The two types of Feminism

[Jolly_Penguin]

And the 'So what?' That says it all.

It did say it all, because you had nothing of substance to say beyond an attempt to shame me from saying what I did because I have a penis. You remain welcome to address the topic of the OP.

 

[Toni]

And the 'So what?' That says it all.

It did say it all, because you had nothing of substance to say beyond an attempt to shame me from saying what I did because I have a penis.

I don't see shame as any kind of useful tool.

I think you have no shame at all that would interfere with your absolute condescension or judgmental 'analysis.'

I don't care at all about your genitalia.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think you have no shame at all that would interfere with your absolute condescension or judgmental 'analysis.'

You amuse me in that you call me out for "condescension" and "mansplaining" and yet you contribute nothing to the topic. We invited you and others to do so back on page 1 of this thread. We even had a chat in the first couple of pages about how we were lacking more feminist voices in the thread and wanted some feminists to speak up. You remain welcome to do so.

 

[Toni]

I think you have no shame at all that would interfere with your absolute condescension or judgmental 'analysis.'

You amuse me in that you call me out for "condescension" and "mansplaining" and yet you contribute nothing to the topic. We invited you and others to do so back on page 1 of this thread. We even had a chat in the first couple of pages about how we were lacking more feminist voices in the thread and wanted some feminists to speak up. You remain welcome to do so.

Oh, I don't think you are amused at all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think you have no shame at all that would interfere with your absolute condescension or judgmental 'analysis.'

You amuse me in that you call me out for "condescension" and "mansplaining" and yet you contribute nothing to the topic. We invited you and others to do so back on page 1 of this thread. We even had a chat in the first couple of pages about how we were lacking more feminist voices in the thread and wanted some feminists to speak up. You remain welcome to do so.

You seem a bit like an outsider. Why don't you consider yourself the first or second type of feminist? In the op you wrote you "strongly support" one...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You seem a bit like an outsider. Why don't you consider yourself the first or second type of feminist? In the op you wrote you "strongly support" one...

I am an egalitarian. I'm not personally fan of the name "Feminist" so I don't call myself that, but I understand why it is used and accept it. I support the first kind of feminist, and may fairly be described as one, and I also support reasonable non-toxic MRAs and could be fairly described as one as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You won't right the wrong by being too timid, either. At some point you're going to have to upset someone, either by preserving something they don't like or by destroying something they do. The important thing is to make sure you've chosen the right course of action for the right reasons, and that you're not being unnecessarily harsh or merciless in pursuing it.

We aren't talking about avoiding upsetting anyone--that's an obvious impossibility. We are talking about not treating people unfairly because they share some characteristic with some bad guy. In other words, discrimination. Why is it good to discriminate against whites and men, but bad to discriminate against blacks and women?

- - - Updated - - -

Men's rights being sidelined is a problem. The second type of feminists fear that if men get to complain about institutional injustice towards men as a group that will take attention away from fighting for women's rights.

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Another off the top of my head is being a domestic abuse victim. Another is treatment of fathers vs mothers in the court system. Another is being raped. And if we venture into social injustices rather than legal, then we could also talk about men going off to war to die, working dangerous jobs, and being treated by society as expendable, etc. Its not hard to find these issues and I'm sure many MRAs out there would be happy to go into a full list if you ask them to. Google is also your friend.

 

[Hermit]

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

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.

That is not institutionalised. You also have not quantified this allegedly institutional injustice. If you bring forth evidence to substantiate your assertion of such injustice, let me say this in advance: Anecdotes will not do.

 

[Hermit]

Another off the top of my head is being a domestic abuse victim.

Institutional? Got statistics? You could start with the number of women who get murdered by their male partners, husbands, or brothers in a domestic environment and compare that to the number of men who get murdered by their female partners, wives, or sisters in similar circumstances.

Another is treatment of fathers vs mothers in the court system.

Got statistics? You'll need to control for the numerical difference between fathers and mothers who actually want to raise the children. Good luck.

Another is being raped

Institutional? Got statistics?

And if we venture into social injustices rather than legal, then we could also talk about men going off to war to die, working dangerous jobs...

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.

You have not brought up male suicide rates. In light of all the other "injustices" on your list this surprises me.

Google is also your friend.

Thanks for you supercilious condescension. I've been using Google extensively since its inception. Before it went commercial I have even found it so useful that I have donated to it even though my donations were not tax deductible.

 

[Hermit]

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

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.

That's not institutional. You also make no attempt to quantify this discrimination. If you try to substantiate your assertion later on let me tell you in advance anecdotes won't fly.

 

[bilby]

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

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.

That is not institutionalised. You also have not quantified this allegedly institutional injustice. If you bring forth evidence to substantiate your assertion of such injustice, let me say this in advance: Anecdotes will not do.

LOL Good luck with that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are you looking for an actual law? If so, here's one for you that I am currently dealing with. The Ontario Pay Equity Act. I'm being forced to go through this for one of our companies and I was very surprised at how blatantly sexist it is.

http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/AboutUs/Pages/annual_report2014_pt2.aspx (government website)

To meet the minimum requirements and to show that pay equity has been achieved, all employers covered by the Act are required to undertake the following at each of the employer's establishments:

Determine job classes, including identifying the gender of the job class and job rate;

Determine the value of job classes based on factors of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions;

Conduct comparisons for all female job classes using the job-to-job, proportional value or proxy method of comparison (proxy is for public sector only and of limited application);

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.

This law requires employers first to be sexist in deciding what is "men's work" and what is "women's work" within the organization. Second it requires the female job classes to be paid at least as much or equal to comparable male job classes. It explicitly does NOT care if the male job classes are paid less, only if the female job classes are.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Institutional? Got statistics? You could start with the number of women who get murdered by their male partners, husbands, or brothers in a domestic environment and compare that to the number of men who get murdered by their female partners, wives, or sisters in similar circumstances.

