The path to Women's rights, better than equal rights?

originally posted by: Puppylove
The only human rights movement worth fighting for is human rights itself and I'll always believe that til the day I die.

There is no equality we cannot fight for as one. Either you're for human rights or not. I don't abide hypocrisy.

The worst kind of prejudice is those who should be allies turning on each other.

I totally agree, but sadly, that ability to pay one demographic less than another is what Western society is built upon, that is the first stop shop for looking to enhance your profit margin, hence the emphasis on fair pay in the equality movement. Cheap labour is seldom cheap because it doesn't work as hard or well, it is only cheap because laws do not exist to protect those workers. Hence why manufacturing work is done in sweat shops overseas, or call centres are set up in India.

a reply to: Anaana

I don't think "gender justice" is the way to go with this whole argument. There are lots of determining factors that go into determining wages. Not to say there might be some equality issues at hand, but man or woman, if a a woman is promoted to a management position in a company and she has less years of experience or less educated as a man promoted to a management position why should that woman be paid equally to the man? The woman has less experience, so she is intrinsically less valuable to the company.

a reply to: gpols

You misunderstand the nature of equal pay. Equal means equal for same work and same experience. Your hypothesis doesn't make any sense in any scenario. If someone is bypassing promotional or hiring protocols that is equality of access to opportunities, and such behaviours are governed internally and externally by complaints procedures certainly, but are seperate matter to equal pay and the right to work which are the fundamentals of the women's movement internationally.

a reply to: Anaana

It makes a ton of sense. Don't be getting all confused on me now.

I'm saying there are probably more cases of women getting paid more than men in certain positions. Not everyone likes to broadcast how much they make.

The thing about experience is that experience has a lot of variables. Sure two people might have worked at the same company for the same amount of years with the same amount of education, but either the man or the woman might have some added variable that makes him or her more valuable.

The real story that everyone should be paying attention to is why doesn't a full time job pay enough to support a family like it use too.

Sure there might be some equality issues with pay to the tune of a few hundred or thousand dollars or two, but it still doesn't solve the problem that inflation has greatly out paced the living wage.

Wage equality and promotions is a complex issue. I think we skew our numbers a lot, and this is coming as a transgender woman.

Let me give an example.

A company has we'll say 20 people in the same position. People are paid based upon their level of expertise, skill and experience. Over time 200 white skinned men applied for the position (Used because is considered the privileged class), 100 women of mixed skin color applied for the position (It's a position not many women apply for which is a lot you can't force women to apply), and 15 men of black complexion. But 20 people get hired. Of them, we'll say 12 white skinned men make the cut (what? There were a lot more of them applying.) 6 women, and 2 men of black complexion.

Over time, the highest paid person there in that position end up one of the white skinned males. This doesn't necessarily mean the women were looked over or the two black skinned males. In fact all the women and all the males with black complexions could be better than most of those white skinned males. But it only takes one of the white skinned males to rise above the rest.

We have 20 people, 12 (60%) White Males, 6 (30%) Women, 2 (10%) Black males.

By basic math assuming all genders are equal, there's a 60% chance that the best worker out of those 20 people is a white male. That's not saying anything against anyone else. In fact it's quite possible half those white males that got hired sucked ass for example, if there's 6 white males at the below all the women and black males for example, then both those black men that got hired are better than 6 white males that got hired and all 6 women are better than 6 of their male counterparts. But the highest paid one there is still a white mail because out of 12 people only one needed to be truly exceptional. It could have easily been a woman, or a black male, but chances are against them. That said it does happen because that exceptionalism could have been in any of the 20 regardless of gender or complexion. Every one of the 20 had a 1 in twenty chance of being the exceptional person.

So when looking at these numbers, we need to look more deeply to see, how many people are actually applying for and in these positions to be sure it's actually an issue of gender or complexion and not just a math issue.

Prejudice occurs I've seen it both ways and all kinds. We need to be careful though to be certain when it is and is not prejudice and to base that determination on realistic expectations.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bluesma

Why are you referring to "independent" women as masculine.

I never saw this question, years ago, but now that I do, I shall answer it-

Because, perhaps I put too much information in one post, so it was hard to follow,

But I am coming from a view that there are masculine and feminine type qualities, that exist in all humans regardless of gender. Perhaps it is more useful to use the terms Yin and Yang?

In that framework, independance and individuality is Yang - masculine.
Interdependance and collective unity is Yin - feminine.

