Fatal Accidents And Violence While At Work1
In the United States, in 2005, men were 54% of the workforce but 93% of workers who died at work due to fatal accidents or violence (pdf link). (The raw numbers are 5300 men, 402 women).2 For women at work, the most common cause of death was highway accidents, followed by homicide. For men at work, the most common cause of death was also highway accidents, followed by “contact with objects and equipment” and then by falls. Looking at risk ratios, the most likely workers to die of accident or violence at work are agricultural, fishing and lumber workers; in terms of raw numbers, however, construction workers are killed the most often.
There are a little over 200 workplace suicides each year, about 94% of which are men. (Interestingly, although in all other areas of workplace death non-whites — and especially non-white immigrants — are disproportionately likely to be the victims, a disproportionately high number of workplace suicides are committed by white workers.) The most likely occupations for workplace suicide are police, farmer, and soldier.
Death Due To Workplace-Related Disease
Workplace deaths due to accidents and violence tend to get a lot of attention, because they are dramatic and relatively simple to measure. But, in terms of total numbers, they’re a minor problem. Deaths due to workplace-related disease and toxic exposure are a far larger problem, killing over 100,000 Americans a year, according to the International Labor Organization’s estimates (pdf link).
I couldn’t find clear figures comparing female and male deaths due to work-related disease and exposure in the United States. But according to the ILO, in established market economies as a whole, 240,700 men and 46,298 women died in 2002 due to work-related disease; put another way, 84% of workers who die due to work-related disease are male. (These figures are estimates; workplace mortality due to disease is not possible to measure with pinpoint accuracy).
Occupational Segregation
What causes the discrepancy in workplace deaths? The main cause is “occupational segregation” – the tendency for some jobs to be mostly held by men, and others to be mostly held by women. The most hazardous jobs — whether due to exposure to dangerous substances, or to risk of falling or being in a highway accident — are disproportionately held by men. (Contrary to popular belief, people in risky jobs are not usually paid extra to compensate them for danger).
Occupation segregation, in turn, is caused in part by workplace discrimination, both in the form of employers preferring a particular sex, and in the form of on-the-job harassment and discrimination making blue-collar women, or a pink collar men, know that they’re unwelcome.
Occupational segregation is also caused by self-segregation, as many male workers feel uncomfortable applying for female-dominated jobs, and vice versa. There is, in my opinion, a vicious cycle functioning; the lack of pink-collar male, and blue-collar female, role models and mentors makes it less likely that future workers will cross the occupational gender line.
Conclusion
While we should fight occupational segregation, getting rid of occupational segregation won’t solve the tragedy of work-related deaths; more women and less men dying is less sexist, but still not a net improvement in terms of saving lives. What’s needed is more pro-active government intervention to make workplaces safer3 , along with a reform of tort laws to make it easier for workers and their survivors to successfully sue employers. (Edited years later to add: And, of course, we need more unionization of workplaces.)
The problem with a dry term like “occupational segregation” is that, while it’s accurate, it also obscures how disproportionate male deaths in the workplace are caused by sexism. Nearly all of the causes of occupational segregation, in one way or another, are themselves caused in part by sexism. Workplace deaths are a clear example of how sexism harms men in the United States.
- In this blog post, I’m concentrating on workplace deaths. But it’s also the case that men are more likely than women to be injured at work. [↩]
- This number does not include illegal jobs. My impression is that prostitution — a female-dominated job — and drug dealing — a male-dominated job — are both relatively high-mortality jobs. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that including illegal job mortality might reduce the male/female mortality discrepancy a bit, but it certainly wouldn’t eliminate it. [↩]
- There’s no reason that this has to consist solely of micro-management and regulations. For instance, the government could offer tax breaks for companies that can rigorously prove that they’ve reduced workplace accidents and fatalities by a substantial amount. [↩]
“The right not to be tested for HIV if they don’t want to be.”
—————————-
I didn’t even know that HIV testing was forced (I assume for pregnancy?). But if so, the law could be made gender neutral by demanding it of ANYONE, man or woman, who gets pregnant.
I guess you could also demand that everyone get pap smears, although I imagine a pap smear would probably hurt more for a man.
OK, I should have been clearer in the HIV testing thing, but instead, I completely jumped over one of my mental steps. What’s mandatory (in some places?) is testing newborns for HIV. Thing is, the test won’t tell you if the baby has HIV until six months of age – what it will tell you is if the mother has HIV.
I would be able to see the logic in testing all pregnant women; then they could get the treatment that would help the baby’s odds of not receiving HIV in utero. But that’s not what this does, it just sidesteps the right that the woman does have to not be tested against her will. It seems pretty clear that the child’s welfare is not the paramount concern, since the testing is only mandatory once it can no longer do the kid any good. So what motivations are left?
I was asked what rights men have that women don’t; I think it’s weird that the response has to question whether or not women should have those rights (which men do).
Nemo, abortion wasn’t outlawed until the mid-nineteenth century-ish. The lack of right to not bear children was at that time invented out of thin air. I’m so not going to finish When Abortion Was A Crime in time for the Pandagon book club due date, but it’s fascinating stuff nonetheless.
Yeah…might…just a little…
To be fair, though, we’d have to require prostate checks for everybody too. OW.
;D
I see what you’re saying there, and it probably was a stretch the way I put it. But I also do think it’s important to note that men aren’t having to constantly defend their right not to bear children. It’s just taken as a given, and nobody’s running for office on the platform that it should be taken away.
Gaa, sorry for the triple post. I kind of hate to admit how fucked up my sleep schedule has gotten, but I’m not all that caffeinated yet today.
Ah. My bad. i was under the (mistaken) impression you were discussing prenatal testing. Whole different ball of wax, that.
What I don’t know is:
Is this an example of a very bad design for detecting HIV as soon as possible after birth? (commendable intent, bad execution). Certainly the government screws up all the time….?
Or is this an example of a sneaky but legally defensible design for detecting HIV in women without the political and legal fallout that would result from forcing women to undergo HIV testing directly? (horribly nasty intent, good execution.)
I think the answer probably lies in how the records are kept: if a baby tests positive for HIV, is it filed under the infant’s name (with the LEGAL parent listed–including the adoptive mother listed if there’s an adoption, etc) or does it somehow get cross referenced to the NATURAL mom? I certainly know the government is capable of some pretty slimy shit so I’d be interested to know.
Those are good questions, sailorman, and I have no idea what the answers are. My guess is, a little of both.
btw, if instead of “men have way more rights” I had simply said “men have it way easier,” would we have been able to skip this whole derail?
“men have it way easier,”
—————————–
That attitude, or feeling, or presumption, is probably the “real” basis for feminism. That’s the feeling a lot of women have today (or the feeling that’s getting drummed into them in women’s studies departments across the country).
A couple of pieces of the puzzle still don’t fit, though. Why would so many more men than women kill themselves (I think it’s 4:1)? Why is the instance of drug and alcohol abuse and homelessness a lot higher?
Maybe a good exercise in a class would be to get a suit with padding tailored to look like a man, false facial hair etc. and then to get out on the street and into society.
It’s probably hard for a man to picture what it’s like to be a woman and vice versa. Some things may be easier and there may be things that one didn’t expect that are iffier.
Nemo, if you feel that way, why are you here in this thread discussing it, rather than finding an open thread or someplace more appropriate?
Have you read a lot of women’s studies text books and feminist theory?
If not, why do you think you’re educated enough to comment on it?
Surely you didn’t intend to post this.
Because if you did, then I must assume that you intended to appear as a b*got and a man-hater, and not as someone who wishes equality for both sexes.
If someone performs a job where they have a 14 times greater risk of violent injury or death, then that person should be compensated for literally putting their well-being at risk while performing their job.
This is how a relatively free market works. The jobs that are dangerous pay more due to the risks involved.
Surely you didn’t mean to state that women (or men) who perform less dangerous work should be paid the same as someone who risks their life to earn a living.
If you did, then you don’t value men’s lives as much as you do women’s lives.
If you did, then you don’t think that risking your life and health has an economic premium that the market should compensate for.
“This is how a relatively free market works. The jobs that are dangerous pay more due to the risks involved.”
That’s true. My dad’s computer programmer job where he has never risked his ass ever pays five or six times than my brother’s high risk construction job. So it must be true, the free market must pay based on risk.
Wait. No, that’s not true at all. My father’s job pays a hell of a lot more than my brother’s job, risks aside. Why, other factors must contribute, which might imply that pink collar jobs are paid less for reasons that have nothing to do with risk, and that risk is a cobbled-together justification for the difference! Astonishing.
Join us next week, when someone invokes the invisible hand of the market to explain how muppets talk.
“My dad’s computer programmer job where he has never risked his ass ever pays five or six times than my brother’s high risk construction job”
times less, that should read, for the sarcasm to work.
