Feminists don't understand statistics or care about the truth

[Jokodo]

You might want to actually reply to my post at your convenience.

I did reply to your post. You have not addressed my points.

You are arguing that families don't have a 'real choice' because employers expect women to take time off but they ridicule men for taking time off. If employers were gender-neutral, then this additional choice-shaping variable would not favour one gender staying at home over another.

So you do understand my point. Why don't you address it? Why don't you lay out your plan for getting rid of this additional variable?

So either you're advocating social attitude change (be my guest)

Cool, we're making progress - in the post I replied to, you still said the following:

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.​

which indicates that women being more likely to take absences from the workplace were the pure result of families deciding for themselves.

I still don't see how you intend to go about encouraging this social attitude test. Praying? Because apparently government backed measures to encourage such an attitude change are a no-no.

or you are advocating legal paternalism -- "we know what's best for families and we'll force you to do it".

So, if you advocate legal compulsion, tell me specifically what you advocate.

Before we go into actual measures, can we agree that families are not free to make their own unbiased decisions as long as employers are biased? So if they're not free now and will not be free under an alternative scenario, fetishizing liberty over all other goods isn't even an argument for the status quo.

 

[Metaphor]

So you do understand my point. Why don't you address it? Why don't you lay out your plan for getting rid of this additional variable?

Why do you think I have a plan to get rid of it, or that, in the absence of my plan, I'll endorse any plan that purports to get rid of it, because, of course, the cure is never ever worse than the disease?

I still don't see how you intend to go about encouraging this social attitude test. Praying? Because apparently government backed measures to encourage such an attitude change are a no-no.

No: I do not rule out government-backed measures. For example, I think it serves a good purpose for government to enforce gender-neutrality in parental leave: if a company allows new mothers x months off, it should also allow new fathers the same amount.

Before we go into actual measures, can we agree that families are not free to make their own unbiased decisions as long as employers are biased?

They are free inasmuch as anyone can claim to be free whenever they rely on employment for income, or indeed inasmuch as any company must rely on the public to maintain its brand value.

Let's say cafe 'no homo' maintains it reserves the right to deny serving or allowing onto its premises, gay couples, gay allies, or anyone who looks kinda gay. This policy leads to boycotts, a downturn in business, and after a while, insolvency. Would you say they were therefore in some sense 'unfree' to make their bad business decision, because the financial pressure is for them to have a more inclusive policy?

So if they're not free now and will not be free under an alternative scenario, fetishizing liberty over all other goods isn't even an argument for the status quo.

Forces that influence decisions do not make those decisions unfree. If they did, the term 'free' would simply be incoherent.

But let's hear your plan.

 

[Jokodo]

Why do you think I have a plan to get rid of it, or that, in the absence of my plan, I'll endorse any plan that purports to get rid of it, because, of course, the cure is never ever worse than the disease?

You haven't demonstrated that the cure is worse than the disease. We're still struggling with your admission that there is a disease.

The way I see it, we are discussing two scenarios: One where couples who want to split family responsibilities equally are realistically unable to do so without severe repercussions, and one where couples who prefer to split the burdens unequally are unable to do so without repercussions. You're trying to get away with referring to one of those as families "decid[ing] for themselves how best to manage parenting and work".

 

[Metaphor]

The way I see it, we are discussing two scenarios: One where couples who want to split family responsibilities equally are realistically unable to do so without severe repercussions, and one where couples who prefer to split the burdens unequally are unable to do so without repercussions. You're trying to get away with referring to one of those as families "decid[ing] for themselves how best to manage parenting and work".

I'm not trying to 'get away' with anything. What I'm trying to do is ask you what you think should be done about non-gender neutral employer attitudes towards parental leave.

 

[Metaphor]

You haven't demonstrated that the cure is worse than the disease.

Since you categorically won't tell me what your cure is, how on earth am I supposed to make that demonstration?

If I told you I had a plan to wipe out malaria, and my plan was to use nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth and wreck the biosphere, you'd be right to point out that the cure is worse than the disease, and that doesn't mean you approve of malaria nor that you wouldn't like to be rid of it.

