Third Wave Feminism In Atheism

Homepage Forums Politics Third Wave Feminism In Atheism

This topic contains 28 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 4 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32653

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen you look at things through the eyes of someone trying to justify something unfair instead of seeing obvious valid solutions. Perhaps do as they do in Scandanavia and give equal paterinity and maternity leave? Or should it be both expected for the mother to take care of the child AND to penalise her with her salary AND her slowing career?

    More ad hominem with a little amateur psychologizing thrown in. LOL Do you know any other way to argue?

    We have parental leave in some states, but it’s paid leave for a short period in only five states. If you suggest “Why don’t we do what they do in Scandinavia blah-blah-blah,” the response will typically be something like “If you like Denmark so much, why don’t you move there?” Comparisons with other countries, especially “socialist” countries, don’t fare well here.

    You also seem to think that because some women are compelled to stop their career and take time off for the labour and early caring for their children that it is reasonable that an ENTIRE GENDER should pay for that. This is called discrimination.

    Discrimination isn’t a bad word. We discriminate in favor of certain groups, for example. Gays, handicapped folks, and others. So don’t bring up “discrimination” as though it’s a condemnation word.

    Maybe you don’t understand America. We’re more conservative and traditional in many ways than other countries, but more liberal than others, too. Does it surprise you to know that Trump was voted into office along with many female votes by women who think staying home and caring for children is exactly what they want to do because they feel it’s natural? And that having a husband who takes on the role of provider is equally natural and more than a fair exchange for for later workplace disadvantages.

    A lot of Americans see these roles as natural, the way the genders have certain fairly fixed roles in other species. In some, cats for example, males play no role after conception. In the case of peregrine falcons, the male sticks around helping the female provide for the chicks. In seahorses, it’s the male who gestates the offspring. Americans live under a widely accepted view of gender roles. To mess with it at the government level will heppen when/if that changes. We are a representative democracy not an authoritarian Davisocracy. LOL Changes will happen when the time is right, which won’t be right for some but will be late in coming for others.

    It wouldn’t make sense to have a policy to not hire people who grew up in a city in which hired employees are more likely to leave early and change jobs or be imprisoned with higher frequency and therefore penalize ALL people who grew up in that city because of this. And yet it seems entirely reasonable to penalize all women, including those who are passed child bearing age.

    Any hiring or remuneration decision requires acting on a hunch based on belief, yes, but also experience. It’d be nice to think everyone should be treated as a tabula rasa, but the law makes ridding the business of a person who isn’t working out a risky process full of potential pitfalls—even in a so-called “at will” state. Especially when it comes to women and ethnic minorities in particular.

    So those supposed “protections” can dysfunctionally cause many employers, especially small ones, to try to avoid potentially sticky situations by not hiring some people in the first place. There’s an expression for this sort of phenomenon: “unintended consequences.”

    And yet, when a woman leaves her job to raise kids or provide care for a needy parent by her own choice, which is often the case, it shows up in the statistics for the entire gender. It also puts her in a retarded position as far as advancement and salary since she’s missed a certain period of time other employees have used to prove their worthiness for promotions and receive regular raises. You see, Davis, I don’t know how it is in Belgium(?) but here in the U.S., the longer you work, the more you get paid, often automatically. (Which has an unintended consequence of it’s own: often if layoffs are necessary, it can be the longer-term workers who lose their jobs because that saves the company more money.

    No it doesn’t make sense to penalize an entire group because of the potential short term problems that can come from some members of that group nor to incentivise men to take their fare share of the burden for raising children. Jcust let things stay the way they are, make all women pay, carry the burden and justify substantially lower salaries.

    There is no “fair share” a male partner should pay. That is for the couple to decide, at least here.

    And even IF it were a valid excuse that companies worried about a short term loss over potential materinity leave was acceptable to justify lower women’s pay, it doesn’t cover the enormous gap in salary. I mean come on. One or two years off in maternity leave doesn’t justify a 25% to 30% salary difference over the course of an entire career. Even the math doesn’t add up.

    If a woman drops out of the work force to raise just two children born five years apart, she might lose 25 years of work history. Twenty-five years with no work history, no automatic pay raises, no advancement opportunities. What do you think a male in a similar situation might expect?

    It’s just discrimination, arbitrarily lower salaries and subconscious bias. Women are worth less and should be paid less, even when they are worth more.

    Women self-discriminate in ways that have huge impacts on their own earning power as well as on the statistics.

    Women and men in the same job are paid somewhat less, but just a few percentage points, and it may be explainable in ways I’ve mentioned. Being in the same job DOES NOT mean the same as doing the same work. Men tend to be more aggressive (testosterone) and thus may be the one volunteering to take on the difficult project involving long hours and lost weekends.

    However, there is no justification to just assume it’s ipso facto due to misogyny or male oppression.

    • This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    #32655

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It seems that there are a number of reasons why women get paid less on average than men, for example:

    • actual negative discrimination.
    • women tend to shoulder the bulk of child care responsibilities.
    • women tend to work in lower-paid jobs like the caring professions.
    • statistically, women are higher in “agreeableness” and therefore find it more difficult to ask for what they are worth.
    #32656

    Unseen
    Participant

    So what company will ever pay women to raise children?

    Even when raising kids is purported to be a choice, things can happen later that leave mothers stranded, so should they also be expected, with no backup from a workplace, to take the risk of having to raise kids after unforeseen circumstances?

    It is society’s responsibility to make child rearing a safe risk for women, just as (imo) it’s society’s responsibility to provide for health care availability (to everyone) without expecting employers to have to pay for the brunt of it.