Lee, the fact that men (as a group) are more likely to die at the job than women (as a group) is often used to justify the overall wage gap, even though the overwhelming majority of men don’t work at jobs at which they have any significant chance of dying, and even though men’s higher pay is not in fact caused by men’s higher chance of dying.
For that reason, it’s perfectly reasonable to object to the way MRAs use the higher rate of accidental death among male workers as a way of excusing the wage gap.
The truth is, most men who die at their jobs get paid shit. The only reason to be at a job like that, most of the time, is that the worker’s negotiating position is so bad that they end up taking a lousy job which might kill them; and people in bad negotiating positions don’t get paid well. (In general.)
No, we are not implicitly stating that women are either all good or all bad. That is your assumption. What those sites do, is to point out that women commit crimes just like men, that they rape just like men, they molest children just like men, and they murder and rob banks just like men.
Thus the bias of laws in many U.S. States needs to be remedied so that rape is not only defined as penetration, so that female teachers who rape their students get the exact same sentences as the men who do, so that women who are convicted of the same crime as a man do the same time a man would, so that women do not get a pass when their attorney claims ‘she is too pretty to go to prison’, so that women who rob a bank are not referred to as ‘confused little girls who made a mistake’.
As far as “If they started with the premise that women are fully human, the fact that some women do bad things would be obvious and listing individual examples would be redundant…”, many men, myself included, were reared to acknowledge women as the better sex, the fairer sex, the gentler sex, the more empathic sex. When adults and others in my social circle from age 5-20 repeated the notion that “No woman can rape a man”, it is logical to assume that to correct such out of date social mores a highlighting of the crimes women commit that men have been singularly vilified for is in order.
“Sugar and spice and everything nice. That’s what little girls are made of.”
Was a nursery rhyme when I was growing up in the early 1960’s. It was likely true then, but it certainly is no longer true today. Young men need to know that women can have all the negative qualities that run throughout humanity, and they must also know that unlike men, women still have a social, legal and moral advantage. This deferential treatment is a holdover when women were deferred to in speech, manners and action. It was called Chivalry, and it is dead.
It is this ability to act to their lesser natures, but not be punished the same as when men act so, that is dangerous about these women.
When the laws are fair, then highlighting these women will not be necessary. All will know that there are good and bad people, men and women, and that both are treated the same when convicted of wrongdoing.
Nemo,
I really hadn’t realized that I was being asked to reinvent the wheel and explain the existence of sexism/defend the existence of feminism. As mandolin said, that’s what womens studies classes are for.
mandolin,
I’ve fallen a little in love with you ;P
(on other threads, too)
“It is this ability to act to their lesser natures, but not be punished the same as when men act so, that is dangerous about these women.
When the laws are fair, then highlighting these women will not be necessary. All will know that there are good and bad people, men and women, and that both are treated the same when convicted of wrongdoing.
”
All together now
The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too!
Although jobs should certainly be made safer (OSHA), and there should be a limit as to what employers can expect of employees, jobs that involve real contact with the physical world are going to have an inherent element of risk and danger. Fishing (one of the most dangerous jobs, far more dangerous than police officer), roofing/construction, farming, industrial production etc. all involve contact with a real world that can be dangerous.
I think that someone has to do these jobs if we want anything beyond caves and rudimentary berry-gathering, and the lot seems to have fallen upon men.
Now I realize that when the Patriarchy is finally smashed, a benevolent government will simply send out checks to fishermen and roofers and guys stirring a big pot of chemicals in a factory. Then they can JUST BUY their fish and vegetables and beef and cars in a store like normal people, and they can quit their macho behavior. In fact, everyone can either work a few hours in an air-conditioned office, or just stay home if they want, and the government will send out more than enough money so that everyone can just buy their stuff in a store like normal people should. No one should have to produce it, and everyone should be given enough money to buy everything they want.
I can’t believe that the stupid Patriarchy just doesn’t GET IT.
“All together now
The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too!”
———————————————————-
After the revolution and the overthrow of the evil Patriarchy society will be great for women and men.
After the revolution, we’ll all get along.
I was under the impression that this thread was about workplace deaths and how they’re overwhelmingly male, in part due to sexism. I believe that qualifies as ‘The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.’ I’m unsure why such a statement is being critisized when it does, in fact, also hurt men.
I don’t believe I like the phrase used in a sarcastic way as a reply to a critique I consider valid, because when I read it as that it suggest that after women get the same rights as men, all shall be well, all will be well, and may god help me if all manners of things aren’t well, including racism, class, ect and so forth.
Pheeno,
When the laws are fair, then highlighting these women will not be necessary. All will know that there are good and bad people, men and women, and that both are treated the same when convicted of wrongdoing.
Perhaps it’s just because I got through listening to my ex’s mother insist that a woman can’t rape, and that she had everyone in the room but me agreeing with her on how to prosecute that I disagree that fair laws nullify personal beliefs. (IE; she didn’t believe prosecution was necessary or even applicable) When I’ve experience in such atrocities myself, it’s not an belief (that woman are *more* empathic, moral, what-have-you than men) that I like to see encouraged. Women don’t have a written legal advantage in the usa stating such, but from what I see of my fellow citizens in every day life, they do have a moral and social advantage in some aspects of society that can and does leak into the legal sphere.
Nemo,
The lot does seem to have fallen upon men, a large part due to sexism. It isn’t the inherent danger of the job that keeps women away, it’s the sad fact that if they applied for the jobs in question, most wouldn’t be hired. A handful would slip through the cracks, certainly, but not enough that one could say sexism was abolished. Another not so pretty personal reflection.
I’ve a certificate in diesel mechanics, and I’m legally female. All off the mechanic jobs I’ve applied for with no exception after I handed in the app and asked when was a good time for an interview have told me that they suddenly, inexplicably didn’t need the help. Not that they hired someone, just that they decided they didn’t need the help. My grades were in the nineties, two years spent getting the training, and it’s useless.
“I’ve a certificate in diesel mechanics, and I’m legally female. All off the mechanic jobs I’ve applied for with no exception after I handed in the app and asked when was a good time for an interview have told me that they suddenly, inexplicably didn’t need the help. Not that they hired someone, just that they decided they didn’t need the help. My grades were in the nineties, two years spent getting the training, and it’s useless.”
——————————
It’s hard to respond to an anecdote, maybe there’s something about YOU or your practical abilities. Or maybe not. Maybe they want someone hefty, maybe not. I know that there are women who are hired for those jobs. If strength is a factor, if a practical “get the job done” attitude is a factor, if other relevant issues are a factor, I don’t know what to say.
My anecdotes are: that I personally witnessed a foundry boss under pressure to hire some women for the non-office jobs (meaning pushing wheelbarrows full of sand, heaving bags etc.) — he didn’t get … a … single … application … from any woman, over a fairly long period and with quite a bit of effort to advertise the positions.
And, in a different setting, there had always been one overnight flight mechanic on duty. A woman had to be appointed as a flight mechanic, but she couldn’t heave her tools onto the runway, you couldn’t use a wheelbarrow or other means because of cracks, hoses, various stuff impeding it. So now two people were assigned to overnight duty. A man who could heave the stuff and act as a flight mechanic, and a woman acting as a flight mechanic. Although only one person was required. And no one said anything about it.
“I’m unsure why such a statement is being critisized when it does, in fact, also hurt men. ”
I’d have to explain a great deal of feminist theory to properly convey the gist of it, but I’ll boil it down somewhat : Telling to feminists that the patriarchy hurts men too is telling the wrong people. We already know it’s a huge ball of shit. But the only time it gets (some) male attention is when it affects them. Because they’re the important ones of course, and the fact the patriarchy kills more women and has for a very long time doesn’t motivate them. It just motivates them when it hurts them. And then some actually use it to dismiss dead and raped women and try to claim sexism doesnt exist because gee, after all, sometimes men get hurt too. And a great deal of thse men actually get offended that feminists aren’t doing more about it.
“Women don’t have a written legal advantage in the usa stating such, but from what I see of my fellow citizens in every day life, they do have a moral and social advantage in some aspects of society that can and does leak into the legal sphere. ”
That “moral” advantage is also why we’re blamed when we’re raped. We become responsible for mens bad behavior. We’re supposed to be the “moral” ones, the empathic ones, the responsible ones, so when men do bad things, it’s our fault for letting them. That “advantage” sets us up perfectly to fail and be blamed for our own attacks. Look up Sexual Gatekeeping.
It’s hard to respond to an anecdote, maybe there’s something about YOU or your practical abilities. Or maybe not. Maybe they want someone hefty, maybe not. I know that there are women who are hired for those jobs. If strength is a factor, if a practical “get the job done” attitude is a factor, if other relevant issues are a factor, I don’t know what to say.
