The two types of Feminism

[Loren Pechtel]

It was discontinued. That was the first, most important step.

What that company did was like damming the flow of a stream, in this case a stream of talented people flowing from entry level positions to the final stages of their careers. The system allowed unqualified male employees to bypass the obstacle while the qualified female employees pooled in ever increasing number behind the barrier. Once the dam broke, a flood of highly qualified female employees began moving through the system again. Having no real competition qualification-wise, they got all the promotions in their departments for the next few years.

Big problem here:

The dam broke long ago. The flood is long past and never was as universal as you think it was anyway--simple probability would show there would be some more qualified males. The wave would have been mostly female, not entirely female.

That was not 'punishing' men. The women who'd been held back got those promotions due to their hard work, commitment, skill, and talent. They were the obvious first picks for promotion. That much could be seen even before the dam broke.

You are assuming all the most qualified were women. That's false.

There may be some little dams scattered about in the labor market but most of the qualified women will figure it out and change jobs--there will be no substantial buildup behind them.

 

[Arctish]

It was discontinued. That was the first, most important step.

What that company did was like damming the flow of a stream, in this case a stream of talented people flowing from entry level positions to the final stages of their careers. The system allowed unqualified male employees to bypass the obstacle while the qualified female employees pooled in ever increasing number behind the barrier. Once the dam broke, a flood of highly qualified female employees began moving through the system again. Having no real competition qualification-wise, they got all the promotions in their departments for the next few years.

Big problem here:

The dam broke long ago. The flood is long past and never was as universal as you think it was anyway--simple probability would show there would be some more qualified males. The wave would have been mostly female, not entirely female.

The dam broke when the company stopped relying on the Assistant Managers to train the inexperienced new guy in the Manager's post while simultaneously doing the Manager's job themselves, and instead just promoted the already qualified, experienced, fully trained, and proven-to-be competent Assistant (Acting) Managers. How is there still confusion on this point? The flood in long past now, but I asked about the point in time when the dam was just about to break.

The company had 15 fully qualified Assistant Managers ready to take over the Manager's job. It had Supervisors who needed very little additional training to take over as Assistant Managers in their facilities. My question to you had to do with a company recognizing that fact and being proactive wrt the obvious best candidates for future promotions in those HR departments.

That was not 'punishing' men. The women who'd been held back got those promotions due to their hard work, commitment, skill, and talent. They were the obvious first picks for promotion. That much could be seen even before the dam broke.

You are assuming all the most qualified were women. That's false.

Actually, you are the one making false assumptions. You're assuming people outside the company's HR department knew the job of HR Manager better than the ones actually doing it. That makes no sense.

There may be some little dams scattered about in the labor market but most of the qualified women will figure it out and change jobs--there will be no substantial buildup behind them.

Even if it's true that changing jobs means the negative consequences of the discrimination you experienced will be retroactively undone (it's not), that's not the issue at the heart of my question.

I asked you about a situation in which a company had built up a deep pool of underutilized talent and decided its best course of action was to promote those employees at the first opportunity. Basically, it was a Hire From Within strategy. I asked you what was wrong with that plan. All you've offered is an objection based on the fact it would have benefitted women but not men, as though promoting a woman to the position of Manager automatically means a man is being treated unfairly

 

[Toni]

Then the injustice done to the women was never rectified.



I was of course speaking generally and not to your specific example (hence covering all scenarios). If you are hiring a manager for bakers at rub-a-dub-dub Inc., you could consider the baker that has been baking for 30 years. You could also consider the graduate of a business administration program who also has a year or two of management experience before coming to Rub-a-dub-dub and working alongside the bakers for a year. That's one year of baking experience vs 30 and it makes sense to promote the person with one. Talent is another factor. Would you rather hire a young Mark Zuckerberg for your software company or a guy who has been programming since there were punch cards but never produced anything notable?

I agree. It's not viable. It would take a successful lawsuit to pry anything in the way of compensation out of a business. The average employee can't afford the lawyer it would take to win no matter how good a case they had.

That's where unions and governments could step in, if they did it properly and not on an overbroad group basis.

Reparations for slavery would make sense if we had the actual people who had been slaves and their former masters to address. In Loren's terms, it would be unjust benefit to award such to and from people who are just the same race; that would be unjust "punishment". But here, you've got the former case. You've got the very women who were wronged and the very company that did it. Compensate the women.

Oh bull shit you were talking in generalities. I specifically brought back attention to the specific scenario that Arctish had referred to—and specifically identified it as Arctish’s scenario.

