Everything explained

[Dakitten]

I am also on my phone, so you'll have to excuse the poor cropping. It's the same chart as the one in the linked article. There are many studies that come up with pretty much the same conclusion - there is a measurable difference between median wages of men and women, which I also agree is true, but most (if not all, since, we're getting close to margin of error here) of it is accounted for by factors that women are in control of rather than prejudice or discrimination. I could probably find more if it really interests you that much, but from what I've read on the subject, when proper controls are in place there's no noteworthy difference between wages of men and women.

I always love more sources and more reading, so please and thank you in advance!

That being said, we can actually take this a step further and expand on how much of wealth is owned by women, and how that impacts education and employment. Much like minority groups, the impacts of discrimination and property rights regarding women in the past stretch on into today very obviously, and without a level playing field, it is difficult to improve upon.

 

[Foxi4]

I always love more sources and more reading, so please and thank you in advance!

That being said, we can actually take this a step further and expand on how much of wealth is owned by women, and how that impacts education and employment. Much like minority groups, the impacts of discrimination and property rights regarding women in the past stretch on into today very obviously, and without a level playing field, it is difficult to improve upon.

I don't care who owns how much and why - those are not my things. I find that line of discussion tremendously uninteresting - I'm a strong supporter of discussing policies that allow people to earn more, not just receive more by taking from others. Other people can keep their things, I'm not envious of them - I can get my own.

 

[SG854]

That men's suffering was different, and measurably less than women's suffering, and that the after effects of this fact stretch into the here and now. I actually wasn't wanting to get into outright slavery, as that gets into even uglier waters with rape and child ownership, to which an argument could be made that women had it worse there, too.

We may not live in the past, but we all live with the past and how it impacts our present.



Oy, I hate replying by phone with sources. I owe you one for Texas, I was reminded too. TBA... also, that chart doesn't list where the data was collected from, or... a lot of things? I still say the department of Labour Statistics data stands fairly well, and that Blizzard's recent lawsuits are a fun sampling that women get paid less for MORE work at major corporations.

I will say you have an awful lot of faith in a system to manage a problem while at the same time wanting to reduce its abilities to enforce and gather data on issues, though. It would be lovely if the government was involved enough to investigate and proactively handle discrimination before it has to be reported.

I hope you are not dismissing mens suffering just because in your mind they did not have as worse as another group you are doing relative comparisons with. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a contest.

And I don't particularly agree that their suffering is less then womens. Just different.

 

[Foxi4]

I hope you are not dismissing mens suffering just because in your mind they did not have as worse as another group you are doing relative comparisons with. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a contest.

And I don't particularly agree that their suffering is less then womens. Just different.

I mean, all of the world's wars, from the dawn of our species until relatively recently, were fought by men. Men were always the hunters and protectors - their sole objective in life was to provide for others, and die for them if necessary. That's a lot of suffering, so I'm not sure how the suffering calculus works out, or how to even begin to gauge it.

 

[SG854]

I always love more sources and more reading, so please and thank you in advance!

That being said, we can actually take this a step further and expand on how much of wealth is owned by women, and how that impacts education and employment. Much like minority groups, the impacts of discrimination and property rights regarding women in the past stretch on into today very obviously, and without a level playing field, it is difficult to improve upon.

As long as you embrace other arguments then I'd be all for speaking with you. I did read books on this very topic so im decently versed on it. But my memory is hazy and im trying to remember everything off the top of my head. I would need to dig up all my sources. If you were talking with me a few years ago then it would've been different and all fresh in my head.

I mean, all of the world's wars, from the dawn of our species until relatively recently, were fought by men. Men were always the hunters and protectors - their sole objective in life was to provide for others, and die for them if necessary. That's a lot of suffering, so I'm not sure how the suffering calculus works out, or how to even begin to gauge it.

I agree with you, but usually the response is women were bared from wars by men. Which I think isnt a good rebuttle.

Getting your limbs blown off is worse then being barred from war. And lets be real, if you were to ask women today many of them are happy the draft doesnt exist for them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I also want to add not to dismiss women who are hurt by war or from rape in war, comfort women in Asia comes to mind

And the atomic bomb in hiroshima and nagasaki wiping out populations of women and children along with males.

 

[Dakitten]

I don't care who owns how much and why - those are not my things. I find that line of discussion tremendously uninteresting - I'm a strong supporter of discussing policies that allow people to earn more, not just receive more by taking from others. Other people can keep their things, I'm not envious of them - I can get my own.