Endoubtably strength is a factor, as is a ‘get the job done’ attitude. And if you went through a course to get a certificate for mechanics, you’d be aware that practical abilities are judged. And if you suggested that I’m not strong enough, or that I don’t look strong enough to ‘get the job done’ to possible employers, I’d love for you to meet me. Because I’ve gotten the exact opposite response from coworkers in ‘pink collar’ jobs, and the under the table jobs I’ve had that require heavy work don’t particularly care what sex you are as long as the work gets done for a pittance of pay. But when a job with actual benefits comes along, suddenly I’m unable? I don’t think so.
That you gave anecdotal evidence that a single woman wasn’t capable of hauling her own tools does not mean that that is why I was not and am not being hired, or why women in general aren’t getting hired for the jobs, although perception of strength or lack thereof can be a factor. That a boss was ‘encouraged’ to hire women and none applied is not, I don’t believe, valid reasoning that women across the board aren’t interesting in such jobs. If they don’t want to hire you, why would they keep you? Why even apply if they’re going to lay you off once the trial period is over. Especially if they’re under the assumption that a man can do the job better , as is my experience.
My fault Pheeno, I probably didn’t make myself clear. I meant using the PHMT! in snark when it’s discussed as to why the patriarchy hurts men too, not when it’s used as a dismissal, ie; “Men are hurt by patriarchy, too, so why don’t you women just shut up already.” Fine line, but it’s there.
Yes, I know the moral ‘advantage’ and most of its horrid uses. But the one (socially being blamed morally for one’s own rape) is about as useful and healthy as being considered not able to rape. Neither belief helps the victims and both encourage the perpetrators.
In think this ties in with the discussion of who is doing (dangerous) jobs in society:
The Patriarchy is either:
(1) A conspiracy several thousands of years ago among a group of men; this conspiracy has continued for thousands of years over every square inch of the plant earth,
or
(2) Up until recently, most work outside of the home involved a great deal of strength and stamina. Men are quite a bit stronger than women in general. The role fell to them, and the remaining role (which involved a lot of work at that time) fell to women.
Because men were building and defending the turf of whatever unit they were in, they naturally coordinated with each other about it. That turned into politics as the units got larger.
Then came the industrial revolution, and a lot of jobs appeared that didn’t require strength or the like. In combination with that, inventions were made that took more and more work away from the household. The obvious result, and what happened, was that women no longer wanted to be bored at home and wanted to get into the work world. That change happened, although some people (men and women) are always going to be reluctant to change or slow to change, but change happens anyway.
So now Nancy Pilosi’s in, Hilary’s running, there is a female chancellor of Germany and probably soon a female president of France. Women are getting equal opportunity, as they should, and vestiges of the old system are going away.
The problem I see is that some people don’t want to realize that the scary Patriarchy may just be society.
Well yes, Nemo the ‘Scary Patriarchy’ is indeed society, or rather a facet of it. Realizing this doesn’t make it stop or go away. And if you’re going to generalize by exclaiming that women did the work inside the home and men did everything else solely on the difference in strength, please read “Ain’t I A Woman” by Sojourner Truth. Your theory on why the patriarchy selects men on the basis of being stronger ignores race issues most definitely, along with the poorer working classes. Both were and are considered perfectly acceptable when it comes to heavy lifting in jobs with no benefits, or jobs that other people think are beneath them. Intersections intersections intersections. Domestic labor isn’t light by any stretch of the imagination, especially on a larger scale. Flashback to some nineteenth century personal accounts, you’ll get the gist.
Women have been doing heavy lifting and rotten jobs before ‘civilization’ reared its head, and when it falls, as everything does eventually, if the human race is still around they’ll continue to do heavy and crappy jobs. It isn’t a matter of they can’t. If you’re that invested in your belief and you live ’round the ny/pa border, I’d be happy to introduce you to quite a few women whose jobs you consider ‘light’ that require strength you’re speaking of, since I can only conclude you haven’t met any yourself.
So was it only mainly middle class white women that are considered ‘not strong enough’ (since you seem to have ignored everyone else’s work and history, that’s the group that’s left) or did you include other groups into your theory? I honestly want to know, not being sarcastic. And if they were included, how did it your ‘patriarchy’ theory pan out to ‘It’s all about men’s strength’ in regards to jobs when so many other sources have a different experience?
And sorry for the thread drift, I’m pretty sure that the above posts aren’t quite on topic since they don’t suggest ways to reduce work related death, and they don’t discuss most men’s normative experience with such a thing. I mean, sure, getting more women into those jobs would decrease sexism, but that doesn’t help the death toll.
Nemo, there’s a sarcastic tone to many of your comments, which implies disdain for feminist beliefs and a refusal to engage with them seriously.
Normally I’d send you an email warning, but since you didn’t put in a good email address, I can’t. There’s no law saying that you have to treat feminism with respect while you disagree with it; there’s no law saying that your engagement with feminist ideas, even while disagreeing with them, has to be serious.
However, there IS a rule saying that you can’t do stuff like that on my private blog space. Here it is:
So tone down the anti-feminist sarcasm and snarky tone, please. And don’t say “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” That would make you less welcome here, because someone who is aware of what he is doing with tone can consciously choose to improve his behavior, whereas someone who is too tone-deaf to tell when he’s indicating contempt to others will probably never be able to alter his behavior.
On the other hand, if you can continue to disagree while remaining respectful and polite — which you were doing a bang-up job on, until your most recent several comments — then you’ll be welcome to stay here.
Finally, you have my email address (it’s near the top of the sidebar). So if you want to play rules lawyer and argue this out in detail, then please take it to email.
AW, we’re past the 100-comment mark. I’m really not worried about thread drift at this point. (That’s just me, other bloggers may feel differently.)
::breathlessly zips in::
…did someone say thread drift?
;)
Men who consider themselves powerless are the ones most likely to be misogynists
If that were true, Wall Street stockbrokers would be gurus of feminist enlightenment. It’s about a sense of entitlement, not about social class. But then, given the extremely classist and narrow posts of a lot of people on this thread, I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising.
“So tone down the anti-feminist sarcasm and snarky tone, please. And don’t say “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” That would make you less welcome here, because someone who is aware of what he is doing with tone can consciously choose to improve his behavior, whereas someone who is too tone-deaf to tell when he’s indicating contempt to others will probably never be able to alter his behavior.”
————————————–
OK – message received and I agree that I started getting a bit that way.
I’m not here to cause a ruckus or play rules lawyer, so I’ll tone it down if I post in the future. I’ve now changed my e-mail, thanks for the heads-up instead of a banning.
Not to mention that there are other cultures where women were expected to do the physical labor like farming.
Men who consider themselves powerless are the ones most likely to be misogynists
Not sure about this, but it does have a ring o’ truth to it. Most people seem to need someone to step on, the ones at the bottom of the barrel (class wise) included. Gendered expectations, for instance, are particularly strong down below from what I can tell because it sets a store for ‘normal’ behavor for all classes and allows others to feel morally superior by acting such expectations out. Don’t need money to keep a boy’s hair short or to make sure a girl keep hers long. I think it also has to do with control, the more powerless one feels themselves to be the more probable they’ll adhere to expectations so they have a sense of control.
Mythago,
If that were true, Wall Street stockbrokers would be gurus of feminist enlightenment.
What’s the powerlessness of a Wall Street stockbroker? I’m afraid you lost me. There’s no gauruntee that someone’d recognize another’s powerlessness except the particular kind they’re familiar with. And I’m doubtful that someone would want to give up a feeling of power if they don’t percieve themselves to be gaining anything, only losing the little spier of control they feel they have left.
Mandolin,
Not to mention that there are other cultures where women were expected to do the physical labor like farming.
Women are still expected to do the physical labor, like farming. The farms I’m familiar with are run mainly by families, with some having hired hands, and the parent’s theory is this; if the kids eat the food and benefit from the milking, hay and corn, then they’ll work for it by age, gender be damned. Which I agree with, builds a strong work ethic.
What’s the powerlessness of a Wall Street stockbroker?
Yes, that would be the point. If ‘powerlessness’ led inevitably to sexism, then we’d expect the most powerful men to be the most feminist and enlightened–after all, they have no feeling of powerlessness, no need to point to a woman and say “At least I’m better than that.”
Anyone who’s spent five minutes around white-collar men knows better.
Perhaps the powerlessness that leads to sexism (if there is such a thing; I am agnostic on the question) isn’t the type of economic power that those men have in abundance. There’s more than one kind of juice out there.
It was a serious question, though, not meant to be rhetorical. I don’t believe I’ve ever met a stockbroker, you see, so I’ve nothing much to go by there. If a person doesn’t feel powerless in any sense of the word, somewhere deep in the self, then I doubt there would be sexism, because a person would have no reason to hold onto it. Feeling powerless and being powerless are often two different things, in my opinion.
