Progressiveness Gone Wild

[Politesse]

I thought they were fun!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/31/business/ladies-night-lawsuit-small-business/index.html

Historically, “Ladies’ Nights” have been great for business.

The discounted drinks or meals tend to draw a large crowd of women, which in turn tends to draw more men — which then leads to packed bars and increased sales for the business.

But a family-run restaurant in the San Francisco Bay Area is shutting down this week because it can’t afford to operate after it settled a “Ladies’ Night” discrimination lawsuit, CNN affiliate KGO reported last week. John Marquez, the chef and owner of Lima Restaurant in Concord, told the outlet that it hasn’t been able to bounce back after settling a lawsuit over a promotion that discounted drinks for women.

It’s not the first small business to be sued over a Ladies’ Night promotion due to technicalities in discrimination laws in certain states. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, a California law that dates back to 1959, says businesses can’t discriminate against religion, race and gender. A slew of lawsuits have since followed, and that has meant a sharp drop in the promotion.

In the past a California food truck business selling Mexican food was hounded out of business for 'cultural appropriation' by activists.

I suppose then someone of Mexican descent can't sell Italian food, and someone of Chinese decent can't sell French food.

Progressives in the extreme are not much different than Christians on a moral crusade.

I just connected the dots on the OP title and the subject. Has anyone made a mention that the guy suing isn't a progressive? He is a "men's right" activist, is (was?) the secretary for the National Coalition for Men.

 

[Politesse]

So I simply assumed. Those guys love using equality legislation for their own crass purposes, precisely because it tends to be blind and sweeping rather than targeted at particular situations whose solution might be more controversial.

On the campus where I work, a local fascist group successfully threatened the school into forcibly disbanding a student club for Latino/x art appreciation, supposedly on the basis of racial discrimination. I don't personally think they would have been able to make it stick in court (since anyone was welcome to join the club) but the mere threat of a lawsuit was enough to get an anxious administrator on their side, which was their real goal I am sure.

 

[TomC]

I thought they were fun!

You're from California.
Tom

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'll not be surprised to be accused of right-wing ideas for this post. So let me add fuel to the fire. --
There is a non-zero difference between the sexes. In some respects, a female chimpanzee has more in common with a female bonobo than it has with a male chimp. The post-rational "wokeism" that insists on treating males and females identically can become a hindrance.

Humans are not chimps or bonobos.

Anyway, I have no idea what “post-rational ‘wokeism’” is or aware that anyone argues that men and woman are identical, except of course that they should have identical rights under the law, as should everyone.

See when right wingers argue that "people are unequal" what they are actually saying is people who are superior to others in some traits should have more rights than those who are more inferior in those traits. That's why they always ignore the "people have equal rights" part and go straight to arguing "actually people are unequal!"

 

[Politesse]

I thought they were fun!

You're from California.
Tom

And we know fun.

 

[TomC]

I thought they were fun!

You're from California.
Tom

And we know fun.

I'm scared of what you posted behind that link.
Some things I don't want to know about.

Like progressive tits.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

I'll not be surprised to be accused of right-wing ideas for this post. So let me add fuel to the fire. --
There is a non-zero difference between the sexes. In some respects, a female chimpanzee has more in common with a female bonobo than it has with a male chimp. The post-rational "wokeism" that insists on treating males and females identically can become a hindrance.

Humans are not chimps or bonobos.

Anyway, I have no idea what “post-rational ‘wokeism’” is or aware that anyone argues that men and woman are identical, except of course that they should have identical rights under the law, as should everyone.

See when right wingers argue that "people are unequal" what they are actually saying is people who are superior to others in some traits should have more rights than those who are more inferior in those traits. That's why they always ignore the "people have equal rights" part and go straight to arguing "actually people are unequal!"

I hope you don't think you're addressing ME with your remarks, unless I'm accused of not buying in to the wokeist trope that men and women are identical in every way!

And for the record, if you MUST fold me into a specific category of bigotry, call me a misandrist rather than a misogynist. I happen to feel that women are superior to men in almost every way!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'll not be surprised to be accused of right-wing ideas for this post. So let me add fuel to the fire. --
There is a non-zero difference between the sexes. In some respects, a female chimpanzee has more in common with a female bonobo than it has with a male chimp. The post-rational "wokeism" that insists on treating males and females identically can become a hindrance.

Humans are not chimps or bonobos.

Anyway, I have no idea what “post-rational ‘wokeism’” is or aware that anyone argues that men and woman are identical, except of course that they should have identical rights under the law, as should everyone.

See when right wingers argue that "people are unequal" what they are actually saying is people who are superior to others in some traits should have more rights than those who are more inferior in those traits. That's why they always ignore the "people have equal rights" part and go straight to arguing "actually people are unequal!"

I hope you don't think you're addressing ME with your remarks, unless I'm accused of not buying in to the wokeist trope that men and women are identical in every way!

And for the record, if you MUST fold me into a specific category of bigotry, call me a misandrist rather than a misogynist. I happen to feel that women are superior to men in almost every way!

I don't feel that way but I just dislike people in general.

 

[unapologetic]

I'm scared of what you posted behind that link.