 

[Toni]

The dam broke when the company stopped relying on the Assistant Managers to train the inexperienced new guy in the Manager's post while simultaneously doing the Manager's job themselves, and instead just promoted the already qualified, experienced, fully trained, and proven-to-be competent Assistant (Acting) Managers. How is there still confusion on this point? The flood in long past now, but I asked about the point in time when the dam was just about to break.

The company had 15 fully qualified Assistant Managers ready to take over the Manager's job. It had Supervisors who needed very little additional training to take over as Assistant Managers in their facilities. My question to you had to do with a company recognizing that fact and being proactive wrt the obvious best candidates for future promotions in those HR departments.

That was not 'punishing' men. The women who'd been held back got those promotions due to their hard work, commitment, skill, and talent. They were the obvious first picks for promotion. That much could be seen even before the dam broke.

You are assuming all the most qualified were women. That's false.

Actually, you are the one making false assumptions. You're assuming people outside the company's HR department knew the job of HR Manager better than the ones actually doing it. That makes no sense.

There may be some little dams scattered about in the labor market but most of the qualified women will figure it out and change jobs--there will be no substantial buildup behind them.

Even if it's true that changing jobs means the negative consequences of the discrimination you experienced will be retroactively undone (it's not), that's not the issue at the heart of my question.

I asked you about a situation in which a company had built up a deep pool of underutilized talent and decided its best course of action was to promote those employees at the first opportunity. Basically, it was a Hire From Within strategy. I asked you what was wrong with a plan. All you've offered is an objection based on the fact it would have benefitted women but not men, as though promoting a women to the position of Manager automatically means a man is being treated unfairly.

Exactly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Oh bull shit you were talking in generalities. I specifically brought back attention to the specific scenario that Arctish had referred to—and specifically identified it as Arctish’s scenario.

Pardon? Why do you rudely speak to phantoms in your mind rather than to the actual people in the thread?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The dam broke when the company stopped relying on the Assistant Managers to train the inexperienced new guy in the Manager's post while simultaneously doing the Manager's job themselves, and instead just promoted the already qualified, experienced, fully trained, and proven-to-be competent Assistant (Acting) Managers. How is there still confusion on this point? The flood in long past now, but I asked about the point in time when the dam was just about to break.

It's called feet. As in move to a better job if your current one is mistreating you.

Actually, you are the one making false assumptions. You're assuming people outside the company's HR department knew the job of HR Manager better than the ones actually doing it. That makes no sense.

No. I'm looking at the reality that as all those men were promoted there would be some who moved into the slots that were qualified.

There may be some little dams scattered about in the labor market but most of the qualified women will figure it out and change jobs--there will be no substantial buildup behind them.

Even if it's true that changing jobs means the negative consequences of the discrimination you experienced will be retroactively undone (it's not), that's not the issue at the heart of my question.

The point is that it only holds you back if you don't work around the obstacle. Almost all of us have obstacles in life, we have to work around them. If you can't work around an obstacle you're not going to be a very good managaer.

I asked you about a situation in which a company had built up a deep pool of underutilized talent and decided its best course of action was to promote those employees at the first opportunity. Basically, it was a Hire From Within strategy. I asked you what was wrong with that plan. All you've offered is an objection based on the fact it would have benefitted women but not men, as though promoting a woman to the position of Manager automatically means a man is being treated unfairly

The correct course is for that underutilized talent to find other jobs where they will be properly utilized.

As it stood it was in the company's interest to keep on doing what it was doing--if skilled people will stick around while doing jobs above their level that's a win for the company. No need for discrimination to explain it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The correct course is for that underutilized talent to find other jobs where they will be properly utilized.

That presumes there were other jobs they could move to that were not discriminating against women.

As it stood it was in the company's interest to keep on doing what it was doing--if skilled people will stick around while doing jobs above their level that's a win for the company. No need for discrimination to explain it.

But discrimination does explain it.

 

[Arctish]

It's called feet. As in move to a better job if your current one is mistreating you.

You say that as though starting over in a new place is the same thing as advancing in an old one. As though the fact you didn't advance in your old job won't affect the types of job offers you get. As though jobs in everyone's chosen career are as plentiful as entry level jobs at Wal Mart.

You say it as though opening up opportunities for advancement to qualified employees is the wrong thing to do.

No. I'm looking at the reality that as all those men were promoted there would be some who moved into the slots that were qualified.

That's not the reality.

I explained the reality.

