Question for gbajiFollow

Do you think groups that fight for equality amongst genders are also 'hurting' the cause by bringing attention to inequalities and injustice. Should women, like blacks, also not prescribe to the groupiness of womans movement groups. Should they just do their best and hope that it's good enough?

Should American women be thankful with the 80% earnings of what men make for the same work?

Should women internationally not stick their noses into other countries business when there are stonings, murders and mutilations for perceived female promiscuities?

Should women insist on a 'mark' when being sexually molested to prove that they really didn't want to have sex?

Today is the 100th anniversary of International Women's day. A hundred years we've been at it. Should we just 'give it a rest'?

Across the globe woman perform 2/3 of all the work. They produce 1/2 the food. They earn 10% of all earnings and own 1% of all the privately held property. Should we be content with this?





Edited, Mar 8th 2011 6:56pm by Elinda

I had a mini King Cake this morning. And I had Sausage Gumbo for lunch - it was out of a can that said CHUNKY on it. This is the level of nutrition I sink to when my husband abandons me for a month each year.

***** that....I got me a whip.

The only argument that gbaji's right on is one that he's not in. Go figure.

Today is also the 144 anniversary of the Battle of Hampton roads, when the CSS Virgina sunk the USS Congress and the USS Cumberland.

Sunday Jonwin and I got to touch the USS Monitor, during the Commendation of the Battle at the Maritine Museum.

As for the subject, Gbaji would never admit that Women still face discrimination daily. He would be too busy checking out our chests to see the look in our eyes of being fed up with how men treat us.

How DARE women go outside without taping their chests or looking like butch lesbians (which I was going to provide an image of, but googling it horrified me to the depths of my soul).

Yeah, and no one would argue otherwise. But that's ignoring the issue. Women are still mistreated right now. Policies are designed to address their additional handicap in society right now. No one in their right mind would turn to making policies instead of attempting to correct a symptom of the larger issue. But, when that's not possible, policy is necessary to keep them from being treated as second-class citizens until then.

Furthermore, considering things case-by-case still requires a broad policy to be in place for support. If there's no law saying that you can't underpay someone on account of their sex or race, then a suit would do nothing--you have no legal recourse.

And when something is as deep rooted a problem as sexism or racism, the fact remains that it's going to be (at the very least) a long-*** fight for equality, if it is even possible to win it.

Do you really think it's better to just let women make less for the same job, because someday that may no longer be the case?

I'd prefer to establish policies protecting their rights, and keep them until they are no longer necessary (not, "their" here is in a broad sense, not just limited to women).

It has nothing to do with giving them additional benefits--it's about ensuring they get the same benefits as everyone else. Unfortunately, because people suck, that requires more legislation.

Wait, I thought you were a man. :/

I think the problem (and conflict on this issue) is whether and to what degree that is "not possible". Or even to what degree the problem actually exists. It becomes political, and reality tends to get lost in there somewhere along the way.




I think that we should first come up with a sane method for making this determination. A method that accounts for hours worked, career path followed, and leave taken. One of the interesting things about sex and pay statistics is that when we compare the full set of "women" to "men", we find a significant gap in average pay. But when we actually look at women and men side by side in the same fields working for the same employers, that gap almost entirely disappears. And when we look at individual men and individual women working the same jobs, with the same titles and the same total number of days in the profession, we find that it disappears entirely.

That's not to say that there aren't possible social pressures which result in women working part time more often than men, and entering more often into fields which are lower paid than men, but you're not going to "fix" that with a policy sledgehammer IMO.




I suspect you and I use a different meaning for the word "rights", and we also don't agree on the application of "the same benefits". Life isn't about benefits granted to you by others. It's about what you make of it. I agree that we should make sure that the rules are fair to all, but I just don't agree with some of the social assumptions many of you make.

Another study that ends up being a figment of Gbaji's imagination?

Really if you are going to use some study as evidence for your statements, it helps to site those studies. One reason I don't post more is the time it sometimes takes me to figure out the best terms to use, while Googling a study I may have read years ago. IF I can't find proof to back my information I won't post anything.

I'll turn this around: Find a study which takes into account the factors I mentioned which *doesn't* eliminate the apparent income gap between men and women. Any study I present will be dismissed as a cherry picked example. How about instead of insisting that it can't be true, you go and find out for yourself?

It's already political. The act of not policing it is just as political as doing so. That's the thing about politics--it isn't limited to laws. Reality only gets lost when it is intentionally obscured for some agenda. That's generally the case when one side pretends the issue is different than what it is (and both parties do that, though the right does it way more).

It's like when a school decides to let kids bring males or females to a dance, rather than just the opposite sex, and people start raging claiming that they are training the kids to be gay according to some agenda. The aim is to hide the actual issue--whether or not it's okay for kids to bring a same-sex friend/date to a dance rather than an opposite sex one--beneath the facade of some great, nonexistent threat. The same tactic is done regarding women's rights.



Source or bust, because I flat out don't believe that. And you forgot to mention that women have a harder time getting jobs in the first place, unless it is a position stereotypically held by men (which has been confirmed in studies based on interviews).



And that's not what they are doing. Women routinely make less than men, in the same job. It isn't like the law is requiring companies to pay women 120% to make up the difference, it's requiring them to pay them the same thing they'd pay a man with the exact same credentials. Stop obscuring the issue.



It isn't the government's job to provide you benefits, no. But it is their job to preserve freedom and ensure that you are treated with equal consideration.

Once it gets to the point where these laws make it easier for women to get jobs, for more money, I'll grant that they're doing something they shouldn't be. Until then, they are necessary.

[EDIT]

I'm trying to find the study--I'll probably post it after dinner. But it had to do with natural double-standards held by men and women. For example, men wearing red were more likely to be seen as a strong candidate, where women wearing red were more likely to be seen as a liability. A man with a assertive personality was seen as an asset, but women domineering. Etc.

The gist of it was that, if you want a job as a man, you need to act like a MAN. If you want a job as a woman, you need to act shier and subservient.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 5:48pm by idiggory