No, what I am saying is political discourse has been dumbed down for so long by the media and politicians themselves that it's made the electorate believe it;s not worth the effort, as demonstrated by the sometimes pathetic voter turnout. This goes for both sides of the Atlantic, by the way.
It is most certainly nothing to do with myself but there was a typo in my post 'me' should have said 'men'. If you had read the title on the plot you might just have spotted that..... One of the interesting thing about the dataset is that the more qualified the participants are the worse the woman does relatively. So for people with college degrees the gap is bigger. I can't see how that can be due to anything but discrimination. Anyway now that the graph is clear are you happy that woman getting paid 80% of what men do is sufficient that feminism is no longer needed?
I agree with that in general pretty much (and have to confess that I lived in the middle east for 3 YEARS without learning any arabic whatsoever). I personally do think though that in this instance Smithy has somehing of a point. Whilst I stood up for the Arab way of life countless times having lived there, and in response to criticisms about it from those who had never been there, I would also say that whereas I was perfectly comfortable with Arabic dress in Arabic countries, I still find it uncomfortable when im in thte UK. And that's mainly because I don't see why it is necessary in he UK, and more to the point, I tend to get the impression that women wearing the full monty in England are doing it to make a point, and potentially cause offence, rather than genuinely wanting to wesr it for their own benefit. I'd also add though, that in my experience - contrary to what Smithy said - western women are generally not expected to dress conservativelt in Arab countries (although admittedly this is not the case in a few places), and ai don't really see what bearing it had on the sexual equality discussion we were having tbh ! I'd also add whilst writing, a d for the avoidance of doubt, that ai am very much against genuine discrimination of any kind.
Before I answer, I will firstly apologise for my confrontational and dismissive tone earlier, and secondly acknowledge that I had (genuinely innocently) not picked up the fact that 'me' was a typo. I also acknowledge that that error, renders some of the content of my previous reply to you, invalid. ...
Power, The simple answer to your question is 'no'. I do not believe that the difference between average male pay and average female pay is due to discrimination. In most developed countries, there is strenuous anti discrimination legislation in place that makes it illegal to base pay on gender. It is my understanding that for this reason, the days of paying different genders different amouts for the same work, are effectively gone. If it was not, we would know about it ! Firms are named and shamed when their gender ratios are considered questionable, let alone when they have an intrisic gender based pay bias. My understanding is that the differences are due to choices in jobs undertaken by men and women, specifically : - the professions chosen - the levels at which they work The second of these issues is the point made by the Saatchi and Saatchi Chairman who was fired last week after commenting (amongst other things) about the tendancy for women not to have the same "vertical ambition" as men, ie not to TEND to seek out the highest levels of jobs (ie promotion from technical roles to senior management roles). The first of the issues is thte tendancy for women to simply TEND to choose less lucrative professions than men, or to have more of a tendancy than men to have a part time / non career type role as well as playing the 'traditional' female family role. All of these things impact the pay of the 'average' female employee. This is not seen, simply by looking at a graph with two lines on it. And it's for that reason, that those who promote such a form of 'pay equality' professionally (and yes, there are consuktancies that specialise in promoting female advancement etc in business) seek to focus solely on, just such (meaningless) statistics. The Saatchi example being a good one again, because in that instance, 'outraged' members of his group of gender consultants responded to the guy's well argued analysis, simply by saying things auch as "this is not acceptable. This is not negotiable". They do this because they know that an informed discussion will expose their position for what it is - flawed. What these people seek to do, is to blame business for the imbalance described above, and insist that business promote based on gender. But because less women than men seek very senior positions, the quality of those that a firm has to to choose from will generally be lower than the male counterparts. That's not because women are less able than men, but that they tend to be less willing to perform those roles. So the result is that businesses are pressured into promoting less suitable female candidates. That is not equality. It's the opposite of it.
And conversely the very same media and politicians are often telling the electorate that they are in fact too dumb to understand that political discourse.
Which college degrees? There's a clear disparity between what men and women tend to study. Career choices would also become more obvious in the figures, as an improved education would open up more roles. Men tend to pick jobs that are more financially rewarding, while women put more value on flexibility and job satisfaction. For a more obvious and blatant statistic for gender differences in the work place, try occupational mortality. Men tend to die in the workplace at a rate of roughly 11 to 1 when compared with their female colleagues. I doubt that anyone would claim that this is down to discrimination, though. It's also omitted from things like the gender pay gap study quoted above. Men also tend to work more overtime and longer hours, which doesn't make it into the study. More pay for more hours? That doesn't seem unfair, does it?
Even in the same profession, there is a tendency for women to choose a career path which is less well paid. For example, in law there is a higher concentration of women in social law (family,crime, housing, debt). The choice isn't necessarily about financial rewards, but job satisfaction. In medicine, there are more women in the "caring" side of the profession (nursing, mental health, child care). It's not always about financial rewards. It might seem like a wild generalisation (and is probably unforgivably sexist too), but there seems to be a tendency for women to take jobs which satisfy their maternal instincts rather than to seek the highest wages. Am I wrong?
I bet there's more people speaking English in Spain thn there are speaking Spanish in England. Who want's to learn Spanish to spend two weeks in Spain for goodness sake? Does our friend "Now Suffering in Spain" speak the lingo.I have a feeling he's picked it up........
Yes, Smithy, I do speak Spanish. I live here and if you wish to become integrated and accepted, plus be able to communicate, it's essential.