That mentality only works if everyone has enough access to "things" to build or procure their needs too... which often doesn't work out for minorities and the poor. In order to make sure everyone can thrive, at some point some folks are going to have to take responsibility for hoarding and exploiting both resources and people, to say nothing of the environment.

I hope you are not dismissing mens suffering just because in your mind they did not have as worse as another group you are doing relative comparisons with. Suffering is suffering. This isn't a contest.

And I don't particularly agree that their suffering is less then womens. Just different.

If you want to get into purely resources, it absolutely could be a contest where women have suffered more. That is kind of my point. Don't want to get into the other stuff, but...

I mean, all of the world's wars, from the dawn of our species until relatively recently, were fought by men. Men were always the hunters and protectors - their sole objective in life was to provide for others, and die for them if necessary. That's a lot of suffering, so I'm not sure how the suffering calculus works out, or how to even begin to gauge it.

You do realize that not only were women often deprived agency on if said wars should be fought or if they could fight in them, but the aftermath, particularly for the losing side, was quite grim, right? This is not the hill you want to die on, gentlemen.

 

[Foxi4]

That mentality only works if everyone has enough access to "things" to build or procure their needs too... which often doesn't work out for minorities and the poor. In order to make sure everyone can thrive, at some point some folks are going to have to take responsibility for hoarding and exploiting both resources and people, to say nothing of the environment.

Dressing up envy in pretty words doesn't make it any less of a vice. As I already said, the market must be open and accessible to everybody, and laws exist to regulate it in this regard. If women were truly earning less for the same amount and quality of work, nobody would employ men. Why would they, if they can pay a woman less (by a not so insignificant amount, if we're to believe the bogus 23% figure)? Out of spite? You can't buy things with spite, but you can with money. You have two conflicting narratives going on at the same time, and they can't both be true simultaneously. One is that the market in a capitalist society operates on a money over people basis and will do anything and everything, often skirting the law of the land, to hoard capital. The other is that women are paid less for the same work. Logically, if I can pay a woman 79 cents instead of a dollar that I'd pay to a man, the incentive is clear - as a ruthless capitalist I would only hire women and pocket the change. Since this is obviously not how the market operates in real life, there must be other factors at play which are currently ommited by the side of the argument that proclaims the wage gap is a pressing issue. One such difference would be career choice, and that exists even within a singular industry. Take medicine, for instance - male doctors outnumber female doctors 64 to 36. Conversely, only 12% of nurses are men whereas 88% of them are women. You could argue that this is due to reduced educational opportunities, but that doesn't check out - women outnumber men in both college and university. 56% of college students are female versus 44% male, and they successfully graduate at a higher rate. Why is that? Is it because one profession is cold and calculated whereas the other is inherently focused on direct care? Those choices matter, since one is definitely paid better than the other.

You do realize that not only were women often deprived agency on if said wars should be fought or if they could fight in them, but the aftermath, particularly for the losing side, was quite grim, right? This is not the hill you want to die on, gentlemen.

It's not a hill anyone should die on - there's been a lot of suffering over the ages, but I wouldn't argue that one gender suffered more than the other. As it was mentioned, they suffered in different ways. It's indeed not a contest.

 

[Dakitten]

Dressing up envy in pretty words doesn't make it any less of a vice. As I already said, the market must be open and accessible to everybody, and laws exist to regulate it in this regard. If women were truly earning less for the same amount and quality of work, nobody would employ men. Why would they, if they can pay a woman less (by a not so insignificant amount, if we're to believe the bogus 23% figure)? Out of spite? You can't buy things with spite, but you can with money. You have two conflicting narratives going on simultaneously, and they can't both be true simultaneously. One is that the market in a capitalist society operates on a money over people basis and will do anything and everything, often skirting the law of the land, to hoard capital. The other is that women are paid less for the same work. Logically, if I can pay a woman 79 cents instead of a dollar that I'd pay to a man, the incentive is clear - as a ruthless capitalist I would only hire women and pocket the change. Since this is obviously not how the market operates in real life, there must be other factors at play which are currently ommited by the side of the argument that proclaims the wage gap is a pressing issue. One such difference would be career choice, and that exists even within a singular industry. Take medicine, for instance - male doctors outnumber female doctors 64 to 36. Conversely, only 12% of nurses are men whereas 88% of them are women. You could argue that this is due to reduced educational opportunities, but that doesn't check out - women outnumber men in both college and university. 56% of college students are female versus 44% male, and they successfully graduate at higher rate. Why is that? Is it because one profession is cold and calculated whereas the other is inherently focused on direct care? Those choices matter, since one is definitely paid better than the other.
It's not a hill anyone should die on - there's been a lot of suffering over the ages, but I wouldn't argue that one gender suffered more than the other. As it was mentioned, they suffered in different ways. It's indeed not a contest.

