Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure that there are any studies on women's happiness pre-feminism that would have any validity. Happiness is such a subjective condition. If you have no choices in life except to be a housewife or secretary, I think many people simply choose to be happy with what they have. If you have an abundance of choices, you might be unhappy with where you are in life, but that doesn't mean that you are unhappy about the abundance of choices.
I think overall, the people who are happiest are the people who made the choices that were best for themselves, without regard to what society thinks. And the people who are the unhappiest are the people who felt pressured into making choices that they now feel weren't best for themselves. And the fact of the matter is that pre-feminism, women simply weren't given much of a choice at all.
Sure. I have a ton of respect for feminists in Iraq, or China. Feminist ideology serves some socially beneficial purpose in these places.
Offered the same opportunities, sure.
Guaranteed the same outcomes, no. The "pay gap" argument is an example of this.
The pay gap argument is not an example of this. The pay gap is too consistent to be an example of individuals simply not meeting expectations. There are way too many occurrences of women and men being in perfect parity in terms of experience, skills and qualifications, and women still being paid less than men, across the board. The possibility that women don't bargain as hard for pay increases has to juxtaposed with the social perceptions that accompany that possibility. A man who bargains hard enhances his value, he's a strong competitor, aggressive when it counts. A woman who bargains hard decreases her value, she's a money-hungry *itch, only out for herself, no loyalty to the company. And there have been studies where men and women have memorized scripts, used the same exact words and tones, with identical resumes, and the outcomes have consistently favored men by an overwhelming margin, even when the bosses making the decisions have been women.
While some very militant feminists believe that "it's superior to eschew committed relationships and childbearing in favor of career pursuits", that's not the true feminist message. The true feminist message is that women and men are equals, and that women should have the same opportunities as men have. True feminism embraces that for men as well. If a man wants to take care of the household chores and assume the bulk of the responsibility for raising the children, true feminism supports his choice just as they support a woman choosing to do that. Feminism was never about robbing women of choices, it was about expanding choices for women AND men. It's very disheartening that some women distorted the purpose, and that other women don't understand it. If you wanna pick up his dirty socks, then go right ahead! Feminists applaud your choice. And hopefully, you will applaud the women who make other choices.
You're right (as usual!), but unfortunately, the message really did get distorted, and distorted often. That's the sad thing, because there really is nothing wrong with people, both men and women, choosing roles and lifestyles that are fitting for them, without having to suffer ridicule or pressure from anyone else.
You'll have to talk conspiracy theories with someone else.
Men and women are different, and the outcomes of their efforts will be different.
The outcomes based on their efforts should be different. Different outcomes based only on gender are discrimination.
Example:
A college-educated female applies for a job with a large, international company. She has 2 years mid-level management experience. She gets offered an administrative position at entry-level wages.
A young man with a GED applies for the same job with the same company at the same time. He has no management experience. He gets offered entry into the management training program at significantly higher wages.
Sure. I have a ton of respect for feminists in Iraq, or China. Feminist ideology serves some socially beneficial purpose in these places.
Offered the same opportunities, sure.
Guaranteed the same outcomes, no. The "pay gap" argument is an example of feminists wanting equal outcome, under the guise of "equal opportunity".
I disagree, I believe feminism is very important even here in the US where women, for the most part, have equal rights. There is still a large portion of the male population that tries to keep women in a wholly submissive position and I feel that being constantly vigilant is important.
As for your second statement, I have been in a situation wher I had more experience, a better attitude and more education but I was paid about 2/3 of the amount as the men I worked with... Even though I was a supervisor. I found out a few years later in passing when I had a conversation with one of the old regional managers. He said they paid me less because I was a single woman without children... It had nothing to do with performance.
The pay gap argument is not an example of this. The pay gap is too consistent to be an example of individuals simply not meeting expectations.
Who said anything about meeting expectations?
Quote:
There are way too many occurrences of women and men being in perfect parity in terms of experience, skills and qualifications, and women still being paid less than men, across the board.
Promotions are an outcome, not an opportunity. We don't know why women earn less; I can speculate about the cause, just as you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The outcomes based on their efforts should be different. Different outcomes based only on gender are discrimination.
Well, I disagree with you, and anyone who shares that perspective. Equality of outcome is not a desirable goal.
Promotions are an outcome, not an opportunity. We don't know why women earn less; I can speculate about the cause, just as you can.
Well, I disagree with you, and anyone who shares that perspective.
You disagree with...what? That discrimination takes place in the workplace? There is an avalanche of evidence that proves that. Or is it that you disagree that discriminating against women is wrong? You think that women should be paid less, and therefore you see no problem with the pay gap?
Your perception of how things "should" be, which is a pursuit of equal outcomes between men and women.
My perception of how things "should" be is not about equal outcomes. It's about individuals being treated with equal amounts of respect. It's about equal work being rewarded equally.
A woman who designs a house according to client's express desires should be paid as well as a man who designs that same house. A women who performs surgery on a patient's heart with the same skill as a man who performs that surgery deserves to be paid as well as the man. A teacher who instructs 9-year olds in fifth grade should be able to expect to be paid as much as similarly experienced and qualified teachers, without respect to gender. But the reality is that in each of these situations, women today are being compensated at lower rates than men, solely based on their gender. That's discrimination. And it's wrong.
My perception of how things "should" be is not about equal outcomes. It's about individuals being treated with equal amounts of respect. It's about equal work being rewarded equally.
A woman who designs a house according to client's express desires should be paid as well as a man who designs that same house. A women who performs surgery on a patient's heart with the same skill as a man who performs that surgery deserves to be paid as well as the man. A teacher who instructs 9-year olds in fifth grade should be able to expect to be paid as much as similarly experienced and qualified teachers, without respect to gender. But the reality is that in each of these situations, women today are being compensated at lower rates than men, solely based on their gender. That's discrimination. And it's wrong.
First example (house design) has nothing to do with discrimination. It's two parties coming to a financial agreement. If "she" doesn't make as much as "he", then she's to blame since she's the one negotiating.
Second example (surgeon), same argument. Do you even have proof, other than your own fantasy world, where that happens?
Regarding teachers, I know that's not true.
So your complete argument fails.
The one thing you all aren't considering is the fact that women at some point tend to leave the workforce to have children, raise a family, etc. You can't expect someone that takes time off to continue up the ladder at the same rate as someone that works straight through. In spite of the fact that you all don't think it's "fair".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