ArrogantWorm, I think I know where you’re going. I think. Like Robert said, there’s more than one kind of juice (zomg, did I just agree with Robert? I did.) Maybe ‘inadequacy’ would be a more exact term here than ‘powerlessness.’ There’s no reason that the two wouldn’t often go hand-in-hand (society doesn’t exactly own up to its hand in keeping people down, which I’d imagine makes it really easy to take lack of success personally), but it also gets towards explaining irrational hatred in people like stockbrokers whom we wouldn’t immediately peg as ‘powerless.’
I’m going to guess that some people on Wall Street chose that career out of the same feeling of inadequacy that supports sexism. Maybe some get it all out of their system that way and are perfectly egalitarian; for most I would imagine it bleeds over into their whole worldview, which probably would involve hating women (or any other ‘weaker’ group). So, ostensibly powerful stockbrokers who still 1) hate themselves, and 2) hate women.
American Psycho comes to mind. Now there’s a stockbroker who hates women.
btw, no offense intended, Robert, it just struck me as funny since I’m disagreeing with you so strongly on the other thread. And smileys look weird inside parentheses, anyway. :)
Inadequacy, much better word for it, thank you.
ArrogantWorm, I think I know where you’re going
I hope so, it’s the first time I’ve tried to verbalized these thoughts, so I’m not entirely sure where I’m headed myself.
Over the years, I think I’ve seen dozens of “Alas” posters express surprise to find themselves agreeing with Robert over some matter. :-)
It’s all part of my cunning master plan.
Robert write:
(Because someone has to disagree with him!)
And perhaps economic power has nothing at all to do with sexism, after all there are plenty of blue collar men who are sexist, plenty of college dropouts, PhDs, dentists, ditch diggers and draftsmen, all of whom may or may not themselves be sexist.
Blaming “power” or “powerlessness” on sexism requires that there be some kind of pattern, and I’ve yet to see anything within social classes that indicates someone will be a sexist pig or a rabid feminist, or anything in between those extremes.
And perhaps economic power has nothing at all to do with sexism, after all there are plenty of blue collar men who are sexist, plenty of college dropouts, PhDs, dentists, ditch diggers and draftsmen, all of whom may or may not themselves be sexist.
Blaming “power” or “powerlessness” on sexism requires that there be some kind of pattern,
As for disagreeing with Robert, he said he was agnostic on the question. =P
There is a pattern, or I think I see one. People who feel inadequate often use others to make themselves feel better by comparing themselves favorably with a lesser group, with the added benefit that it often reinforces social stigma which they then can prove to themselves that there’s something worse so they don’t feel as inadequate, and that society largely agrees with their opinion. Possibly why it seems to be a self-perpetuating cycle, and why it’s hard to find a place or culture that doesn’t practice some form of “At least I’m not that.”.
Or hey, they could just enjoy keeping people down, who the hell knows.
Nice try, but I am not using the significance of men dying to justify the OVERALL WAGE GAP within specific industries. That is your Red Herring, your Strawman.
I am using it to justify those who work dangerous jobs in the same company or industry vs. those who don’t.
i.e.
If someone works construction in the field then they should and do get paid more that the Administrative Support Personnel who sit inside in an air conditioned office, with no risk of falling from an Edison Arm, being buried alive in a ditch, or having a pallet of materials fall on them and break a limb or kill them.
As someone who temped years ago and earn half what the guys in the field did as I cranked out spreadsheets, climbing those utility poles paid better. Simple fact, and I did payroll.
Of course they were working inches from high voltages, and all knew someone who died or had a career ending injury that put them on disability for life.
“…even though men’s higher pay is not in fact caused by men’s higher chance of dying.”
In the industries where there are dangerous jobs and safe office jobs, yes it is a cause of the earnings gap, and rightly so. There is no basis to pay a Secretary the same as the Installer whose labor brings in the revenue that pays everyones salary. He is in Production, she is in Administration. Production generates revenue, Administration spends.
There is also no reason to pay the Sr. Accountant (often a woman) more than a Project Manager (often a man).
The Accountant is overhead, the PM is revenue.
Most of the higher earnings men have is due to choices. Willingness to work overtime and lots of it, the willingness to be available to the boss and owner on weekends, the willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty to do what it takes, without being told so, the willingness to work in the higher paying positions, fields and industries, and to pay the price with much greater stress, health problems, a lifespan 7 years shorter, etc..
For the same jobs with the same descriptions in the same firms, women earn the same. This has been the case for nearly 20 years now.
I have been at firms where I knew everyones pay, education, title and had access to all resumes. Women earn the same as men, no more, no less. The female Project Managers earned what the Male Project Managers did.
The two Male Senior Partners drew ~$135k each. The junior female partner drew ~$85k and she would complain to me that the Srs. earned more and that they spent a pretty penny on leased Mercedes-Benzes.
It didn’t occur to her that:
1) The fact that they founded the company when she was a HS Freshman should affect her pay
2) That they frequently worked until 7 or 8 pm and she left EVERY DAY at 4:40pm sharp to pick up the kids from daycare should affect her pay
3) That she didn’t work OT or weekends should affect her pay
4) That she didn’t contribute to the capital (I had access to the LLP formation papers. She did not invest.) should affect her pay
Examples like this abound out there in the world. Women and men earn less when they don’t put in the time, effort or commitment.
Having worked in HR, Admin, etc. I am amused by your calm, erudite support for the ‘Wage Gap’.
You are, simply put, just wrong.
The ‘Wage Gap’ is a myth (Myth – as in a fictional story handed down from one generation to the next) for a few reasons:
1) Payroll is not rocket science. Every two weeks it is run and checks printed. It’s just an Excel Spreadsheet or Text File (or possibly a proprietary spreadsheet format. PR systems are often ancient – think 1977, and 1200 baud Bell-212A telephone modems), emailed as an attachment and securely sent to the V.P. of the local bank who signs off on the wire transfers and voila! your direct deposit is in your checking account. From email to deposit in your account is 24 hours, maybe 20.
It would be beyond simple to take that same spreadsheet and email it to NOW and Gloria Allred. If pay discrepancies are so widespread, then the evidence would be so common that we would be buried in it. Every payroll in the U.S. would show the evidence. Millions of pieces of evidence. As an added bonus, most office managers, Payroll Clerks, Bookkeepers and HR Clerks are women. They could easily email the evidence to NOW. They could even scrub last names and SSN’s and just enter first name and sex and pay, so that there would not be a way to trace it. This could be done in 15 minutes on Thursday when Payroll is put to bed.
2) If women who perform the same work, with the same titles, who contribute the same to the company bottom line, are all earning 76 cents on the dollar to all the men who do so, then why doesn’t a company fire all the men, hire only women, and obliterate the competition? 23 cents on the dollar in additional productivity is a huge advantage up on the market. That is a competitive advantage no one would turn down.
If this were true and there were widespread suppression of equally capable females wages, then it would behoove someone to hire only women and crush the competition. They do the same work but for 76% of the pay, yes? Then they would have a permanent and profound advantage over all competitors who hired even only ONE man.
Interestingly, women run, owned and operated small businesses take in less revenue than men run, owned and operated small businesses. Maybe the choices women make affect the money they earn.
For more on this, read “Why Men Earn More” by Warren Farrell.
warrenfarrell.net
Lastly, a personal anecdote.
One of my sisters got her graduate degree from Columbia in 1991.
She went into theater management. She paid her dues, she put in the time. She wanted the job of her boss, but she got impatient and wouldn’t stick it out.
Instead of keeping at it like those who succeed, like her male boss, she quit 2 years ago.
She tossed away 12 years of a devoted career path, a great resume, her degree in her field, on the verge of total success, to work as:
A Secretary, earning 60% of what she made, with far fewer career opportunities and definitely not using her degree.
Like many women she didn’t stick with it, didn’t want to pay the price.
She was admitted to received a rare Ivy League Degree, and it is being wasted as she types letters. Can we afford to waste our educational resources on people who demonstrate that they will waste them?
If only my sister did this, I would be guilty of assertion by anecdote (and we know that the plural of anecdote is not ‘cite’). But she isn’t alone. Hundred’s of Thousands of Women are doing exactly as she did.
If many women behave as my sister, then earning 76 cents on the dollar as cited by the U.S. aggregate earnings figures is easily explainable by the choices women freely make.
warren farrel *just cracks up* You *would* try and cite him.
God that’s funny.
He also thinks incest is great and “often positive”.
Lee, are you actually arguing that women should be barred from education?
‘Cause it sure sounds like it. And that sure makes it hard to take the rest of what you say very seriously.
Which is just as well, since it saves the trouble of refuting.
If a person doesn’t feel powerless in any sense of the word, somewhere deep in the self, then I doubt there would be sexism, because a person would have no reason to hold onto it.
Sure they would. It’s an excuse for feeling powerful and behaving badly. And I’ve met enough stockbrokers (and lawyers, and doctors, and…choose your white-collar profession) to know better than to think economic class and sexism are tightly correlated.