Wowwie, I yield you have quite the dedication to capitalism. I will fault you on two things in particular here, and the first is assuming that capitalism can't exist without absolutely thriving off of all forms of exploitation simultaneously. The world doesn't work that narrowly, and what few efforts have been made to pacify the equality argument do operate as some level of deterrent... sometimes.

The ratio of nurses to doctors is interesting (and I would love to see the source, when you have a moment!) but considering trends prior to equal opportunity laws, that correlates with a slight adjustment to force inclusion. I also can't help but notice that you picked THE example STEM field with the closest level of equaIity, but I can walk with you a bit. I would propose that it would shift more if more programs for assisting mothers in schooling existed, and more wealth for higher education tuition was in the hands of women. I presume (but am open to rebutted with some data!) that your statistics don't include university and doctorate studies.

As for the second fault... yeah, okay, no pretenses since subtlety is insufficient. Women have suffered more than men, at the hands of men, in the faiths of men, in the states of men. Don't piss off mums, folks. This really shouldn't be up for debate considering the above, and I encourage a little privilege check.

 

[Foxi4]

Wowwie, I yield you have quite the dedication to capitalism. I will fault you on two things in particular here, and the first is assuming that capitalism can't exist without absolutely thriving off of all forms of exploitation simultaneously. The world doesn't work that narrowly, and what few efforts have been made to pacify the equality argument do operate as some level of deterrent... sometimes.

The ratio of nurses to doctors is interesting (and I would love to see the source, when you have a moment!) but considering trends prior to equal opportunity laws, that correlates with a slight adjustment to force inclusion. I also can't help but notice that you picked THE example STEM field with the closest level of equaIity, but I can walk with you a bit. I would propose that it would shift more if more programs for assisting mothers in schooling existed, and more wealth for higher education tuition was in the hands of women. I presume (but am open to rebutted with some data!) that your statistics don't include university and doctorate studies.

As for the second fault... yeah, okay, no pretenses since subtlety is insufficient. Women have suffered more than men, at the hands of men, in the faiths of men, in the states of men. Don't piss off mums, folks. This really shouldn't be up for debate considering the above, and I encourage a little privilege check.

We'll have to disagree in regards to the latter point. In regards to the former, the EEOC was passed in 1964, it's been almost 60 years, how old do you think the average doctor is? They're not 80+ (keeping age at graduation in mind). Again, a lot can be jotted down to preference - the largest differences between male and female preferences can be observed in countries with the largest number of "equity" regulations, for instance Sweden. Paradoxically, it is the capitalist system that forces women to pursue careers formerly associated with men, specifically in in the pursuit of higher income. When left to their own devices and with all things being equal, women overwhelmingly pursue very different careers because they have very different personalities - they're more conciencious in terms of psychological traits. The industry is still adjusting to take advantage of this, and preliminary results show that women are excellent team leaders, purely because they're better at forming personal relationships. Of course this is all broad strokes, we could have a whole separate thread about the differences between men and women. It's worth noting that this is all statistics - individuals can fit anywhere on the spectrum, this is more a matter of statistically significant trends.

 

[SG854]

Men never had to handle things like witch burnings,

Yes they did deal with things like Witch burnings

1) The accusers were not all men
2) The victims were not only women



Males that were accused were called warlocks

Female participated in as much witch hunts as men. And alot of it was directed at women by women.


In Scottland 86% of accussed were Women, who do you think the other 14% were?



Sometimes men were accused more than woman especially in the early days of Witch hunting.


In the British Isles 59% of the accused were men. In Switzerland it was as high as 80%. Iceland 92% of men. Estonia 60% men. Moscow, Russia 2/3rds were men.


Here's an article from Cambridge University

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3879463

but also pockets within Western Europe, where men, not women, comprised a large fraction or even the majority of accused

Also Witch hunting wasn't the only religiously charged thing. There was two inquisitions, Protestants and Catholics going at it, and persecution of Jews. There was blasphemy, heresy, apostasy which punished as harshly as witchcraft and the majority of victims were men. Witch hunting made up of only a very small percentage of all these religiously charged things.

gender focused anti voting laws,

While not gendered focused many men did not have the right to vote period for a huge part of history.