Neither is better than the other, objectively; we have both of these drives and types of consciousness in us, regardless of gender.

As individuals, we can identify with, value more, or feel more comfortable expressing one side or the other, in varying levels on a continuum, due to factors such as cultural conditioning, education, experience, biological influences such as hormone levels, etc.

In our anglo saxon culture, independence is highly valued - which is what I mean when I say masculine values.
In the latin culture, interdependence is highly valued- in fact independence is devalued as being selfish, egoist, narcissist, and even weak/powerless (as they recognize force in numbers as being more powerful).
Those are what I refer to as feminine values (and why I tend to consider the latin culture as more maternal in nature than paternal).

People who are offended and repulsed by the idea of interdependence are more "paternal" in values - usually because of cultural conditioning.
Those who are more masculine in nature "naturally" (perhaps because of hormone levels) will usually not feel repulsed or offended by the idea of being interdependant, it just isn't what they do well.

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: Anaana

It makes a ton of sense. Don't be getting all confused on me now.

I'm saying there are probably more cases of women getting paid more than men in certain positions. Not everyone likes to broadcast how much they make.

That is still an equal pay issue. Same pay for same work whether that work is done by a man or a woman.

originally posted by: gpols
The thing about experience is that experience has a lot of variables. Sure two people might have worked at the same company for the same amount of years with the same amount of education, but either the man or the woman might have some added variable that makes him or her more valuable.

That is why we have scaled pay that rewards by experience, loyalty and responsibility. It is not fool-proof, but it offers transparency.

originally posted by: gpols
The real story that everyone should be paying attention to is why doesn't a full time job pay enough to support a family like it use too.

No, that may be the issue to you and others but it is not what women's rights are about, and that is the freedom to choose to support oneself socio-economically and not be dependent on others unless you choose to be. A full-time job has only ever supported some families, never all. The way in which skills have been devalued has effected wages, as has outsourcing to cheaper labour sources, but women have always contributed economically but that has usually been a gray economic area. My Nan did piece work and laundry when she married and had children, to contribute to the economy of the family. When she had children her husband did not allow her to work outside of the home, as was the case for many women, but she was still expected to meet her own personal needs, such as sanitary wear, which my grandfather did not feel was part of the housekeeping that he made his contribution to. Only in the highest paid technical and management jobs, and only then when those industries are at their peak of demand, were wives able to simply play house and provide child care, and even then, in the richest of those, women were paid to do much of the domestic work and child rearing. The one wage household is a myth, an aspirational model that represents only a very small proportion of society ever.

originally posted by: gpols
Sure there might be some equality issues with pay to the tune of a few hundred or thousand dollars or two, but it still doesn't solve the problem that inflation has greatly out paced the living wage.

As long as labour markets can be under cut, inflation always will destroy a living wage, but a living wage is about living, not about supporting dependents, that is another matter entirely and why most families have little choice in the matter in the majority of cultures but to contribute economically in one form or another. If getting married is a choice, and having children is a choice, why should you get paid more than someone who chooses not to exercise that choice?

originally posted by: Puppylove
So when looking at these numbers, we need to look more deeply to see, how many people are actually applying for and in these positions to be sure it's actually an issue of gender or complexion and not just a math issue.

Prejudice occurs I've seen it both ways and all kinds. We need to be careful though to be certain when it is and is not prejudice and to base that determination on realistic expectations.

This is always a gray area, we have positive discrimination, which causes frictions but does help even the playing field, and the downside is HR departments that are afraid to sneeze should it contravene some law or policy. Unionisation remains integral to the fair implementation and representations of the individual in respect of the whole, but unionisation is demonised, despite how much we all have to thanks for it.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bluesma

My question is, do the women where you are have a choice?

Choice is the "key" word.

Many women have chosen not to be in a traditional woman role.

Just seeing this for the first time too..

YES, absolutely! And there are many women that choose to work outside the home instead of outside it.
At this time, I do not personally know any woman who does not work outside the home. That may be partly due to age many of the couples I know here have their kids becoming adults, or at least in university now.

But when they were little, the majority of couples we knew in this region, the woman made more income, had a higher status position, than the man. There was no shame in the men about this (I always found that weird). The men would brag about their wife, and her success, and the great sports car she bought for him.

Though ALL of those women took time off (between three months and several years) to have babies.