 

[Jokodo]

The way I see it, we are discussing two scenarios: One where couples who want to split family responsibilities equally are realistically unable to do so without severe repercussions, and one where couples who prefer to split the burdens unequally are unable to do so without repercussions. You're trying to get away with referring to one of those as families "decid[ing] for themselves how best to manage parenting and work".

I'm not trying to 'get away' with anything. What I'm trying to do is ask you what you think should be done about non-gender neutral employer attitudes towards parental leave.

So when you said "as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work", you were no way implying that families are currently deciding for themselves?

That's not how language works.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not trying to 'get away' with anything. What I'm trying to do is ask you what you think should be done about non-gender neutral employer attitudes towards parental leave.

So when you said "as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work", you were no way implying that families are currently deciding for themselves?

That's not how language works.

Of course they're deciding for themselves. No-one's holding a gun to anyone's head. I've already told you that if having forces beyond your control shaping your decision is sufficient to call your decision unfree, then no decision is any sense a free decision, ever.

So. What do you think should be done about non-gender neutral employer attitudes towards parental leave?

 

[Toni]

Did she advocate it?

Did you read the article? Are you familiar with Valenti 's work?

Yes, she did advocate it. She fucking well says so.

Now, I never thought I’d find myself arguing against something in the US Equal Pay Act, and I understand that men may not exactly love the idea of taking pay cuts – or giving up power more broadly – in the name of gender justice. But the scales have been tipped toward the men for too long, and if fixing a huge systemic inequality means that some guys’ paychecks need to take a hit – I’m always OK with privileging the marginalized.

Toni, do you really think you're winning points here by ... denying the obvious?

Do you know what the word 'advocate' means? I'm just the wogboy son of non-English speaking immigrants but even I know what it means.

I've read more than one article from Valenti. She is somewhere between 'unhinged' and 'loony toons'.

My assumption has always been that you are an intelligent, educated native speaker of English, Australian version vs my American version vs the versions spoken in Canada, India, the rest of the world and of course, Great Britain.

It is not actually clear that she is 'advocating' for any such thing. She is discussing what was said and promoted by someone else, to whom she gives full credit.

I bow to your expertise on the space between 'unhinged' and 'looney toons.'

 

[Metaphor]

It is not actually clear that she is 'advocating' for any such thing.

the title

A radical fix to the world's wage gap: why not just pay women more – and pay men less?

then

Given the sad status of women and work lately, it may be that a little “I don’t fucking care if you like it” is exactly what gender equality needs right now.

then

“It appears that Jill Abramson believed the women’s salaries were unfairly low for the work they did and she addressed that directly.”

Addressing gender imbalance directly: imagine that! No hemming and hawing about how the problem started or what women need to do to fix it – management fixed it, as they should have.

then

Now, I never thought I’d find myself arguing against something in the US Equal Pay Act, and I understand that men may not exactly love the idea of taking pay cuts – or giving up power more broadly – in the name of gender justice. But the scales have been tipped toward the men for too long, and if fixing a huge systemic inequality means that some guys’ paychecks need to take a hit – I’m always OK with privileging the marginalized.

and finally

So I’ll take a temporarily unrealistic solution over an unfixed problem any day of the week – especially Monday through Friday, from 9 to 5.

Now, it seems to me you do not advocate the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't have such a hard time admitting Valenti does.

That's a good thing. It means you can see the lack of merit in radically unhinged ideas.

 

[thebeave]

For those of you who need evidence JV is somewhere between "unhinged" and "looney toons", I bring you this:

 

[dismal]

For those of you who need evidence JV is somewhere between "unhinged" and "looney toons", I bring you this:

View attachment 4647

That just sounds like she needs to drop a few pounds.

Maybe mix in a salad.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Salads are just as bad.*

*if you include shredded cheese, greasy croutons, loads of dressing, bacon bits, and fried chicken.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That just sounds like she needs to drop a few pounds.

Maybe mix in a salad.

This kind of attitude is racist against people who diet by eating three Big Macs a day to lose weight.

 

[Jokodo]

So when you said "as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work", you were no way implying that families are currently deciding for themselves?

That's not how language works.

Of course they're deciding for themselves. No-one's holding a gun to anyone's head.

No-one is holding a gun to anyone's head in the scenario where, e.g., child care benefit payments or tax deductions are made contingent on both parents sharing time off.