40% of men did not have the right to vote and had their own suffrage movment and fought to gain the right to vote. Only after WW1 did they gain the right to vote as a reward for fighting in the war in 1918, the same time women got the right to vote. Many men died for their right to vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jun/11/1918-suffrage-celebrations-what-about-the-men

I actually wasn't wanting to get into outright slavery, as that gets into even uglier waters with rape and child ownership, to which an argument could be made that women had it worse there, too.

Who's more likely to get shot by the police? A black man or a black woman?

Black men are far more likely to be in prison, more likely to be street homeless, police are 25 times more likely to shoot a black man then a black women a much bigger gap then the white and black gap of police shootings.


Again you trying to make this a game of who's oppressed more is ridiculous. Neither opression is nice and both genders suffered in their own ways.

 

[Foxi4]

Again you trying to make this a game of who's oppressed more is ridiculous. Neither opression is nice and both genders suffered in their own ways.

Well, of course. It's the 21st century, oppression olympics are well-underway. Victimhood is currency, even if it's only perceived victimhood based on past wrongs that occurred generations ago and may or may not have any bearing on your current situation. That's the fun trend now, in a few years we'll come up with something new. In any case, the whole witchcraft chit-chat reminds me of Giles Corey, a man sentenced to being pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials. For those unfamiliar with this method of execution, it consists of restraining the victim and stacking stones on top of them until the weight of the stones crushes them to death. His famous last words? "More weight". What a chad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey

So yes, men were accused of witchcraft, not just women. Not that it matters anyway since men had other woes throughout history.

 

[SG854]

Well, of course. It's the 21st century, oppression olympics are well-underway. Victimhood is currency, even if it's only perceived victimhood based on past wrongs that occurred generations ago and may or may not have any bearing on your current situation. That's the fun trend now, in a few years we'll come up with something new. In any case, the whole witchcraft chit-chat reminds me of Giles Corey, a man sentenced to being pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials. For those unfamiliar with this method of execution, it consists of restraining the victim and stacking stones on top of them until the weight of the stones crushes them to death. His famous last words? "More weight". What a chad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey

So yes, men were accused of witchcraft, not just women. Not that it matters anyway since men had other woes throughout history.

Yes, overall im not making any claims of which gender was more oppressed because in my many debates of this topic in the past the opression olympics is a ridiculous game to play.

I can name certain instances and certain areas where more men or more women were disadvantaged. But overall will not make the claim that one had it worse then the other. They both have some disadvantages that were similar and some that were unique to their specific gender. And overall both faced disadvantages and suffered in their own ways.

 

[notimp]

Take note of that youtuber as well, imho. This is the second "exceptional" video of him I've watched.

Great also, because talking about the politics of Japan serves as a good proxy for western (satellite state) politics, while also generating some familiarity for people in this forum interest wise. (Just saying, that this might connect with "tha gamers".)

 

[Subtle Demise]

Wowwie, I yield you have quite the dedication to capitalism. I will fault you on two things in particular here, and the first is assuming that capitalism can't exist without absolutely thriving off of all forms of exploitation simultaneously. The world doesn't work that narrowly, and what few efforts have been made to pacify the equality argument do operate as some level of deterrent... sometimes.

The ratio of nurses to doctors is interesting (and I would love to see the source, when you have a moment!) but considering trends prior to equal opportunity laws, that correlates with a slight adjustment to force inclusion. I also can't help but notice that you picked THE example STEM field with the closest level of equaIity, but I can walk with you a bit. I would propose that it would shift more if more programs for assisting mothers in schooling existed, and more wealth for higher education tuition was in the hands of women. I presume (but am open to rebutted with some data!) that your statistics don't include university and doctorate studies.

As for the second fault... yeah, okay, no pretenses since subtlety is insufficient. Women have suffered more than men, at the hands of men, in the faiths of men, in the states of men. Don't piss off mums, folks. This really shouldn't be up for debate considering the above, and I encourage a little privilege check.

Voluntary exchange =\= exploitation

 

[Dakitten]

Voluntary exchange =\= exploitation

Wow, I forgot about this terrible thread... Same pathetic rhetoric, different day.

Voluntary servitude at places that fail to pay enough to meet the minimum means to survive on your own anywhere or death on the streets = exploitation. Half a million homeless people in a country that has several million empty homes speaks volumes to the credibility of your statement. Hell, capitalism even NEEDS desperation from the poor in order to push profits for the top by design. The more desperate people are, the harder you can work them. The more needless deaths there are, the more the living will sacrifice to not become one of them.