I took the chance. It's a series of books on silly California architecture.

​

 

[Politesse]

I'm scared of what you posted behind that link.

I took the chance. It's a series of books on silly California architecture.

​

Roadside vernacular architecture.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, this thread has taken a turn.

 

[Emily Lake]

From the article:

Earlier this year in California, the minor-league baseball team Fresno Grizzlies was sued over a promotional event for women.
But while the law was created to counter discrimination, the intentions of those who file such lawsuits have come under scrutiny, with some calling them opportunistic and exploitative. San Diego lawyer Alfred Rava has filed hundreds of lawsuits across California against women’s organizations and women-only events, from the Grizzlies’ promotion to female-led startups to Mother’s Day freebies, claiming they’re unfair to men.

Fresno Grizzlies having a promotional event for women is indeed gender discrimination. It is sexist to say that discrimination only matters when it discriminates against women. Same goes for women-only events, or giving preferential treatment to women-led businesses.

Instead of fretting over trivial nonsense like this, maybe you ought to do your homework on the persistent and actual gender pay gap you deny exists.

Bleh. I really dislike pay gap discussions. Both sides want a clear-cut answer of either "OMG it's sexism" or "It's all just smoke and mirrors".

The functional pay gap is a lot less than most liberal-bent reporting suggests... but it's higher than most conservative-bent reporting suggests. Most of the gaps don't exist at the job description level.

What does happen, however, is that women tend to get promoted more slowly than men on the whole. Some of that comes down to a social impact that's just plain entrenched, and I'm not sure it will ever really be overcome: women tend to prioritize their families and children over their work. That's not a bad thing - in fact, it's arguably necessary that one parent prioritizes family over work, or it all crumbles. And historically it's been women who do this. Some will argue that this is a behavioral tendency that has evolved in tandem with our sexual dimorphism and our reproductive investments - that's an argument that I think has at least some bearing on it.

On the other side, however, is that women who don't have kids also tend to get promoted more slowly... because employers expect that they might have kids, and then their work won't have precedence anymore. It becomes an investment strategy on the part of the employer, even though it's very likely unconscious and unintentional.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's even less than less pay, or even more inequitable when corrected for confounders such as family responsibilities, childcare, shopping, laundry, housecleaning and other frequently non-optional additions to professional careers that routinely fall disproportionately to the female parent.

Yep. Even when both parents work, the woman ends up doing the bulk of the housework and child-related responsibilities. Not in every family, not all the time... but it's pretty commonplace.

That said... men do most of the yardwork, house maintenance and repairs, and car maintenance. I think the frequency of those efforts don't often balance out to be even, but there are plenty of things that men do more often than women in almost all families.

 

[Elixir]

…men do most of the yardwork, house maintenance and repairs, and car maintenance. I think the frequency of those efforts don't often balance out to be even

If it’s even close, you need a new car!

I certainly agree that it’s a complex situation, and making it better might not be achievable through formulaic remedies.

 

[Emily Lake]

…men do most of the yardwork, house maintenance and repairs, and car maintenance. I think the frequency of those efforts don't often balance out to be even

If it’s even close, you need a new car!

I certainly agree that it’s a complex situation, and making it better might not be achievable through formulaic remedies.

That presupposes that "making it better" is actually better.

Personally, I don't think that evolutionarily developed tendencies should be viewed as prescriptive... but I also don't think there's any benefit to trying to overturn those tendencies.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think that evolutionarily developed tendencies should be viewed as prescriptive... but I also don't think there's any benefit to trying to overturn those tendencies.

So, que sera sera?

IMHO, it is only by consciously curbing certain “evolutionarily developed tendencies” that we have been able to grow global populations into the billions.
Whether that’s “better”, I guess we should ask the several billion who would otherwise not exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

We don't have a complete list. However:

1) Same exact position, not merely similar position.

2) Hours actually worked. No "full time". "Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

3) Years in the labor force, not age.

Considering these three we find women making 98 cents to the man's dollar. 90% of the "problem" is accounted for by three factors that are clearly not a comprehensive list. Yet we almost never see that 98 cent number--people are trying to make the problem look as big as possible. I get very suspicious in such situations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are an employer and know that gender discrimination is so real, why don't you employ 100% all women and make more money? You're going to tell us you don't want to make more money? And more to the point, why doesn't everyone else hire only the women and no one else so they are employing only those individuals who produce more at a lower salary?

It is because we all know this so called discrimination is bullshit.

While hiring only women probably isn't practical this is a clear indication that any gap must be small enough that no employer will attempt to exploit it. Thus the reality is that employment discrimination inherently must be minor unless forced by the government, a monopoly or near monopoly, or by society. This is why blacks could be discriminated against until the civil rights reforms--a failure to treat blacks as inferior would be a problem for the standing of the person who treated them as equals. A cost that didn't show up on the balance sheet.

 

[bilby]

"Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

In the civilised world, "Full time" is 38 hours per week. More than that attracts overtime rates.

American workers are unbelievably tolerant of being robbed blind by their bosses. I still don't understand why they haven't risen up in bloody revolution, or at the very least unionised to the hilt and called a general strike.