I think it is very impolite not to try to speak the local language when you go on holiday. Even if it is just a few phrases like please and thank you, local people appreciate the effort and tend to be friendlier, and it will make your holiday experience better. Where I live very few of the older people speak any English at all, although the children and teenagers now learn it at school, so speaking Spanish is essential.
I don't think you are necessarily wrong but I take a rather different view which I think causes the the feminist approach to be different. I start from the assumption that while men and women are different they have an equal part to pay in the development of the human species. Therefore generally they should be able to receive the same rewards from work etc. I do think there are two issues with this in modern society. They both arise from the huge preponderance of men in decision making positions. This has two outcomes (1) the qualities needed to get into leadership roles are always defined by men and this leads to women having to behave like men to get on. This is the opposite of what is necessary in my view as I see the absence of women in leadership positions being damaging to society. (2) The relative worth of jobs is defined by men. This is probably what causes the huge discrepancy between men's and women's pay. I tend to agree with Robspur that generally speaking companies don't overtly break the law on remuneration but why do social lawyers get paid less than say corporate lawyers. I'll only be satisfied with women's treatment in society once both men and women can make choices based on their skills but with the same average outcome. We are a long way from that,
This is what a lot of people have a problem with about modern feminism, though. Equality of opportunity is welcomed by virtually everyone. Equality of outcome, regardless of actions and choices, is not.
If i was confident that women were being appointed to senior positions based on their skills not on how like men they were, and that jobs were equally valued independently of whether they were historically done by men or women, then I'd be prepared to put up with the outcome the market decided.
Jobs are valued financially based upon their financial worth. That's not determined by men at random. Money isn't the only way to determine the pros and cons of a job, either. Working less hours, having less pressure and having flexibility is clearly seen as desirable, but don't factor into the wage gap. The idea that some jobs have been historically done by men and are therefore more highly valued is backwards, in my opinion. Men did the important jobs and women weren't allowed to. This was clearly wrong, but that's how it was. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of any careers that don't follow that pattern.
A huge proportion of the occupational mortality excess comes from motor traffic accidents while on business, mostly from jobs like lorry driving where there are many more men than women.
I don't think that's the case. The most dangerous jobs tend to be in construction, farming or mining. Even if it were true, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If men are doing a lot more dangerous jobs, then surely you'd expect those jobs to pay more, wouldn't you?
I looked at a occupational mortality report for the whole UK from 2000 -2010 where more than 90% of the accidental deaths at work were road traffice accidents but it seems recently these have been redefined not to be occupational...... Probably yes - but the paying of danger money is arguably unethical. I wasn't trying to make a point, but there is little difference in the gender pay gap when measured in individual job sectors so this sort of effect can't explain most of the difference.
Guess its not down to women killing off their male colleagues in an attempt to crack the glass ceiling???
I would classify myself as a feminist. I also really pissed a few people off a while ago because I pointed out that sanitary products were not actually taxed at some mythical "luxury rate" and were actually taxed at the rate which is explicitly reserved for "more essential" goods. I was clearly a misogynist due to my pointing out the facts about the 3 levels of VAT. The level of debate around most things is pretty damn low which confuses everything and leads to bitterness and misunderstanding. The wage gap issue is a hugely complex one and I am really not convinced that the numbers thrown around by people to show discrimination really do offer nearly as clear answers as is often thought. Again, the problem is that simply questioning those numbers will piss off many of the less reflective people debating these issues, which is a shame for everyone. But here's the thing: there's a very understandable, even justifiable, reason why those people will get pissed off with men (in particular) arguing that taxes on tampons or wage equalities are not the problems they are claiming them to be. The reason is that we very, very obviously still live in a patriarchy which is an inheritance from millennia of patriarchy and which unarguably damages the lives of girls and women from the get-go. It is still clearly a fact that girls are patronized, limited and held back by their parents, by their toys, by the social norms and expectations, by the pressure to look pretty, by their teachers, by each other, by almost every aspect of popular culture... Name me one male newsreader who is sexy. Now name me one female newsreader who is not sexy. There are so many numbers and facts pointing out the gender imbalance and extra sexualisation of women in popular culture that I won't bother starting to list them. But to take Hollywood as one example: there is a huge difference in literally how many words male actors say in films compared to female actors. Even in films which are ostensibly about female characters. The men talk and do things, the women look pretty. Also the average ages for male and female oscars is insightful. Again to be successful as a woman you need to be young (under 40) and beautiful. No such limitations for men. Just one more little drip, drip, drip aspect of culture which shows girls how being attractive to men is one of *the* most important things in life. I listened to Clinton's speech at the democratic conference (I'm not a fan of her's btw). I was (though I shouldn't be) amazed to hear people talk about how "aggressive" or something she sounded. There is no way they would have said that if she was male. It is bloody hard for women to be authoritive, decisive etc without being criticized for being bitchy or mean. There are lots of studies to show that society has a real problem here. Andy Gray and Richard Keys did not lose their jobs for suggesting that a female assistant referee couldn't possibly do her job. They did, however, lose their job for making lewd remarks about their very attractive, much younger (of course) female co-presenter. I think that in that situation there was a lot you need to know about what the patriarchy is, what the problems with it are and indeed how wrong-headed and confused the whole debate is. But please. The job is not done. Our society is still very much a patriarchy and it's gonna take many more generations of aware, thoughtful people til girls have the same opportunities, freedoms and happinesses available to them as often and as readily as boys do. I cannot believe that anyone who walks down a street, turns on a TV, opens a paper or a magazine, sees a webpage or follows a sport could really disagree with that.