You are inventing a new narrative and trying to get it accepted as reality, even though if directly contradicts the actual reality.

There may be some little dams scattered about in the labor market but most of the qualified women will figure it out and change jobs--there will be no substantial buildup behind them.

Even if it's true that changing jobs means the negative consequences of the discrimination you experienced will be retroactively undone (it's not), that's not the issue at the heart of my question.

The point is that it only holds you back if you don't work around the obstacle. Almost all of us have obstacles in life, we have to work around them. If you can't work around an obstacle you're not going to be a very good managaer.

Indeed. And that's exactly what my former roommate and the other Assistant Managers did. They destroyed the obstacle, thereby becoming eligible-in-fact for the position of Manager when the underqualified men were promoted out of position they never should have been given.

I asked you about a situation in which a company had built up a deep pool of underutilized talent and decided its best course of action was to promote those employees at the first opportunity. Basically, it was a Hire From Within strategy. I asked you what was wrong with that plan. All you've offered is an objection based on the fact it would have benefitted women but not men, as though promoting a woman to the position of Manager automatically means a man is being treated unfairly

The correct course is for that underutilized talent to find other jobs where they will be properly utilized.

As it stood it was in the company's interest to keep on doing what it was doing--if skilled people will stick around while doing jobs above their level that's a win for the company. No need for discrimination to explain it.

I see.

It's to a company's advantage to discriminate against certain people (not men, or at least not white Christian and Jewish men) and compel them to do a job they're not being paid to do.

That pretty much sums up your entire philosophy of life, doesn't it? "Screw 'em, it's more profitable that way. They probably don't deserve any better, anyway."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The correct course is for that underutilized talent to find other jobs where they will be properly utilized.

That presumes there were other jobs they could move to that were not discriminating against women.

Which has generally been the case for a long time now.

As it stood it was in the company's interest to keep on doing what it was doing--if skilled people will stick around while doing jobs above their level that's a win for the company. No need for discrimination to explain it.

But discrimination does explain it.

But you don't assume discrimination until you have ruled out the simpler explanations.

- - - Updated - - -

You say that as though starting over in a new place is the same thing as advancing in an old one. As though the fact you didn't advance in your old job won't affect the types of job offers you get. As though jobs in everyone's chosen career are as plentiful as entry level jobs at Wal Mart.

The main way people improve their income is by changing jobs.

(Which is part of why unions are so in favor of seniority systems--it means the main way the worker has to improve their lot is taken away from them, leaving the union as their only solution. Forced dependency.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But discrimination does explain it.

But you don't assume discrimination until you have ruled out the simpler explanations.

I can't speak to whether or not Arctish described the situation accurately and fairly, but she did day that the women were held back specifically because they are female and men were promoted over them who were less qualified. If that is true, then we have a clear case of discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But discrimination does explain it.

But you don't assume discrimination until you have ruled out the simpler explanations.

I can't speak to whether or not Arctish described the situation accurately and fairly, but she did day that the women were held back specifically because they are female and men were promoted over them who were less qualified. If that is true, then we have a clear case of discrimination.

She believed the reason was discrimination. That doesn't prove that it is.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here is a great example of the first type of feminist I'm talking about.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O47bXIznf-E[/youtube]

 

[Toni]

I can't speak to whether or not Arctish described the situation accurately and fairly, but she did day that the women were held back specifically because they are female and men were promoted over them who were less qualified. If that is true, then we have a clear case of discrimination.

She believed the reason was discrimination. That doesn't prove that it is.

Loren, it is really sad to see the lengths you will go to to avoid recognizing when someone is being discriminated against due to an inborn characteristic such as gender or race. I think you are better than that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can't speak to whether or not Arctish described the situation accurately and fairly, but she did day that the women were held back specifically because they are female and men were promoted over them who were less qualified. If that is true, then we have a clear case of discrimination.

She believed the reason was discrimination. That doesn't prove that it is.

Loren, it is really sad to see the lengths you will go to to avoid recognizing when someone is being discriminated against due to an inborn characteristic such as gender or race. I think you are better than that.

The thing is people these days tend to jump to discrimination as the first explanation of an apparent different treatment. There's no attempt to see if there might be some other factor they missed. Thus people saying discrimination happened is all but meaningless. I want a proper investigation that looks at both sides of the picture.

 

[Toni]

Loren, it is really sad to see the lengths you will go to to avoid recognizing when someone is been ing discriminated against due to an inborn characteristic such as gender or race. I think you are better than that.