You are insisting on "institutional" but then you are asking the numbers of women who get murdered by male partners etc? Are you asking about being killed by capital punishment or in a war or in what way institutional?

What I was getting at is the way you will be treated if you are a victim, how likely you are to be believed by authorities, and how you will be treated by the institutions of society, especially if the attacker is female. Yes, institutional and social bias against male victims exists here.

And if we venture into social injustices rather than legal, then we could also talk about men going off to war to die, working dangerous jobs...

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?

You have not brought up male suicide rates. In light of all the other "injustices" on your list this surprises me.

Men may be killing themselves more frequently than women for any number of reasons, including natural inclination. Without knowing why they are dong it, I can't point to it being a bias or injustice being imposed on them. And suicide is an issue that effects both men and women, so why single men out? Why not simply call for better mental health care for all?

 

[Hermit]

Are you looking for an actual law? If so, here's one for you that I am currently dealing with. The Ontario Pay Equity Act. I'm being forced to go through this for one of our companies and I was very surprised at how blatantly sexist it is.

http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/AboutUs/Pages/annual_report2014_pt2.aspx (government website)

To meet the minimum requirements and to show that pay equity has been achieved, all employers covered by the Act are required to undertake the following at each of the employer's establishments:

Determine job classes, including identifying the gender of the job class and job rate;

Determine the value of job classes based on factors of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions;

Conduct comparisons for all female job classes using the job-to-job, proportional value or proxy method of comparison (proxy is for public sector only and of limited application);

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.

This law requires employers first to be sexist in deciding what is "men's work" and what is "women's work" within the organization. Second it requires the female job classes to be paid at least as much or equal to comparable male job classes. It explicitly does NOT care if the male job classes are paid less, only if the female job classes are.

According to the Pay Equity Commission's definition of job class gender there is nothing sexist, discriminatory or unjust about determining it.

• If 60% of the incumbents are female, it's a female job class;
• If 70% are male, it's a male job class;
• If there are about the same number of females and males, it may be gender neutral;
• You should also consider the gender that is usually associated with that kind of work (gender stereotype) and if you are doing pay equity retroactively to your achievement date, you should also consider the gender of the employees who have done the work in the past (historical incumbency).

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.

 

[Hermit]

You are insisting on "institutional" but then you are asking the numbers of women who get murdered by male partners etc? Are you asking about being killed by capital punishment or in a war or in what way institutional?

You introduced the term "institutional injustice towards men" in post #144 and I asked you to list them. So you came up with "Another off the top of my head is being a domestic abuse victim" in post #168. Of course I had to ask what is institutional about that. My next sentence implied my doubt that men drew the short straw in the domestic abuse victim stakes.

What I was getting at is the way you will be treated if you are a victim, how likely you are to be believed by authorities, and how you will be treated by the institutions of society, especially if the attacker is female. Yes, institutional and social bias against male victims exists here.

In the absence of credible and verifiable statistics you got at nothing.

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.

 

[Lion IRC]

Since women have attained formal equality in law in quite a number of countries, it has become obvious that they are still disadvantaged in many ways. Two examples: 1) After controls have been made for experience, competence, years of service and other variables women are still paid less than man for doing the exact same job. They are also less likely to get the same job they are equally qualified for if they are competing for it against men.

The feminists repeatedly allege the former but it's not proven. You say "and other variables"--but that's not the case. To prove discrimination you need to deal with all variables--and there are some that I have yet to even see an attempt to measure--and how do you even know if you have them all?

What we do know is that if you control for actual experience (not age!), hours worked (no "full time"!) and exact position (no "doctor"!) more than 90% of the gap has been closed. However, what other factors are there? Off the top of my head:

Experience: You have two people with 10 years of experience. The man has worked the last 10 years, the woman has worked 5, taken 5 off for childrearing and worked another 5. Unless you have a basically static field the employer is going to consider the former to be the better employee as the latter's training and half their experience is more out of date. I'm not aware of any attempt to address this. (And note it gets even worse if she worked 10 and then took 5 off--that means everything she knows is at least 5 years out of date.)

Negotiating: Is there nothing to the widespread belief that men are more aggressive at negotiating salary?

Working conditions: Consider high-travel and remote jobs. Fathers are much more likely to accept such a position than mothers.

Personally, the fact that more than 90% of the gap is closed by simple factors says to me that it's unlikely there's actual widespread discrimination.

I asked my wife if she wanted me to negotiate hard and compete ruthlessly in the workplace
...you know...for better job security, pay off the mortgage, put food on the table, pay for the kids school, etc. I don't recall her mentioning feminism or gender equality in her reply.

 

[Arctish]

We aren't talking about avoiding upsetting anyone--that's an obvious impossibility. We are talking about not treating people unfairly because they share some characteristic with some bad guy. In other words, discrimination. Why is it good to discriminate against whites and men, but bad to discriminate against blacks and women?

- - - Updated - - -

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

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?

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

 

[ruby sparks]

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?

It could be argued that positive discrimination is discrimination. In fact, it would be impossible to say it isn't.

Of course it's unfair to our putatively adversely affected 25 year old man. He is (we assume) not personally to blame for the inequalities which have for various reasons (including sexism, amongst others) prevailed in the world prior to his adulthood.

Personally, I'm in favour of reasonable levels of (temporary) positive discrimination to address a general historical inequality, because I feel it will (hopefully) lead to a better, fairer, general outcome in time. It involves there (temporarily) being individual winners and losers though, which is one reason it can be seen to be a bit controversial.

What 'reasonable levels' are is of course up for grabs.