There are wacko men, we all know, and correspondingly there are wacko women. Men sometimes take advantage of any advantage they have or can manufacture. It would be silly to think there are no corresponding women. Thus, a claim about something that supposedly happened in private or in a private conversation is a scary thing, and not just for men who abuse women.

    Do you see “victim’s fault” in there anywhere, PB?

    #26638

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Do you see “victim’s fault” in there anywhere, PB?

    Nope!

    And I genuinely appreciate this very relevant discussion.

    #26848

    Glen D
    Participant

    2 cents

    1970 was an important year in the Australian Federal civil service, where I worked.

    Equal pay for women was introduced . That meant equal pay for males and females of the same classification. Until that time, women were paid 70% of the male rate.

    The rule that women had to resign on marriage was abolished. Maternity leave was still over a decade away.

    Sounds just dandy doesn’t it. It wasn’t. For a start,’traditional womens’ jobs’ as say typistes and automatic data operators received  no pay increase. That ensured those jobs would remain “womens’ jobs”. That had changed by the time I retired.  With computers, clerks did their own letters typing and ADP. Just dandy again right? Not so much.

    Passing laws does not in itself change social attitudes.

    The position of women in the Australian civil service changed in the next 20 years. It became common to find women at middle management level, but a lot less so in senior management. That was the era of “the glass ceiling”. Don’t know if it’s still the case.

    OF course equal pay for women is important,  if applied fairly. However, it’s only part of equality for women.  In my opinion, we still live in what is essentially a patriarchal society in which gender remains important  in areas in which it should not; EG; still no female  has been elected US president..  Female soldiers are a long way from being usually found in combat roles. I understand that has begun to change in the US armed forces (?). Still have the spectacle of men passing laws about abortion, an essentially medical procedure.

     

    OT: My State , South Australia was I think the first place in the world to fully enfranchise women. IE they not only had the right to vote, but also the right to hold elected office, in 1894. This did not of course extend to aboriginal people, who weren’t even counted in our census until 1963. This as the result of a referendum with a majority, needed in Australia to change the constitution.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Glen D.
Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.