The two types of Feminism

[ruby sparks]

Adjust the wages of underpaid female job classes so that they are paid at least as much or equal to a comparable male job class or classes within the establishment;

Maintain pay equity for female job classes to ensure that new pay equity gaps are not created or re-emerge.

You and I will surely agree, I think, that a better wording would simply say that companies should seek to try to ensure that persons should not be paid less for the same work, all other things being equal, regardless of gender (or any other non-relevant characteristic) and that companies should seek to ensure there is no unfair discriminatory causes for any pay gap.

That said, hey, I understand why the focus is on women, because by and large the issue is generally more about that.

It is hard not to notice that yet another thread on the topic of feminism has to some extent, for whatever reasons, segued to a discussion about men's issues though.

 

[Hermit]

Anecdotes will not do.

Nor, imho, will merely dismissing valid men's issues either. I think you and some others here are on the verge of doing that. I say that because unless I've missed it, there haven't been very many, 'fair point, that is true's' floating about when men's issues have been raised.

Why don't you create a thread about men's issues? This one is about "The two types of feminism". I have yet to read a fair point regarding men's issues that can be sheeted home to the latter.

 

[Hermit]

You and I will surely agree, I think, that a better wording would simply say that companies should seek to try to ensure that persons should not be paid less for the same work, all other things being equal, regardless of gender (or any other non-relevant characteristic) and that companies should seek to ensure there is no unfair discriminatory causes for any pay gap.

Yes. Fair point, and true.

Coming hard on the heels of my previous post you might think I am being flippant. Let me assure you that I am not.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why don't you create a thread about men's issues? This one is about "The two types of feminism". I have yet to read a fair point regarding men's issues that can be sheeted home to the latter.

I honestly must have missed the segment of the thread where the suggestion that a version of feminism caused men's issues got much support.

As for starting a thread on men's issues. I have no urge to do that and have never had as far as I can recall.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As for the PEC not caring about cases where the male job classes are paid less, I suggest it's because there are none.

That is an incredibly bold claim. Do you have anything to back that up? I can't give out confidential information but I can tell you that within my own organization there are some. And even if there were none in all of Ontario (completely unrealistic assumption), the law is written in a way that it won't account for when any happen to occur. It is BLATANTLY sexist. It says "at least as much" not "equally". One would be grasping at straws for no apparent reason here to try to pretend it isn't sexist or is excusable.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I would say all of that is self inflicted as far as males are concerned. Men have until very recently protected their monopoly as soldiers, miners, construction workers and so forth.

I am interested in why you think the bolded is relevant. Does the fact that men face bias, hurdles, and unfairness become excusable or less important if the reason is that other (usually more powerful) men created and maintain these issues more than women do?

Please don't switch from one issue to another. We started off talking about "the two types of feminism". Seeing you created the topic you should remember that. Then you switched to "institutional injustice towards men". That switch can actually be argued to be valid, given the context. Your subsequent switch cannot. You're now straying into pure MRA territory. Classic derail. Men going off to war to die, working dangerous jobs and so on are not caused by feminism. The contrary is true. They do that because they have created and defended a monopoly concerning those things.

YOU wrote that bolded text, not me. You also insisted on talking about MRA issues and demanded a list after I merely noted that they exist and that the two different types of feminists address the MRAs differently. The derail is yours sir, not mine.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... the law is written in a way that it won't account for when any happen to occur. It is BLATANTLY sexist. It says "at least as much" not "equally". You are grasping at straws for no apparent reason here to try to pretend it isn't sexist.

That part of the wording ('at least as much or equal') is arguably....not as good as it could be. Just after, in the next sentence it says 'pay equity'.

I don't think the idea that feminism wants men to earn less than women has much legs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Suppose there's a company that has a history of promoting less qualified men into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women with more experience and who've worked there longer (I am using a real life example so don't try to hand wave it away by saying "that doesn't happen"). Suppose that nowadays the leadership has decided to right that wrong by ensuring every woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified man will be promoted at the first opportunity. This will result in 50 year old women scoring just about every promotion for the next year or so. Is that unfair to the 25 year old men?

There's a better reason for it than in Loren's example, but yes, it is still unfair to the 25 year old men, if (and only if) those men are equally or better qualified than those women. Perhaps instead the company can bump up the pay of those women to compensate them for their unjust loss of opportunity, instead of holding back the 25 year old men and damaging the productivity and efficiency of the organization by promoting less qualified workers.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am an egalitarian.

Me too. In fact, I started a thread on it, but only got 1 reply (yours, as it happens). Lol.

Peeps don'ts wants to agree. Peeps just wants to argue the toss. It's less dull.

 

[ruby sparks]

Whoops.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

.... the law is written in a way that it won't account for when any happen to occur. It is BLATANTLY sexist. It says "at least as much" not "equally". You are grasping at straws for no apparent reason here to try to pretend it isn't sexist.

That part of the wording ('at least as much or equal') is arguably....not as good as it could be. Just after, in the next sentence it says 'pay equity'.

I don't think the idea that feminism wants men to earn less than women has much legs.

I don't think feminism in general does either, but this law is written that way. I had a conversation with the Pay Equity Officer in my jumping through their hoops on behalf of one of our companies and she outright stated that yes, they are only concerned with equity for women and not for men under this legislation. That shocked me.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... the law is written in a way that it won't account for when any happen to occur. It is BLATANTLY sexist. It says "at least as much" not "equally". You are grasping at straws for no apparent reason here to try to pretend it isn't sexist.

That part of the wording ('at least as much or equal') is arguably....not as good as it could be. Just after, in the next sentence it says 'pay equity'.

I don't think the idea that feminism wants men to earn less than women has much legs.

