I know I said my latest entry would be about North Korea, but I just thought I'd update my previous entry about an online discussion I've been having with an acquaintance. The part where he accused me of being "a nightmare to argue with" and using "bullshit statistics" pissed me right off; the entire way through I've been backing up my opinion (which is "Gender is mostly a social construct and feminism is still relevant") with statistics, reports, evidence and explanation; all I've got from him is a view that gender roles are "natural". So the minute I cited something for which the truth is a lot more nuanced (ie. the world's wealth is unequally split between men and women) it discredits my entire argument...
I'm in blue, he's in orange.
I feel like I've adequately explained my opinions in the 2000+ words above, so I don't feel the need to write it all out again. I'd suggest re-reading it if you need further clarification as to why I think stereotyped gender roles are not "natural". I have never once said that men and women are "the same".
The gender pay gap refers to people in the same roles. It's blindingly obvious that men earn more than women generally - women own, worldwide, ONE percent of the world's wealth. Manual labourers aren't known for their high rates of pay, so I don't think your point is that relevant. And knowing as you do that money = power, what does that say about the overall inequality of power between men and women?
Also, if you're going to "disagree" with studies you haven't even read, because they don't fit the conclusion you've already come to, then what's the point in having this discussion because clearly nothing I say will change your mind.
My last word on the subject is that I don't think you have ever had much need to question the messages society has given you, because you have always lived up to its expectations. You seem to conform to a very standard model of masculinity (this isn't an insult) and have no need to question what society tells you about being a man - to you it all seems "natural". For me, as a woman, this isn't the case, hence my interest in and advocacy for feminism.
Yours
Eden.
PS - To answer your question, I think my arguments are valid for all tiers of society. Why would they not be?
PPS - To repeat my question from the previous message, can I assume that if you haven’t mentioned something you agreed with what I said, or do you literally not agree with any of my points?
Eden, send me one of these reports then... Yeah and how much of the world's wealth do men own? I think this 1% is assuming that the husband owns all of a married coupe's wealth no? Plumbers, builders etc earn more than cleaners and au pairs etc there are lots of them and it skews the statistics...
I agree with some of your points i.e. where you state facts about how things are, however, I don't agree that they needs to be changed, not in the UK anyway. At least not further in the direction that you would like. I think it is detrimental to society. For example I'm sure this equal pay argument is what has lead to England having ridiculously short maternity leave allowances etc...
Also, you don't say that men and women are the same but you say that they should be treated the same. Isn't this contradictory?
Could you explain what you mean by this -
"For example I'm sure this equal pay argument is what has lead to England having ridiculously short maternity leave allowances?"
I can't work out if you think that the Equal Pay Act should be rescinded, maternity leave lengthened, both or none?
No, it's not contradictory to acknowledge that while people are very different, from a combination of factors both personal, social and biological, they should all be judged primarily as individuals ie. "treated the same". This goes for race, gender, religion, sexuality, or anything else you care to mention.
In what ways do you think it's acceptable to treat men and women differently, bar the obvious medical ones? Do you think its acceptable to treat people differently based on the other factors listed above?
Also, the 1% probably does assume the husband owns the couple's wealth, at least in undeveloped countries. I am not arguing that the fact the world's wealth isn't totally equally split is unfair per se, but it's crazy to suggest that women do 1% of the world's work, or that that statistic isn't unfair.
Also, have you ever considered that the pay disparity between builders, plumbers etc. and au pairs and cleaners reflects a higher value attributed to traditionally male work (or, the lesser value attributed to work that is an extension of the domestic sphere?) Note: I do not think that entirely explains the income disparity, it's just something to think about.
Also, the studies are on their way - just I can't be bothered to collate them at the moment. You could always google "gender differences socialization" to find them yourself.
Here's how to get a statistic published: Make up a statistic, based on certain assumptions that make the statistic correct, then when it get through peer reviews quote the statistic in another report and win any argument. For example men earn 99% of the world's wealth based the following assumptions: Assumption 1 - All wealth under $1billion in the control of an individual or couple or family has been omitted as it would make estimation too complicated and some argument around how there is still 500-1000 people/couples/families with this much money so statistically this is still representative. Assumption 2 - All wealth in a couple has been assumed to be controlled by the man e.g. Bill Gates/Warren Buffet etc control all their wealth and then various arguments like they earned it blah blah. Then when it get's peer reviewed they say, well yeah based on these assumptions the stat is correct. Without looking at the validity of the assumptions. Or they quote some other paper to justify the assumptions. Then the stat gets quoted as fact in the next paper with just a reference and hey presto we have bullshit stats being read and quoted as fact. I'm sure there are other stats out there that contradict this. Oh and the last time you tried to prove the blindingly obvious that men earn more than women in the same role you sent me a report that was based on different roles.