    Historically and currently, in America, women just do not have the same “choices” that men do, not even the choices we as a society need them to have.

    Business, in our world, don’t exist for the benefit of their employees, but for the benefit of those who own the business. That is capitalism in a nutshell, is it not?

    What gives a business a duty to help an employee raise children? As just stated, a business exists to benefit the owners. The purpose of of employees is to help them.

    Employers have no inherent duty to help employees with childcare (or eldercare for that matter). If one wants to establish such a right, it has to be done the only way we know to do that: through enforceable legislation.

    Women often get themselves into the single-parent bind through their choices, and this is a success killer in terms of careers. They choose to keep a child out of wedlock. They choose not to identify the father in order to keep him out of her life allowing her to raise her child without his interference. Or, alternatively, they do identify him in order to get child support but refuse to bring him into the equation through marriage or by sharing parental rights, which often establishes the father as a hostile person in her life for 18 or 20 years. Most extramarital conceptions are consensual in an ordinary nonlegalistic sense. She may not have explicitly consented to sex, but wanted to have sex and put up no resistance beyond the perfunctory minimum so as not to seem too slutty.

    #32657

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    What gives a business a duty to help an employee raise children? As just stated, a business exists to benefit the owners. The purpose of of employees is to help them.

    Employers depend on employees being in good shape, in which case they can get more use out of them.

    #32658

    Davis
    Moderator

    What gives a business a duty to help an employee raise children?

    The law…actually. A good one. Or should women forever be burdened with both the expectation to take care of the child AND put their career on hold as well as a fair salary?

    #32659

    Unseen
    Participant

    What gives a business a duty to help an employee raise children? As just stated, a business exists to benefit the owners. The purpose of of employees is to help them.

    Employers depend on employees being in good shape, in which case they can get more use out of them.

    Employees are a resource to a business owner, like their source for copy paper. If they are dissatisfied with the copy paper they are getting, they don’t help the paper company, they change vendors.

    Notice that this isn’t some extreme right wing analysis of how businesses work, it’s a Marsist analysis of how capitalism works, basically.

    #32660

    Unseen
    Participant

    What gives a business a duty to help an employee raise children?

    The law…actually. A good one. Or should women forever be burdened with both the expectation to take care of the child AND put their career on hold as well as a fair salary?

    As I often say, there are just two kinds of rights: legislated (and enforceable) and imaginary. The case with duties is a corollary.

    #32662

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    it’s a Marsist analysis of how capitalism works, basically.

    It may be, but it’s not necessarily a full and accurate picture.

    Employers need to invest in their resources.

    #32663

    Unseen
    Participant

    it’s a Marsist analysis of how capitalism works, basically.

    It may be, but it’s not necessarily a full and accurate picture. Employers need to invest in their resources.

    Yes, in the most profitable way, not the way that benefits employees the most, unless both considerations coincide.

    BTW, you attributed my quote to Davis. I’m sure he appreciates this being corrected. LOL

    #32664

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    unless both considerations coincide.

    Quite often, they do.  A happy and healthy worker is a productive worker.

    #32665

    Unseen
    Participant

    unless both considerations coincide.

    Quite often, they do. A happy and healthy worker is a productive worker.

    I’m not sure that’s true. It sounds like something someone who wants it to be true might say. Maybe the way one is happy and healthy is by spending less time at work and more time at home with the family or the dog. There’s no guarantee that greater productivity is going to make up for spending less time on overtime, for example.

     

    • This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    #32667

    Davis
    Moderator

    Yeah unseen and American law, depending on the state, mandates that maternity leave is paid to a certain extent. So yeah…already there you have the law forcing companies to help women shoulder the responsibility.

    If America had any sense of justice they would follow some European countries and mandate both mothers and fathers have equal m/p aternity leave and force companies to at least make salaries less ridiculously lopsided. I cannot see such laws being passed in the US in the near future because the running narrative at the time is “there is no problem, the salary discrepancy is fair, women want to shoulder most of the responsibility anyways and hey…that’s just how the business world works”. Sucks to be a woman in America (and many other countries) hoping to be paid what they’re worth.

    #32668

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’m not sure that’s true. It sounds like something someone who wants it to be true might say.

    I think it’s somewhat true.  A happy worker is also more committed to the organisation.

    There has to be a balance or trade-off between the demands of employment versus workers’ convenience and enjoyment.

    #32669

    Unseen
    Participant

    O

    Yeah unseen and American law, depending on the state, mandates that maternity leave is paid to a certain extent. So yeah…already there you have the law forcing companies to help women shoulder the responsibility. If America had any sense of justice they would follow some European countries and mandate both mothers and fathers have equal m/p aternity leave and force companies to at least make salaries less ridiculously lopsided. I cannot see such laws being passed in the US in the near future because the running narrative at the time is “there is no problem, the salary discrepancy is fair, women want to shoulder most of the responsibility anyways and hey…that’s just how the business world works”. Sucks to be a woman in America (and many other countries) hoping to be paid what they’re worth.

    But I’ve been explaining that the salary discrepancy one hears about are justified in various ways. Not every single percentage point, but largely. A woman can’t drop out of the job market for 10 or 20 years and expect to start at a salary when she returns at the same level of another woman who took the (let’s call it) man path of never taking time off for kids, accepting any voluntary overtime she was offered, agreeing to various inconvenient relocations, learning the male social skills (talking sports, for example). Not to mention, of course, missing ten to twenty salary adjustments. She comes back, earns less, and plays a role in skewing the stats.

Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.