Lee, family-law attorneys work in a much more dangerous end of the profession than, say, estates and trust attorneys. Do you believe that family-law attorneys ought to be paid more?
Lee writes:
Or maybe she saw it as “instead of putting in another 12 years and still not getting the boss’s job, she decided the system was stacked against her”, because a lot of times, that’s what it looks like.
And don’t knock “secretary”, the career path upwards from “secretary” can include positions that pay better than what she’s making now.
I think we all have anecdotal stories of relatives who took strange career twists. One of my female cousins who worked as a secretary for a cable company was told that if she wanted to move up, she had to work some time as an installer. So she went and climbed poles and did cable installations for a few years, then moved into management. From there she learned how to manage a business, and a few years later married a man with a small publishing company. Today her and her husband are snotty-faced rich.
I don’t know what your sister is up to, but to assume she’s planning to spend the rest of her life in a pink collar ghetto is applying the male concept of “soldiering on, the face of insurmountable adversity” to her life. I was in a job 3 years ago where the career path up was blocked by a guy who was himself never going to move up, and I wasn’t interested in waiting on him to retire or die. I wound up taking a position with lower status, but after 3 years of being fairly creative have once again reestablished myself as a valuable employee with a lot of skills to offer. For the first time in over a decade I have options other than waiting on some guy to get out of the way.
And I’ve met enough stockbrokers (and lawyers, and doctors, and…choose your white-collar profession) to know better than to think economic class and sexism are tightly correlated.
Ah, but I never claimed they were *tightly* correlated. I don’t believe I said that the sexist behavior of the lower class was based solely on their jobs (and the money they get from it) at all, or that feelings of inadequacy was limited to the lower classes. I can’t see why stockbrokers couldn’t feel inadequate. I did use a class issue as an anecdote to illustrate since you mentioned stockbrokers, but I also could’ve used some types of straight bigotry against queer people as another example. I did say that they may feel powerless in a part of their life, which could be a reason that they need to feel better than another group. What I did was wonder aloud if feelings of inadequacy (Thanks again for the word, Defenestrated. Reads a lot clearer than powerlessness) is some of a reason behind sexism and other such idiotic beliefs and practices. But I imagine choosing what to take as a job where people can be in charge of other people could be a type of ego booster, as well. Eh, that and the money involved.
Yay! Always glad to be of semantic service :D
“I said that the sexist behavior of the lower class was based solely on their jobs (and the money they get from it) at all, or that feelings of inadequacy was limited to the lower classes.”
Do you admit, though, that there might be factors other than feelings of inadequacy that come into play?
I mean, I’m not opposed to inadequacy as one factor among many, but if it were really the explanation for any and all bigotry — that would seem, to me, to be pretty reductive.
What things ‘look like’ and ‘what they are’, are often two separate concepts.
No, she quit because she no longer wanted the stress of being the Boss, and she knew that when she got the GM job she would be under even more stress.
She likes her new stress free job, she doesn’t want more responsibility, and she doesn’t want the stress that goes with the job that earns more money.
As far as giving up because it looked hopeless, this is something I hear from women and feminists frequently. The women conclude they cannot get ahead, so they give up.
Wow, it sure didn’t take much to discourage them if that is the case.
Me, for instance.
In 1998 I was making $60k. I wanted a career change, so I moved across country to start over. In 1999 I was making $9/hr. In 2002 I was living in the parking lot of Walmart in Renton, WA. In 2003 I was living under the I-210 and Arroyo in San Fernando.
In all that time I never went back to my old career, where I could easily earn $50k.
In 2007 I am earning high 5-figures and in 2008 that will be 6-figures.
This happened because I refused to give up. I had no support network, none. I didn’t have a job lined up, and I didn’t know a soul in my new city or field. I interviewed for a job where all the other applicants were and had been women. The interviewers said so, and were surprised that a man interviewed. They had hired only women, and decided to hire me. Not exactly The Patriarchy, if they hired 12 women and then 1 man, wouldn’t you agree?
I then spent the last 2 years busting my butt. For instance today, Sunday, I will head in for 2 hours to get a jump on the week.
Yep, I earn more than the two women I manage. They also leave every day at 5:04, and I often stay to 5:30 or 6:00 and routinely work several hours on weekends and late. I also have bottom line and top line responsibility and authority, and spend a good part of my day dealing with lawyers.
But that just sexism, right? And my pay is the result of discrimination, not output, right?
So you do think that some women toss away their degrees and don’t use them?
Is it possible more women do this than men?
If so, can we afford to educated Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Engineers and Architects who bail on their profession after 8-12 years?
It is a valid question. If there are men and women who get the most desirable, the most in demand, the most erudite degrees that our society has to offer, should there not be at least a discussion as to what those individuals intend to give back by using that degree to increase their productivity?
Or are we to just let anyone get a Med Degree and then go into another field?
For Instance, if a significant percentage of MD’s decide to not work overtime, to not pursue education at Medical Schools, to not put in the hours that it takes to become a top-flight surgeon, but instead they drop out of their field, is not Society entitled to ask why we allowed them to go into Medical School in the first place?
This is currently happening in Britain. Many Women were given preference admitting to Med School, they don’t want to work the hours to be a surgeon, and the NHS is now skint for Doctors.
No, I am not arguing for women to not get educations. That’s a Red Herring. I am arguing that we should ask that when we educate these people that we insist they use it in their field, within the realm of freedom to act, associate, etc. This would be especially true for Doctors, Engineers, Dentists, Lawyers and Architects. Those programs are competitive and few in number.
Most commenters here cannot reply without dipping into the well of Logical Fallacy at least once per comment.
To whit:
So if one of my points is invalid, all of the rest are invalid as well?
I will let you look up what particular logical fallacy that is.
Mandolin,
You forgot the “I don’t believe” part in front of the quote that is supposed to be part of that sentence.
Do you admit, though, that there might be factors other than feelings of inadequacy that come into play?
And I’m a bit leery of the word ‘admit’ here, since the connotations of it, to my mind, bring up hiding or skirting an issue. What I mean is what I try to clearly type. If I thought sexism and other such ills were due only to feelings of inadequacy, I would’ve said that. I didn’t type that, and I took care not to type that several times, as I don’t believe they are. However, since I was talking about inadequacy specifically, I didn’t bring up other possible causes.
Farrell does not think incest is great and often positive. That quote “often positive” is him referring to 6 of 200 respondents. Those 6 were the only ones who referred to the incest as positive. Not an endorsement of incest at all.
So if someone has one idea that is considered socially repugnant, the rest of what he writes is to be dismissed as well?
Can any of you all post once without resorting to Logical Fallacy? It is as though you go out of your way to put them in. Really now. You all have let your Ideology blind you quite well.
-Clinton is considered by many to be a Great President, even though he got BJ’s off the Oval Office Anteroom.
-Kennedy had constant affairs in office, yet he held the Russians at bay.
Are we to assume, then, that because these two engaged in socially offensive behavior that the other things they accomplished are to be ignored? Are all of the rest of what they did now to be discarded?
In the same vein, Farrell’s research into many topics is extremely thorough.
He was on the NYC board of NOW for years, and knows Feminism inside and out.
It was only when he ceased talking about women as victim and began to pursue Equality, not Female Victimhood or Female Superiority, that he was cast out of those circles. His story, and Erin Pizzey’s, speak more of the true motivations and goals of Feminism than 100 blogs.
Lee,
So if one of my points is invalid, all of the rest are invalid as well?
I suppose that depends on what basis your points are hinged on, and if the hinge is the same for all of the points.
You’ve applied two separate motives for your sister. I might be confused, but I thought you said she quit earlier because she was impatient because she wanted her boss’s job, not because the job itself stressed her unduly and that she didn’t want the job after all, so that’s why she quit.
No, she quit because she no longer wanted the stress of being the Boss, and she knew that when she got the GM job she would be under even more stress.
She went into theater management. She paid her dues, she put in the time. She wanted the job of her boss, but she got impatient and wouldn’t stick it out.
The disdain in your posts for women in the higher professions who quit for whatever reason is palpable.
So, is stress not a reason to quit a job? Stress breeds poor performance and ill health. In management especially I believe you’d agree, top notch performance is a must to secure the welfare of the company and its employees. A valid reason, I believe, to quit a job.
Instead of keeping at it like those who succeed, like her male boss, she quit 2 years ago.
She likes her new stress free job, she doesn’t want more responsibility, and she doesn’t want the stress that goes with the job that earns more money.
I feel two bits of information are lacking. The first is that even if a person tries, they don’t always succeed. More often than not, one won’t succeed fully, compromises are made. If that fails, hey, they lose. Happens all the time. Sticking with something does not mean one will automatically win due to merit and commitment. The Great American Fallacy, self perpetuating and helps no one.