Before you get frustrated with me for not taking you very seriously, think about why that might be... How can I take your stats seriously when you don't back them up, or if you do, then you send a report that clearly has a disclaimer. This makes arguing with you a nightmare because it would take ages for me to read a report, look at where it gets it numbers from, then look at that report and then finally 3 or 4 or 5 layers down get to the faulty assumptions that it is based on just to get rid of one of your stats. If you really care, then YOU should do this for yourself rather than just reading something and taking it as gospel and quoting it as fact. I can't argue with you if you keep just quoting stuff that is of questionable or no credibility and believing it.
Here are some more BS stats that contradict your 1% http://www.retailerdaily.com/entry/51240/women-household-spending/ It was literally the 1st hit on google...
OK well I don't want to have this discussion anymore either as it is just frustrating for both of us...
(He then sent me two more messages within the next hour, and thus obviously changed his mind about ending the discussion when realised he had more to say)
On maternity leave, I think it should be longer. But obviously this would need to be factored in to pay. However, if women want the same pay then they have to sacrifice their maternity leave... I don't care either way, my children will be taken care of how I/my wife wants and not how society has dictated...
Yes there is higher value being a builder than a cleaner. Land cost X house costs Y. Y-X-profit-building material=amount for builder. Amount for a cleaner when the amount the market is willing to pay and the amount cleaners will do it for is equal. But this is not based on profit calcs, it is based on how much people value their personal time, which is often less than they are paid hence why the can be bothered to go to work. Women can do these jobs if they want, but they don't want to hence don't just say we want to do the same but aren't willing to do the same. Look at engineering 80% of engineers are men... Why? Why don't women study science? Pretty sure their GSCE/A-levels are similar... Why do more women study art and languages and tourism etc? Possibly because of what you've said about social conditioning... I don't know... But this is where the pay gap comes from, in my opinion... Most high paid jobs result from hard degrees and lower paid jobs from popular degrees. This is just supply and demand...
Great - I don't care how you and your future wife decide to look after your children either. If she's a full-time housewife and the situation suits both of you, then that's a good thing. You're the one "dictating" how people should live their lives - telling me that women *should* do this and men *should* do that.
Do you want to continue with this discussion or not? I would like to, and I will write back if so, but I think I'll leave the computer for a while because I've been on it all morning.
Finally, would you describe yourself as a total free-marketer? I think our political differences might be at the root of this disagreement more than feminism per se.
I am a free-marketer.
I am not dictating, when I say should this and should that, it's the same as you saying what you think it should be like.
Forcefully making things 'equal' makes things different, you think for the better, I think for the worse. So although you may not be 'dictating' your views on changing the norms has implications for how people are forced to behave. For example it's extremely difficult to have a family and be a sole provider if pay is 'equal' because the biological economic benefit you have being a man is taken away from you. I think this is 'unfair'.
I find it difficult to understand how you think legislating changes doesn't have an impact and also how you think that legislation makes things fairer in a free market. I personally think that a lot of the competitive advantage that we once had is gone thanks to things that force companies to pay in a certain way. For example the minimum wage. It doesn't exist in Germany and look how much better their manufacturing sector is performing.
I think this equal pay and forcefully treating people equally - because it is forcing, it's not just making things the way that is fairest (I think it makes things unfair) - has repercussions in family life that you seem to be ignoring.
Say you have a small business 20 people and half are women. Those 10 women all have 2 children say, they all take their full maternity leave (say the men take their full paternity leave too and have 2 kids). There is years of difference in the comparative amount that each group works (not to mention earlier retirement). Not only that but say your company is lean and you can't absorb someone being off by giving more to other members of the team, this means that you have to hire an expensive contractor to do their work for them, with lots of overlap to make sure they know what they are doing - and pay maternity pay. This means that women are more expensive to employ. This means you either pay the women less to equalise their cost, say 5% or something, pay everyone 2.5% less, don't hire women or pay the women as much as men and take it out of your profit. Obviously the 2nd and 4th amount to the same thing... You think one of these is the fairest option, however, I think pay everyone how much they're worth (to the business). Why am I being unfair? Why aren't you being anti business?
If you think the government should cover this additional burden to business. That still means that men are subsidising women's pay with higher taxes (we are already subsidising earlier retirement and the fact that women live longer so are retired longer - maybe they should work for the same proportion of their lives to make things fairer? Actually seeing as people earn the most at the end of their careers maybe this has something to do with the pay gap?).
This is my example of how the two sexes aren't the same and should be treated differently.
But this could be any number of things, not only feminism, I agree, so it's probably our politics that is causing the problem. Atlas Shrugged builds on what I have said massively and describes with many examples how 'forcing fairness' or better said 'forcing equality' because fairness for the reasons above is the wrong word, is bad for society. Obviously it takes the principles to extremes to make the story more enjoyable but it doesn't go too overboard till right at the end... (If you do read it then note that I held the views expressed before I read it and it didn't lead me to think the way I do). The lead character is a woman too, if that helps to whet your appetite :).
I can carry on, but only if you stop quoting obviously flawed stats, they waste both of our time...
No comments:
Post a Comment