And yet you act like "making men to also take time off when the men become fathers" is inherently a bad thing, while women's "absences from the workplace [which] lead to lower lifetime wages" are an amoral and unchangeable fact of life.

As if women weren't made to take absences from the workplace by circumstances beyond their control.

 

[Metaphor]

No-one is holding a gun to anyone's head in the scenario where, e.g., child care benefit payments or tax deductions are made contingent on both parents sharing time off.

Since you declined, multiple times, to actually adumbrate what legal framework you'd like to put up for consideration, I could hardly discuss the specifics of it, could I?

Now: let's discuss the above, the withholding of government family benefits to families where both parents don't take time off. At first blush, this appears to me a shockingly bad idea that will only compound the problem. You're adding a layer of government coercion but doing nothing to change the social attitudes that led to the policy in the first place. You'll be punishing families that can least afford to have a parent take time out of the workforce (poor families who qualify for assistance). And you'll be adding government restrictions to parents making their own arrangements in addition to the societal/employer restrictions you're complaining about.

And yet you act like "making men to also take time off when the men become fathers" is inherently a bad thing,

No: making anyone take time off against their will is probably a bad thing. This policy means that a woman who would have gone back to work now has to stay home to satisfy the governmental rules. You're not enabling a 'real choice' -- you're restricting some people's choices further.

while women's "absences from the workplace [which] lead to lower lifetime wages" are an amoral and unchangeable fact of life.

I didn't say it was unchangeable. You could probably change it by banning procreation.

Whether it's amoral that people who do total fewer hours in the paid workforce get paid less than they would have had they done more hours, I'll leave for you to contemplate.

As if women weren't made to take absences from the workplace by circumstances beyond their control.

I didn't know reproduction was a choice beyond women's control. What a terrifying world for them.

 

[Metaphor]

That just sounds like she needs to drop a few pounds.

Maybe mix in a salad.

This kind of attitude is racist against people who diet by eating three Big Macs a day to lose weight.

You mean in one sitting, right?

A Big Mac has 563 calories. Three a day would be 1,689 calories. For most people, consuming 1,700 calories a day would lead to weight loss.

 

[Jokodo]

As if women weren't made to take absences from the workplace by circumstances beyond their control.

I didn't know reproduction was a choice beyond women's control. What a terrifying world for them.

Either you're misinterpreting me (deliberately?), or your attitude is more frightening than I thought.

Reproduction is a choice. Yet the fact that, once a man and a woman chose to reproduce together, one of them is expected to invest in child care much more than the other is a factor beyond the control of either.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This kind of attitude is racist against people who diet by eating three Big Macs a day to lose weight.

You mean in one sitting, right?

A Big Mac has 563 calories. Three a day would be 1,689 calories. For most people, consuming 1,700 calories a day would lead to weight loss.

I'm 96.8% sure that if someone is eating three Big Macs in a day, that is in no way the limit to what they're eating in that day.

 

[Trausti]

I didn't know reproduction was a choice beyond women's control. What a terrifying world for them.

Either you're misinterpreting me (deliberately?), or your attitude is more frightening than I thought.

Reproduction is a choice. Yet the fact that, once a man and a woman chose to reproduce together, one of them is expected to invest in child care much more than the other is a factor beyond the control of either.

That's a decision between the two of them. How does that relate to the neo-feminist lie highlighted in the OP?

 

[Jokodo]

Now: let's discuss the above, the withholding of government family benefits to families where both parents don't take time off. At first blush, this appears to me a shockingly bad idea that will only compound the problem. You're adding a layer of government coercion but doing nothing to change the social attitudes that led to the policy in the first place. You'll be punishing families that can least afford to have a parent take time out of the workforce (poor families who qualify for assistance).

I don't know enough about the Australian system of family and child care benefits to tell whether your objections make sense in that context, but they don't here.

This policy means that a woman who would have gone back to work now has to stay home to satisfy the governmental rules. You're not enabling a 'real choice' -- you're restricting some people's choices further.

For every woman who would have gone back to work and now has to stay home, there are three women who're free to go back to work while otherwise they'd have felt they need to stay at home.

And once again, I don't know enough about Australia, but where I live, women are not allowed to work 8 weeks before the due date and 8 weeks after giving birth for health reasons - so we're already having the bad effects.