The second is that being a secretary is not a stress free job, nor is it without it’s own particular hazard. Carpel Tunnel anyone?
As far as giving up because it looked hopeless, this is something I hear from women and feminists frequently. The women conclude they cannot get ahead, so they give up.
Whoa, I just remembered the existence of blockquotes. Ugh, sorry. And the italics ran away from me, they should’ve ended at “And I feel two bits of information are lacking” The quote at the direct bottom isn’t supposed to be there, either. I cut and paste whole posts so I can make sure I’m not cutting what I’m typing about off or misquote someone, and that one stayed by accident. I’m so, so sorry, it looks a right mess.
ArrogantWorm & Mandolin: I humbly submit that you two seem to agree, and are talking past each other a little :)
Lee:
How on the whole green earth did you take my comment to mean that I was agreeing with any part of what you said?
I wasn’t attempting to refute your whole comment, I had just wanted to clarify for myself that I was understanding your position correctly, as it (still) isn’t one I want to spend my energy engaging with. Like AW said, rusty hinge and all. I added the rusty part, didn’t I? Ah well.
That’s all; I guess if you really really want to you can add it to your list of examples of women giving up because something(/one) is hopeless.
Lee, If you bought the degree and did the work it’s yours. If at some point you decide you don’t want to be a surgeon, work 100 hour weeks, spend weeks on the road or whatever that’s your decision. I’m fine with that. If many many people decide they’ll take the trade off and only work 25 hours a week than so be it. In the long run the market for those jobs will adjust, or people with different priorities will step in a replace them.
“He was on the NYC board of NOW for years, and knows Feminism inside and out.”
yet…the idea that feminism isnt a monolith just sailed on by his head. And yours evidently.
“It was only when he ceased talking about women as victim and began to pursue Equality, not Female Victimhood or Female Superiority, that he was cast out of those circles. His story, and Erin Pizzey’s, speak more of the true motivations and goals of Feminism than 100 blogs. ”
Oh, well now that a man has defined my true goals as a feminist, it *must* be true!
Someone point this guy to a feminism 101 site, because I’ll violate every single TOS rule there is.
“ArrogantWorm & Mandolin: I humbly submit that you two seem to agree, and are talking past each other a little :)”
Yeah, I think so, too. I think my tone sounded more confrontational than I’d intended, so I understand why AW replied as he did. I was going to try to explain that I hadn’t mean to be as confrontational as I must have come across, but I didn’t want to waste the thread space with justifications.
Instead, I’ll waste it here and now. :)
pheeno, your (and virtually every feminist blogreader’s) wish is tigtog’s command!
Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog
Eh, sometimes I have tunnel vision and miss the forest for the trees in others’ posts.
S’alright Mandolin, I’ve got some posting tendencies that resemble a pit bull with a bad temper that I need to keep an eye on, your confrontational-sounding words were much more benign. Something to strive for.
…In other words, I’ve done worse, so no harm done =P
Lee,
You seem to operate from this assumption that the rat race is a good thing. That wanting to leave on time is a bad thing, or that wanting to only work 40 hours a week is somehow wrong.
I’ve been in my field, where I do make 6 figures and have for a goodly number of years now, for going on 28 years. If I could find a job that paid less, had a guaranteed limit of 40 hours per week, and didn’t have the stress that comes from the way business is done in my field, I’d take it. I bet a lot of people would as well because a lot of us know that the way we work is just plain stupid (I’m in tech, not sure I’ve mentioned that).
The problem isn’t the workers, it’s the work. If you want to spend your evenings in the office, instead of with your partner / family / friends, have at it. To some extent I do regret that I worked as much in my 20’s and 30’s as I did. I won’t regret it when I’m in my 50’s and 60’s and don’ t have to work so hard, but I’d like to have spent more time with friends when I was younger.
A thought for lee and other like minded to chew on
“Feminism is also about the context surrounding people’s choices. Two beliefs pretty much all contemporary feminists have in common are that social, cultural, and economic contexts are really important, and that it’s improper to speak of someone’s “choice” as if its presence somehow absolves us all of our roles in creating those contexts. Many feminists, myself included, would characterize social pressure as a lesser cousin to forcible coercion, which doesn’t need to meet the same standards as the use of force but still ought not to be applied willy-nilly.”
http://greengabbro.net/
Wow! I haven’t heard the old “don’t give women degrees, they’ll just quit to get married and have babies” argument in, like, years. Although Lee seems to have appended it with “…or take lowly pink-collar jobs.”
I wonder if Lee also believes that we should insist that people who go to Top Ten colleges only take the most prestigious jobs available–after all, if you got your law degree from Yale, you’re just wasting it if you go work as a Legal Aid lawyer; you took a slot that somebody could have turned into a $160K starting salary; you could have taken your unambitious ass down to a third-tier school and still worked for Legal Aid, so shame on you.
There are some things in society that are precious resources that exist in scarcity. Medical Educations are one of them. To squander that is just foolish. Some things need to require a commitment to career, and if that person isn’t willing to commit, then that career is not for them.
If many many people decide they’ll take the trade off and only work 25 hours a week then what you will have are huge wait times to see a doctor, no one to do essential surgery, and a decline in medical standards. As it is now you cannot expect to spend more than 3.5 – 7 minutes with your doctor.
If the market were allowed to act, then you would have a very good point.
But it isn’t. MCATS for women are lower so that more women get in to med school than would otherwise. They have a quota, and it must be met.
Or let’s assume that I am wrong. Women represent 60% of Med school enrollees of their own free will, and have the same standards or better to meet as the men.
If these women decide to go into a non-clinical field at age 35 or 40, and the early numbers suggest this is exactly what is happening, who is going to be your doctor?
If 60% of the Physicians decide to have only 25 office hours per week, this will curtail medical services unless we increase admissions by40%.
Just so people can chose to toss away an M.D.
The market CAN”T adjust as you claim. There are very few M.D. Programs in the U.S. We would have to lower standards or allow more M.D.’s from abroad practice here.
Guess what? That’s what many of them are doing. Reference the NY Times story on society page marriages of Ivy Leaguers, to get a taste. Most had an MBA, and now they decided they didn’t want to work.
If one cannot take it, then don’t take the degree away from someone – man or woman – who is willing to do it.
Is anyone surprised that higher professions are stressful? That management is stressful? This is not new, and anyone over 16 who has their eyes on a Professional degree knows that it will involve stress, sacrifice, hard work and long hours.
Don’t sign up if you don’t intend to finish.
If you cannot take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
Erin Pizzey is a woman. She set up the first woman’s shelter in Britain, and she objected when radical gender feminists took over and politicized her cause. Pizzey saw that many men were abused, and that many of the women who she sheltered had issues that had them constantly seeking out abuse, and sometimes instigating it.
But hey, I guess the founder of the modern women’s shelter movement doesn’t know what she is talking about, right?
Reference the NY Times story on society page marriages of Ivy Leaguers, to get a taste.
Dude, you’re already in a credibility sinkhole. Don’t keep digging.
Again, I ask you: do you similarly wag your finger at men who don’t use their degrees to the fullest? Do you think that an M.D. from Harvard who goes and works at a rural health clinic ought to be ashamed of himself, because he could have used that degree to be a Mayo Clinic physician?
I doubt it, because you’re really just making the same old argument that women don’t deserve to have advanced degrees–they’ll just squander it and take a job away from some deserving man. After all, it’s A-OK in your eyes that you quit your job and wasted your degree–because you “never gave up”, therefore you were magically different than some dumb broad who did the same thing as you.
“Erin Pizzey is a woman”
Aaaaand when I say 1 man, and Erin Pizzey is a woman, then obviously I wasnt talking about her. You cited the idiot Warren Farrel. Ya know..the man in the 1 man I mentioned.
“But hey, I guess the founder of the modern women’s shelter movement doesn’t know what she is talking about, right? ”
If a woman claims the people she believes have emotional or mental issues are at fault for “instigating” something and the person with physical advantage *and* no emotional issues doesnt? I’d say she has her head firmly shoved up her ass.
Thats like saying a 13 year old instigated sex with a 42 year old.
And when she further compounds that by setting up a straw feminist ( we’re out to DESTROY TEH FAMILY!! OH NOES!!! and WE HATE ALL MEN) then no, she *doesnt*. Being female does not exempt one from holding sexist ideals against women, or using the extreme as an example of the whole.
If thats acceptable, then Fred Phelps now represents all men and all christians. Because, ya know, since he’s a man and a preacher, he MUST know about all men and all xtians.
And the male rights activist that killed his wife with his children upstairs? Then he represents all MRA’s.
Whats good for the goose and all.
That there are many factions of feminism doesn’t discount that his seat on the NY NOW gave him great access to Feminist ideas.