Fighting for the option to compete in the market outside is great and I am glad we did it,
but I always felt that in that momentum, the option of being able to focus on the home was thrown to the side as not valuable and no longer an option. The nation would not support women and make that possible for them. (as if the early years of development of an individual are not important , when it comes to what sort of member of society they become...)

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bluesma

My question is, do the women where you are have a choice?

Choice is the "key" word.

Many women have chosen not to be in a traditional woman role.

but I always felt that in that momentum, the option of being able to focus on the home was thrown to the side as not valuable and no longer an option. The nation would not support women and make that possible for them. (as if the early years of development of an individual are not important , when it comes to what sort of member of society they become...)

No one should have a child until they have a plan on raising it.

Fathers get paternity leave too (sometimes they still have to fight for it). Some parents can switch their work hours around so one of them is always home. Some have the option of working from home (tough with kids), some are going back to extended families, a new trend is 2 couples buying a house together and sharing the responsibility, many daddy's stay home now.

Point is --- there are 2 parents (whether together or not). You're still making "the home" a woman's responsibility.

a reply to: Annee

Economic reality says for women to get out there and work, to at least add a little bit to the husbands earning so you can live. while, society and culture are still kind of muddled some in the women are the caretakers of the kids and keepers of the house. so, in many case they are getting socked trying to fill the two rules....which doesn't work for crap. Employers figure that if you have kids, you won't be as good an employee as the guy who is supporting his family, some husbands have a problem of seeing why they should have to take on a little of the housekeeping, and well, then when the family breaks down, they just can't understand why the women can't take care of the kids, provide all the support to those kids, and just let them go on their way, choosing just how much or how little time they wish to spend with those kids.
providing the financial means to raise kids is a full time + job...
and caring for those kids and home is also a full time (sometimes +) job.
an equal division of labor doesn't mean that mom comes home from her full time job, takes on the responsibility of home and kids while dad comes home and plops himself in front of the tv and starts yelling for his beer. He needs to take on some of her responsibilities if he wants her to help out with the financial aspects, or if she wants to take on some of the financial aspects (which, well, later on in life, she may very well find herself very grateful that she did!)

a reply to: dawnstar

Eh there's bad users on every side of the isle. I've seen women without children that don't work, who's husband works overtime just to keep roof over their head nag the crap out of them to do this AND do half the housework when they get home.

The lazy man that works and sits on his ass stereotype does happen, but so does the woman who refuses to work and still expects the man to split chores, and adds to rather than helps relieve stress.

There's a child both parents need to be involved, but people need to consider each others stress levels based upon who's doing what work, how much, what overtime, when they have the kids etc. If both are doing equal outside than should be doing equal at home. If that's not the case, the one doing more outside should be doing less inside, regardless of gender.

Men that are worthless are worthless, but let's be honest, there are women just as worthless as any man and just as quick to be a user.

a reply to: Puppylove

Have I got an articke for you .

I knew I'd find a place for this article some day.

Dismissing ‘Sexist Opinions’ About Women’s Place in Science --- Ben Barnes is a f/m transgender.

(I think it is a very honest article)

Take my experience with M.I.T. If I had been a guy who had been the only one in the class to solve that problem, I am sure I would have been pointed out and given a pat on the back. I was not only not given positive feedback, I was given negative feedback. This is the kind of thing that undermines women’s self-confidence. www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

Economic reality says for women to get out there and work, to at least add a little bit to the husbands earning so you can live.

TWO parents.

How do you apply that logic to a gay couple?

a reply to: Annee

don't go all pc on me, I am a 50+ women who has grown used to the terminology that I've been using for the past 50+ years. sometimes it's a waste of time to teach an old dog new tricks. I would say that it would be best to let couples (regardless of their make up) find the way that best works out for them, without so much pressure from gov't, society, employers, and religions. all of which still seem to be trying to enforce the traditional roles onto them in one way or another.

originally posted by: Annee



No one should have a child until they have a plan on raising it.

Fathers get paternity leave too (sometimes they still have to fight for it). Some parents can switch their work hours around so one of them is always home. Some have the option of working from home (tough with kids), some are going back to extended families, a new trend is 2 couples buying a house together and sharing the responsibility, many daddy's stay home now.

Point is --- there are 2 parents (whether together or not). You're still making "the home" a woman's responsibility.

Okay, despite my post attempting to explain, you didn't grasp it. I am not making the home a womans responsibility.

I did, however, refer to the home as an area of "feminine type" power, in referring to values.
Once again, the word feminine not refering to gender.... If I could go back and replace the word with "Yin" every time I used it in this sense, I would, (but this thread is from what? 2014?).