I don't think feminism in general does either, but this law is written that way. I had a conversation with the Pay Equity Officer in my jumping through their hoops on behalf of one of our companies and she outright stated that yes, they are only concerned with equity for women and not for men under this legislation. That shocked me.

I honestly do take your point of principle.

That said, I do, quite often, think that on most if not all of the secular forums I've been on, there is far too much emphasis on men's gender issues by way of proportion. And I'm afraid that while I agree with a lot of what you say, you may be inadvertently contributing to that. I'm not judging. I hope I'm not virtue signalling either. I only had sisters (no brothers) and daughters (no sons) so maybe I have a biased disposition (or, alternatively, less freedom to 'transgress'). It's also true that I used to be less....willing to ...you know....accept feminist points in general and just listen and agree without countering...than I am now.

ETA: For whatever reason, you seem to be emphasising mainly the 'bad' parts of feminism and mainly the 'good' parts of MRA. And I don't know whether you have suffered gender discrimination. If you have, then obviously, your pov might understandably differ from mine. I personally haven't, to any noticeable degree. By and large, my experiences have either been neutral or on the male-privileged side of the spectrum, on the whole.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'll say one thing. You're a lot more reasonable than that Loren Pechtel dude, imo.

It's like getting blood from a stone to get him to squeeze out the word 'discrimination' between gritted teeth when doing either a particular women's issue (or a non-white racial issue) but as soon as it's about men...it's no longer a 'social issue' or....some other non-discrimination thing....and the d-word just rolls right off his tongue. Why, it even becomes institutionalised discrimination at the drop of a hat.

 

[Hermit]

Why don't you create a thread about men's issues? This one is about "The two types of feminism". I have yet to read a fair point regarding men's issues that can be sheeted home to the latter.

I honestly must have missed the segment of the thread where the suggestion that a version of feminism caused men's issues got much support.

So, why are we talking about men's issues in a thread titled "The two types of Feminism"?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That said, I do, quite often, think that on most if not all of the secular forums I've been on, there is far too much emphasis on men's gender issues by way of proportion. And I'm afraid that while I agree with a lot of what you say, you may be inadvertently contributing to that. I'm not judging. I hope I'm not virtue signalling either. I only had sisters (no brothers) and daughters (no sons) so maybe I have a biased disposition (or, alternatively, less freedom to 'transgress'). It's also true that I used to be less....willing to ...you know....accept feminist points in general and just listen and agree without countering...than I am now.

ETA: For whatever reason, you seem to be emphasising mainly the 'bad' parts of feminism and mainly the 'good' parts of MRA. And I don't know whether you have suffered gender discrimination. If you have, then obviously, your pov might understandably differ from mine. I personally haven't, to any noticeable degree. By and large, my experiences have either been neutral or on the male-privileged side of the spectrum, on the whole.

Please note the context of the thread. This thread only involves MRA in the sense that the two types of Feminism address it, and one type is cooperative and inclusive while the other is pulling fire alarms and trying to shut MRA down. MRA misogyny is a whole other topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you create a thread about men's issues? This one is about "The two types of feminism". I have yet to read a fair point regarding men's issues that can be sheeted home to the latter.

I honestly must have missed the segment of the thread where the suggestion that a version of feminism caused men's issues got much support.

So, why are we talking about men's issues in a thread titled "The two types of Feminism"?

You are asking this after youecouraged it and demanded that we do.

How the two types of Feminism regard MRA issues is only one small aspect of how they differ, and not the biggest or more important difference.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, why are we talking about men's issues in a thread titled "The two types of Feminism"?

Dammit you're right. We should be spending most of our time on the type 2 feminism.

Oh no...wait... we've been doing that...

Radical suggestion. A thread on just type 1 feminism and how wunnerful it is. I'm possibly not the best person to do it though. I'm not a feminist. Plus, I have enough trouble trying to persuade wife and daughters to swing over to egalitarianism as it is.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Radical suggestion. A thread on just type 1 feminism and how wunnerful it is.

It is wonderful. It has brought us a whole new level of social and industrial progress. And it is sad that it needs to be distinguished from the second type. That's actually why I started this thread asking for better labels for the two, so we need not worry about mistaking the one for the other.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is wonderful. It has brought us a whole new level of social and industrial progress. And it is sad that it needs to be distinguished from the second type. That's actually why I started this thread asking for better labels for the two, so we need not worry about mistaking the one for the other.

Honestly, I think it's pretty much all shades on a spectrum, like Hermit said, on page 1 I think.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for the PEC not caring about cases where the male job classes are paid less, I suggest it's because there are none. Also, look up the meaning of "explicit". You'll discover that it means something is actually said or written. In this case it would go something like this: "If there are underpaid male job classes, don't bother with adjustments. We don't care about them." That would be an explicit indication that the PEC does not care about underpaid male job classes.

You apparently missed the part where it requires women to be paid at least as much as men, but does not require men to be paid at least as much as women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've pointed out one:

Discriminating against the 25 year old male because the 50 year old males discriminated against women in the past, resulting in a skewed gender ratio.

Suppose there's a company that has a history of promoting less qualified men into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women with more experience and who've worked there longer (I am using a real life example so don't try to hand wave it away by saying "that doesn't happen"). Suppose that nowadays the leadership has decided to right that wrong by ensuring every woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified man will be promoted at the first opportunity. This will result in 50 year old women scoring just about every promotion for the next year or so. Is that unfair to the 25 year old men?

You can't determine it because your scenario doesn't say whether the 25 year old men would be in the running for a promotion.

However, it is blatantly discriminatory as there certainly is a class that's being hurt here--the men who are competing for promotions.

Lets flip it on it's head: Only men will be promoted. Now do you see the problem? If making the switch (gender, race or anything else that's supposedly a cause of discrimination) causes an unfair situation then the original was also unfair.