Your inability to read the phrase ‘Feminism’ and assume that what I meant to write was “All Feminism Everywhere at all points in Time” is a tragic trait I see often. Most people don’t need to have the qualifiers – many, most, some, more than half, etc. inserted. When most people see the phrase-
“He knows Feminism”
They have the common sense to know that means he knows alot about most of Feminism. They have the common sense to know that it was not a claim for total knowledge of all strains of Feminism. They have the common sense to realise that he may not know of all strains of Feminism, and that using the word ‘Feminism’ does not imply monolithicness.
I am not making an ‘Appeal to Authority’, though you are trying your hardest to have me slip up and do so.
I have some news for you Pheeno.
I WAS a Femininst from 1979-1988. I know all about it. I shared your views and emotion masquerading as logic, too.
A Libertarian is just a Liberal who has been mugged by Reality.
As for this:
I know consider that statement as the Sociological and Rhetorical equivalent of Table Top Fusion. Yeah, I used to believe that 20 years ago. No more.
IOW, it is just wrong, incorrect, bad science, fiction, call it what you will.
I dismiss it as just not true, no matter how many programs in Ivy League schools have majors and professors who teach it, no matter how many Women’s Studies Programs there are. They are wrong, too.
A more succinct way is to say that its is ‘b.s.’.
You think that idea is worthy, I think it should not be taught as a valid idea.
That statement absolves decision makers due to context, and if they didn’t make the context then they don’t have ‘Free’ choices or ‘Agency’, thus they can’t chose or can do what ever is necessary to change the ‘context’, and that I am responsible for how you feel and what choices you make. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Intellectual Codswallop.
I cannot approve of an idea that absolves responsibility being taught as Gospel to impressionable young minds. It is not a worthy idea. As is the notion that others are responsible for ones choices or feelings. Nonsense!
“I WAS a Femininst from 1979-1988. I know all about it”
Then obviously you know feminists dont hate men and arent out to destroy families…
And armed with that knowledge, you obviously know that citing people who use strawmen would be foolish.
Oh wait.
Lee, if you were actually a libertarian, you wouldn’t be whining that some silly broads get advanced degrees and don’t use them. First, because those degrees are their property, which they fairly earned, and it’s not your place to stick your nose into their business and tell them what to do with their property. Second, because a real libertarian would be confident that the market would sort this all out eventually.
I’m not really expecting you to explain yourself; the Internet is thick with men who got a perceived ass-kicking from some ex-wife or girlfriend and loudly rue their foolish, formerly-feminist ways.
Some reading comprehension might serve you well.
“As is the notion that others are responsible for ones choices ”
I can completely be responsible for the context surrounding your choices and contribute to the fact you now have specific choices to make.
Whatever reason, Lee. That includes health concerns, family matters, job preference/new offer, natural disasters of the elemental nature, unexpected ethical concerns, whatever. Barely scratched the list of reasons someone may quit their job.
“If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen” is not an applicable saying regarding what you state as your beliefs, because it’s exactly what you say your sister (and other women) do, and what you’re disparaging their choices for. She didn’t want the heat, so she left the kitchen.
…..Annnnnnnnnd I clicked ‘Submit’ to soon.
Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, mind, you meant they shouldn’t have aimed for the ‘kitchen’ at all. Which I suppose might work ~in theory~ if one tilts their head to the side and watches it for a few microseconds out of their peripheral vision with absolutely no dissection of a situation whatsoever.
Below is why I think that view doesn’t hold up on inspection.
People are not static entities because situations change, and people are good at nothing if not adapting to circumstance. Jobs are not static things, either, as jobs themselves are subject to change, with the people changing with them according to their ability. Admittedly, some jobs may be slower to change than others, and a handful of professions haven’t changed at all, but those aren’t the ones you seem concerned with.
You’ve a bone of contention regarding people (mainly women, from what I gather) having degrees in specialized fields and not using them. I highly doubt the people involved went into training with the idea that they had no plans to use the degree and that the degree meant nothing but would look oh-so-elegant on their collective wall. People don’t work their asses off just to look at a laminated piece of paper in a frame and go “Oooh, shiny” without another motive, say, using it to get a well paying job or helping people with health problems.
The fact is, even if they do stay in their profession, there’s no garauntee that they’ll be a fit with their profession some years down the road. Having someone work in a field, especially a specialized one, who doesn’t find it meaningful on some level is a detriment in the long run to their business, colleagues and/or patients/receivers of business.
I’m thinking in particular of some health professionals who, when I see them, dislike questions and don’t take a patient seriously. One went so far as to violate rules of conduct concerning family members. The doctors/nurses/insert-your-job-description-here that stays when they shouldn’t hurts the cause, in my opinion, much more than a doctor who finds the work isn’t up their alley any more and changes jobs, because the one that dislikes it and stays discourages patients in all manner of respects, while the one that leaves is doing nothing of the sort, and is contributing to the economy and other people by working a job they prefer.
Really, it just sounds like someone’s ass is chapped that he’s not successful.
I’m sure the illegal immigrants robbed him of his BIRTHRIGHT FOR FAME, too. And probably Santa and the Easter Bunny. One thing’s for sure: it ain’t his fault.
AW,
I get the impression that Lee sees the entire universe through the lens of being a man. Which is, like, DUH!
Men “soldier on”, it’s just what they do because they are told that only quitters quit, so when someone quits, they are a quitter. And because quitters are losers, quitters are worthy of scorn. Because scorning losers makes losers want to be winners, so they think.
If you click Lee’s name you get a huge rant about why men shouldn’t marry, and one of the reasons is that women are human “beings” and men are human “doings”, and that fits with what Lee is ranting about here. Women get education for the same reason women wear weird (by men’s standards) clothes — why the heck not? Men get education so they can do something with it — like work too many hours.
There’s a joke running around my employer —
A man is walking down the street when he’s attacked by a mugger. The mugger says, “Your money or your life”. The man whips out his badge and shows it to the mugger, who then walks away. When he tells this story to his wife she’s shocked — how could he do such a dangerous thing? He responds “Because everyone knows XYZ employees have no money and no life.”
Men don’t aspire to be the water boy, even though the players would pass out from dehydration without water. They aspire to be the quarterback, even though a team of all quarterbacks would have no one to carry the ball. There might not be an “I” in “TEAM”, but there sure is a “ME”, and male socialization is all about being the center of the “team”. Lee’s rant claims that women get an “F-” in “teamwork”, yet a group where no one wants to be the waterboy and everyone wants to be the quarterback can hardly be said to grasp what “teamwork” is about.
In Lee’s universe education serves one purpose — becoming the boss. In my universe education is about me becoming the best me I can be, and helping others around me become the best thems they can be. In my universe theater managers help their underlings learn how to manage theaters, because everyone can learn something, even from an underling. They don’t wait until they are ready to die before doing so, because stepping aside for a moment is just as bad as dying. It’s a difference in value systems.
It’s not a bad lens, it just depends on what an individual’s definition of manhood is. It’s the assumptions people of all genders pick up with regards to how sexes act that sends it on a one way trip to hell.
But men aren’t the only ones who are told this, though they are especially targeted for it. It seems to me that this message is pretty broad and crosses gender. Especially in America, where If You Are Committed And Stick With It, You Will Succeed, Proven On Mediocre Lifetime Movies Everywhere. I’ve yet to hear a woman say “It’s okay, you can quit” unless they believe and agree that you had a damn good reason for quitting. And even then, it’s iffy, those sidelong sneers at lazyness and ‘not trying hard enough’ are still there.
Well, since Amp has “approved” derailing as we’re past 100 posts… ;)
No, i don’t think so. Actually, your question started a whole line of thought re this which I am currently writing a post on (thanks!). i’ll let you know when it’s up as I’d be interested in your opinion.
“If you click Lee’s name you get a huge rant about why men shouldn’t marry, and one of the reasons is that women are human “beings” and men are human “doings”, and that fits with what Lee is ranting about here. ”
He rants about why men shouldnt marry “western women”. Dollars to donuts he’d advocate mail order brides, especially from cultures that raise women to be extremely submissive to men. Which would totally contradict his idea that women *should* be as work focuses as men, since those women are taught to avoid aspiring any higher than house wife and mother. Two jobs I doubt he recognizes as worthy.
“He rants about why men shouldnt marry “western women”. Dollars to donuts he’d advocate mail order brides, especially from cultures that raise women to be extremely submissive to men. Which would totally contradict his idea that women *should* be as work focuses as men, since those women are taught to avoid aspiring any higher than house wife and mother. Two jobs I doubt he recognizes as worthy.”
—————————————
Pheeno, I’m not necessarily advocating what Lee says, in fact I haven’t even clicked to his board, but here’s a way of sorting out what you’re saying so that it isn’t really a contradiction:
There’s an idea of either-or.
I can imagine that men would want a woman who wants to be a full partner, who takes responsibility in the relationship and who also puts in her half. That’s the type of woman I’m personally interested in.