Because the YIN has more value in this latin culture, that is why men do not hesitate to be the one who stays at home if she works.... not being employed outside the home is not shameful, or inferior. (as it is in the US).

Yes, all these different options exist for couples here too, and are done. Though it seems as though there is a higher number of women that want to stay at home than men (I suspect hormones play a part in that).
My point is that, in my experience of the US, it is very hard for couples to live on only one income. That removes the "option".

This country still has and values syndicates and unions, and generally votes more socialist than the US- employees have more security, better pay, etc.

I am trying to figure out how I can better explain this concept of Yin and Yang, and maternal and paternal value systems...

Yang (masculine) would be the official exterior structures of power, the overt expressions of being, activity, light, aggressivity, ambition, competivity, individuality and individual responsibility.

Yin (feminine) - the interior, the home, covert expressions, obscurity, equality and dissolution, unity and solidarity of masses and collective force, social conscience and responsibility.

A culture which values individual responsibility and competition, explicitness, officialized structures of power, aggressivity, the activities outside of the home, free market capitalism, has Yang type of values. Using the word "social" makes them cringe in fear

Oh, and Année... I am not sure what country you are refering to? In the US there is no maternity leave, for women or men.

a reply to: Annee

Never said things were equal yet, or that these things don't happen. Trust me I know they do. But it helps no one to paint one gender exclusively as the bad guy.

It helps everyone when all sides are recognized, and the areas that need the most help are then given priority.

The issue I have with most movements that focus on individual groups, is they fail to recognize that people that fall inside their own group can be the bad guys too. They make excuses for them, call them the minority and try to brush them off as a non issue and shift things back to how bad their "oppressors" are. It's a very aggressive stance to take and demonstrates a selfishness rather than a desire for actual equality.

The goal is equality, the recognition that there's problems all around is inclusive. We want people to support our rights, we need to show, we recognize when our # stinks to, and where the other side has it bad too. We need to be just as willing to stamp out and call out our bad elements as those on the other side of the isle.

The most important thing this does is let the other side know that, A: their rights and equality matter to us too, B: that NO we do not support the extremists on our side and see them as, as much a problem as the inequality itself as they just want more of the same reversed, and C: That while what we're discussing is in more dire need to be taken care of, we don't want to stop there, and want to help the other side as well when it becomes priority, and that it will.

I see so much loud extremists frothing at the mouth on the side of feminism saying ridiculous things about men, that we simply make excuses for as well as so much demonizing of men, and complete disregard for men's concerns that it's no wonder feminists have a bad image.

How do we respond to it? By disregarding men's concerns, and making excuses for the worst of us rather than putting them in the place they deserve to be. Well I don't see how we can expect anyone to care about our concerns when we refuse to recognize theirs and call out those prejudiced and extreme that claim the same banner as our own.

We look like nothing more than hypocrites. The goal is for all of us to be equal in our rights, we must never lose focus of that end goal. Is why I personally don't like these separate little groups, is too easy to lose sight of the big picture and end goals when you think in terms of one aspect of humanity only.

a reply to: Puppylove

I'm not saying that there aren't women out there that fit your description.

it's just that the standard projection that is usually put out of the "perfect" family that we should all be striving for is that dad goes to work, mom stays home, and well, we seem to allow that projection to infiltrate our real world, and place assumptions, expectations, laws, economic programs, as well as our own bias and beliefs. I didn't speak much about those women of the type that you are speaking about because well... they don't seem to be playing a part either in the real world or that image of the perfect family, they are just I don't know weird??
I am talking about families where at least both partners are at least trying to contribute something to the arrangement, but for some reason, they just can't find a balance, or disagree as to what that balance should be.

and let's face it, that projections and the effects it has on society works against both the male and females. It's not good for one partner to work both a full time and part time just to have the resources to barely scrape by, and well, lose their time with the kids. and it's not good really for the one partner to be out of the workforce, concentrating on just home and children without ever having a break. but what is worse is when one of those partners decides that the other should take off some of the pressure of his workload and refuses to compensate by taking on some of their workload. That is the recipe for a mental or physical breakdown of the overwork partner.

Anne, hope you are happy, I pc'd my post somewhat....

a reply to: dawnstar

Yeah I can agree with that. It's equally harmful, in that this outlook that still perseveres our culture causes much of society to look down on the men who take care of the home and kids while their successful wife is at work.