The thing is people these days tend to jump to discrimination as the first explanation of an apparent different treatment. There's no attempt to see if there might be some other factor they missed. Thus people saying discrimination happened is all but meaningless. I want a proper investigation that looks at both sides of the picture.

Arctish does not strike me as someone who jumps to discrimination as the explanation for seemingly inequitable and unfair treatment. She presented a scenario with which she was quite familiar. One group of people who shared a particular inborn characteristic (in this case being male) was promoted over another group of people who were better qualified but who did not share that inborn characteristic. This did not happen just once but time and time again over years.

It stretches all credulity that there was no discrimination against the better qualified women. Perhaps this seems incomprehensible to you because you would never discriminate in such a manner. Perhaps no one you cared about has faced such discrimination.

I have. I grew up being told that girls were not as good at math or science as were boys, despite the fact that I always—always! outscored every single boy on every single math or science test or course, usually by wide margins. I have been told that males needed to earn more money, that I should wear my skirts shorter, smile more, nearly fired for discouraging a customers advances, asked deeply personal questions about my se life, told to take the notes although my handwriting is terrible, and have listened to a coworker opine that I didn’t need my job because my husband had a welll paying job. And I’ve had it much easier than many women I know.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The thing is people these days tend to jump to discrimination as the first explanation of an apparent different treatment.

Evidence?

 

[barbos]

The thing is people these days tend to jump to discrimination as the first explanation of an apparent different treatment.

Evidence?

Pay gap, It was and still is presented as clear evidence of discrimination. And I bet you will now respond with "It is!"

 

[ruby sparks]

The thing is people these days tend to jump to discrimination as the first explanation of an apparent different treatment.

Evidence?

Pay gap, It was and still is presented as clear evidence of discrimination. And I bet you will now respond with "It is!"

Yes, I agree. And I think Loren has a point.



The fact that Loren routinely tends to jump the other way however, makes it slightly ironic coming from him. One is as bad as the other, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here is a great example of the first type of feminist I'm talking about.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O47bXIznf-E[/youtube]

Christine Hoff Summers is a mixed bag, imo, and something of a paradox. In many ways, she is arguably just as coloured by a political ideology (in her case right wing politics in general) as the Feminist movement she is very critical of, and she is known for over-simplistically politicising the issue (calling mainstream feminists marxists for example) and for her own selective use of 'facts'.

That video seems to me, and I stand to be corrected, like a good example of the sort of thing she does. In the middle of it she is highly critical of a book ('The Penguin Atlas of Women of the World') which she says (a) is widely used in Gender Studies courses in the USA and (b) ranks the USA alongside Uganda and Somalia in terms of women's status. I have googled this book and much of the content is available online. On the basis of what I found, I would have to question her assertion. For example:



What appears especially odd is that not only does this not seem to back up what she said about the book, it undermines much of what comes before in the video, where modern American feminists are alleged to be so obsessed with their own (1st World, minor) problems that they don't address the more serious issues for women in less developed Countries. And yet she seems to have picked a book and an author (Joni Seager) which are counter-examples to her own point, because global issues for women are apparently, it seems (after googling about her) Seager's area of special interest and expertise, and she's a mainstream, academic feminist.

Her point may nonetheless have merit, but it's not clear from the video. Summers implies that 'back in the day' (60's/70's) feminists protested and wrote more about this (the more severe plight of women in less developed countries) than modern feminists. But she only posts a monochrome pic of an anti-apartheid protest from that earlier time, not a feminist protest.

In any case, I think women and feminists are entitled to raise issues in their own 'western' societies.

There appear to be similar criticisms and potential issues about the accuracy of some of the content of her output in general, both the videos and the books.

Hey, I like the sound of a lot of what Summers says too, but I think one has to be careful with her also. I personally have not made up my mind about her stuff. My provisional assessment might be 'it's a pity that genuine neutrality or a middle-ground seems to be so hard to find' and 'it might be better if what I consider her good points could be articulated by a prominent someone who might not have such arguably politically partisan views as her and who might not use facts selectively'. Because her good points are good, imo.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pay gap, It was and still is presented as clear evidence of discrimination. And I bet you will now respond with "It is!"

Yes, I agree. And I think Loren has a point.



The fact that Loren routinely tends to jump the other way however, makes it slightly ironic coming from him. One is as bad as the other, imo.

A point or statistics,. .. because when someone claims X tends to be Y, I expect some kind of backing that P(X) > 50%. Mere ancecdotes or stories about crazy people don't qualify as a "X tends to Y."