I also see that some men want a “traditional” woman who stays at home and does the “traditional” things, whatever those are. I assume that would also involve deferring to her husband; what she gets out of it is the ability to continue her childhood and not have to face the world, which can be nasty at times. I wouldn’t personally want a woman like that, but I have no interest in telling adults what kind of relationship they can have.
So far no conflict.
The problem arises if you have a hybrid-type woman who wants the benefits of not having to slug away everyday out in the real world, but who also wants the benefits of being “equal” – equal in things she wants to be equal in (possibly meaning in reality that she wants to be the boss), but not equal in other areas that aren’t so fun. There is also a problem if she initially holds herself out to be the traditional woman and then crosses over to this third type after the ink on the marriage certificate is dry. If you need an example, I think that Heather Mills/McCartney represents this third type of woman, and she fooled Paul.
The third type seems to be a phenomenon of the rich Western countries. Maybe that’s what Lee is getting at, maybe not. Maybe third-world women, although maybe not falling into Category 1, at least don’t fall into Category 3.
And this certainly isn’t a slam against women or even Western women, it’s a slam against a very particular type. Just as a focus on particular men who have a desire to have macho control over a woman is not a slam on men in general, just those particular dinks.
Sailorman – Yeah, please do let me know.
I figured out in the posts following that question, though, that the answer was still no :)
“Pheeno, I’m not necessarily advocating what Lee says, in fact I haven’t even clicked to his board, ”
go read it. Men are FORCED to buy diamond rings didnt ya know?
And women dont invest. He knows this because women dont subscribe to as many business magazines.
“The problem arises if you have a hybrid-type woman who wants the benefits of not having to slug away everyday out in the real world, but who also wants the benefits of being “equal” – equal in things she wants to be equal in (possibly meaning in reality that she wants to be the boss), but not equal in other areas that aren’t so fun. There is also a problem if she initially holds herself out to be the traditional woman and then crosses over to this third type after the ink on the marriage certificate is dry. If you need an example, I think that Heather Mills/McCartney represents this third type of woman, and she fooled Paul.”
Argh. Women trick and suck money from men. Back to that.
I’ve heard these arguments before. Do you hang out on Hugo’s site?
Also, I’m a bit concerned about the idea that someone who isn’t “slug[ging] away everyday out in the real world” shouldn’t be an equal in the relationship. Are you saying that housewives and househusbands shouldn’t consider themselves equal people to their spouses? And if that’s not what you’re saying, what are you saying?
I comprehend you completely, I also disagree.
‘This is nonsense’ is the first thought that came to mind.
I am of the opinion that idea is simply without intellectual merit.
Unless discussing extreme cases such as, but not limited to:
-Slavery
-Hostage
-Physically held against ones will
-Concentration Camps
No one has control over another’s ‘context’ nor the choices they make, and women in The West, especially, are certainly not individuals who live within a context that controls their choices.
Western Women have access to a maddening array of legal, social, and personal entitlements. They are the most pampered, privileged, coddled group of human beings that humanity has ever seen.
I am not going to get into a lengthy rebuttal of an idea that is currently the foundation of much modern sociological thought, many strains of feminism, and cultural critique. Such a treatise is worthy of a book length treatment, and I have no intention to write such a broadsheet.
That being said, I also do not consider the concept to be intellectually valid.
‘Poppy cock’ ‘Nonsense’ ‘Balderdash’ ‘Bulls**t*’ –
Call it what you will.
The idea is without merit.
I disagree with both. A person can be responsible for the context surrounding another person’s choice, but not completely responsible. A boss may give a worker a choice to work nine to five or eleven to seven, but the boss has no control over wether that employee decides to quite or not.
Ergo, a person has some control and influence over another’s context, but no control as to the individual choices that a person may freely make.
The problem arises if you have a hybrid-type woman who wants the benefits of not having to slug away everyday out in the real world, but who also wants the benefits of being “equal”
Would that be like a hybrid-type man who wants the benefits of having a wife at home to take care of his household and raise his children, but without the ‘traditional’ responsibilities that go with the Man of the House role?
Lee’s not even rational; there’s no point in trying to debate somebody whose premise, at base, is that women are evil.
Dangit, where’s mythago when we need her?
Hah! I spoke too soon – she’s right above me!
“A boss may give a worker a choice to work nine to five or eleven to seven, but the boss has no control over wether that employee decides to quit or not.”
The context surrounding being given that choice is completely in the bosses hands. A worker can either work the 9-5, work the 11-7, quit or refuse both and risk firing. The boss created all the conditions that surround having to make any of those choices.
“Western Women have access to a maddening array of legal, social, and personal entitlements. They are the most pampered, privileged, coddled group of human beings that humanity has ever seen.”
You’re leaving out white western men, since they’re the ones who ya know, control the majority of the government (the lawmakers) and the majority of the law enforcement. I find a great deal of western men, especially white western men, to be emotional infants who rebel at the concept of growing up. The Peter Pan syndrome. They dont want wives, they want maids and mommies. And as a non white western woman, men like you are why I tend to date exclusively within my Native American culture. Your site pretty much completes my list under the heading of ” Why To Avoid White American Boys”. Too many of you are stuck in adolescence and wouldnt know real struggle to succeed if it walked up and kicked you in the balls. Maybe too much was given to you..or you found that violence was an easy way to get what you want. Who knows. But the complete lack of respect you show for other humans and nature is pitiful.
No, because a person may choose to quite at any time, and while the boss may choose to give that choice, an employee make make that choice at any time regardless of the context the boss controls. The choice to quite does not depend on the boss giving it, while the working hours, firing and the laying off does.
Waiiiiiit, are you saying that because a boss, is, well, a boss, an employee can’t quit without involving the boss directly because to quit means to get rid of the boss’s context?
Hrm.
It looks fairly sound, but something doesn’t feel right.
Maybe it’s this, if it’s pertinent to the analogy.
For an employee to quit, they would be changing the nature of their boss’s context in regards to themself. Throwing off the context, as it were. If the boss completely controls the context of the employee with work, how is that possible?
And now I wonder if my subconscious is playing tricks on me, because I swore that the first part of that up there is not what I thought I typed and saw before the submit button was pushed.
I’m insulting my own intelligence. I hate it when that happens.
Thought it said;
Are you saying that because a boss, is, well, a boss, if an employee quits it’s still a decision in the boss’s context because without the boss, the employee wouldn’t be able to quit?
No, the boss has put the employee in a situation where quitting may be a choice. The employee may not want to quit, and quitting would mean financial problems, but if he or she cant work the 9-5 shift or 11-7 shift, then they’re now put in a position where quitting must be considered.
But quitting is a choice regardless of an employee’s situation, as an employee is not permanently owned by a company and can physically leave at any time. The consequences of leaving are different than the ability to leave itself. A worker always has the choice to leave.
pheeno writes:
And the employee can walk into the boss’s office and tell the boss they want to work some other shift and if the boss doesn’t agree they can find a new employee. Or they want a raise, and if the boss doesn’t agree they can find a new employee. Or they’ve trained for another position and want a transfer or they quit. Or whatever.
Both sides in the employee / employer relationship have constrained roles and those constraints limit the actions of each side. Just as a person cannot force an employer to hire them, an employer cannot force an employee to not quit. This doesn’t mean that one side has all the choices, only that each side has a limited set of choices and how they create their “context” is limited to the choices they have.
I totally agree with that.
My wife stays at home with the three kids, and I slug away in the real world. We are not equal as a result. She does WAY more work, and benefits the family more, than i do. no sir, no equality there.
That was what you meant, right? ;)
“But quitting is a choice regardless of an employee’s situation, as an employee is not permanently owned by a company and can physically leave at any time. The consequences of leaving are different than the ability to leave itself. A worker always has the choice to leave. ”
Yes it is. And when the boss places the employee in a situation where the choices are shit and shittier, the boss isnt absolved of responsibility by saying ” well you got a choice didnt you?”.
Doesn’t that assume that the Boss is acting arbitrarily? My industry is in direct competition with foreign competitors staffed by people willing to do my job for less money. This cascades down to the point where my boss needs me to produce a lot more for the same money and sometimes that means I have to stay late and take work home with me. My only options are to do it or quit. She’s put me in that position not because she doesn’t like me but because the work needs to get done and there’s no one else to do it.
You can replace boss with company and still have the same situation.
Some of my friends were told that they’d be getting pay cuts because of how their company is doing. (They’re at will salary employees) They can accept that or quit. It’s a pretty shitty choice but the company didn’t do it for fun, (or executive bonus / dividend payments) the company did it because they’re bankrupt and don’t have the cash to do otherwise.
Either way, I think there’s a monumental difference between having no choice and having only poor choices.
I’ve yet to mention having no choice. I have been talking about having poor choices, and the context surrounding it. And how the person/company/system/whathave you doesnt get to shirk all responsibility of creating the context surrounding having poor choices.