Actually I think you'll find that I didn't weigh in on average, hourly, or per-capita wages. In brief:
1/2) Women are variously underemployed and underpaid (this is observational) due to a complex web of social, cultural, economic, and other factors, including but not limited to normative gender roles and opportunities for childcare (the accepted concensus) 3) Is my hypothesis to explain the exceptions, local as they are in time and space. There does seem to be a surge in female employment when traditionally patriarchal societies become capitalistic; indeed, I've heard it argued that the garment factories of Asia are inadvertently driving female emancipation because they're hoovering up all of the cheap female labour that couldn't get into stereotypically male jobs, and those women are then becoming independent.
Wouldn't the logical inference from that be that men in technologically advanced, socially developed Western societies deserve at least some proportion of feminist women?
1) I wasn't aware that Emma Watson was blaming men. 2) There's no logical path from "both sides are at fault" to "one side needs to do this first before the other side needs to address it". 3) You've not actually substantiated your premise, but I'm going to let that slide because the downstream arguments are more interesting.
I'm sorry you clearly can't tell I'm taking the piss out of a position that you advanced earlier.
Yes, the "women first" bias in the UK court system's awards of custody certainly needs to be addressed. If people who claimed to stand up for men's rights spent their time addressing these issues and not nit-picking feminists we'd probably have that licked by now.
Yes, and? 98% and 99% are both vast majorities, but that's the difference between 200 million people getting the short end of the stick and 100 million people getting the short end of the stick.
You might as well say "the vast majority of people live past reproductive age" and say that we can pack in modern medicine.
Yes, and that's one of the ideas that keeps coming up: it's not a men-vs-women issue, anyone can hold these problematic preconceptions about women's roles in society.
I don't know. I will say that men have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to being convicted of sexual assault, so what is there to complain about? The law's perfectly even-handed, and it'd be churlish to ask for special treatment because of one's gender.:)
There's a difference between men who believe in men's rights, and the Men's Rights Movement. Unfortunately it's the latter who are allowed to control the issues.
Oh, I'm not female. I do, however, work in an environment where I'm having to think carefully about how childcare needs can be balanced with future career prospects. People drop out all the time and it's not because they choose to.
The logical answer is that gender-biased hiring patterns are overriding the market's inherent rational balancing mechanisms. I mean, clearly it's not the free hand of the market making the call if you have an inequality that disadvantages both one group and market efficiency, while acting to the advantage of another group.
Inequality that disfavours men is because of a set of social norms and conventions around gender that need to be challenged by men and women alike. That's what the modern feminist movement is about, no?
As opposed to the whole Men's Rights movement which seems to be dedicated to opposing introspection and protecting established norms at all costs.
Yes, nobody has ever thought to adjust for hours worked and wonder if the issue was underemployment of women. It's not like that's one of the major issues that employment equality is concerned with right now.
Well, yes. That's what you tend to see in societies where one group or another is underpaid - in economic crises, they're more heavily employed because they're cheaper. In the US it's illegal immigrants due to a reluctance to establish wage laws for migrant workers; in the UK it's young workers because our minimum wage adjusts with age; I guess in Romania there's enough of a wage discrepancy that businesses could cash in.
In crystallography circles, there's a slightly higher percentage of women than in other chemistry fields. The story is that one of the early pioneers needed to stretch his research budget and he was allowed to pay women less, so he hired more.
Sticking to what we can actually measure and not some airy, hand-wavey idea of what constitutes an opportunity, skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention. That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
1) Why would you put the volume button on the top of the phone? 2) Wouldn't it make more sense that it's bending around the volume cut-outs because they're a big void in the side of the phone? No matter how tough it is, if it's going to yield anywhere, it'll yield there.
"Don't hold it that way" was actually Apple's official stance. They even put up a series of videos on the Apple site showing other brands' "dead spots", which lasted about as long as you could expect in this corporate climate.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the wage gap?
Nope, I'm not.
Market efficiency isn't the only factor that controls markets. Animal spirits, remember?
The latest recession was never called the mancession.
Actually I think you'll find that I didn't weigh in on average, hourly, or per-capita wages. In brief:
1/2) Women are variously underemployed and underpaid (this is observational) due to a complex web of social, cultural, economic, and other factors, including but not limited to normative gender roles and opportunities for childcare (the accepted concensus)
3) Is my hypothesis to explain the exceptions, local as they are in time and space. There does seem to be a surge in female employment when traditionally patriarchal societies become capitalistic; indeed, I've heard it argued that the garment factories of Asia are inadvertently driving female emancipation because they're hoovering up all of the cheap female labour that couldn't get into stereotypically male jobs, and those women are then becoming independent.
Wouldn't the logical inference from that be that men in technologically advanced, socially developed Western societies deserve at least some proportion of feminist women?
1) I wasn't aware that Emma Watson was blaming men.
2) There's no logical path from "both sides are at fault" to "one side needs to do this first before the other side needs to address it".
3) You've not actually substantiated your premise, but I'm going to let that slide because the downstream arguments are more interesting.
I'm sorry you clearly can't tell I'm taking the piss out of a position that you advanced earlier.
Yes, the "women first" bias in the UK court system's awards of custody certainly needs to be addressed. If people who claimed to stand up for men's rights spent their time addressing these issues and not nit-picking feminists we'd probably have that licked by now.
No doubt. I'm talking in very, very broad strokes here.
Yes, and? 98% and 99% are both vast majorities, but that's the difference between 200 million people getting the short end of the stick and 100 million people getting the short end of the stick.
You might as well say "the vast majority of people live past reproductive age" and say that we can pack in modern medicine.
Yes, and that's one of the ideas that keeps coming up: it's not a men-vs-women issue, anyone can hold these problematic preconceptions about women's roles in society.
I don't know. I will say that men have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to being convicted of sexual assault, so what is there to complain about? The law's perfectly even-handed, and it'd be churlish to ask for special treatment because of one's gender. :)
There's a difference between men who believe in men's rights, and the Men's Rights Movement. Unfortunately it's the latter who are allowed to control the issues.
Oh, I'm not female. I do, however, work in an environment where I'm having to think carefully about how childcare needs can be balanced with future career prospects. People drop out all the time and it's not because they choose to.
The logical answer is that gender-biased hiring patterns are overriding the market's inherent rational balancing mechanisms. I mean, clearly it's not the free hand of the market making the call if you have an inequality that disadvantages both one group and market efficiency, while acting to the advantage of another group.
Inequality that disfavours men is because of a set of social norms and conventions around gender that need to be challenged by men and women alike. That's what the modern feminist movement is about, no?
As opposed to the whole Men's Rights movement which seems to be dedicated to opposing introspection and protecting established norms at all costs.
Yes, nobody has ever thought to adjust for hours worked and wonder if the issue was underemployment of women. It's not like that's one of the major issues that employment equality is concerned with right now.
If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".
(Improved childcare opportunities are one of the great equality demands in the sciences right now. You're on a different side than you realise.)
Well, yes. That's what you tend to see in societies where one group or another is underpaid - in economic crises, they're more heavily employed because they're cheaper. In the US it's illegal immigrants due to a reluctance to establish wage laws for migrant workers; in the UK it's young workers because our minimum wage adjusts with age; I guess in Romania there's enough of a wage discrepancy that businesses could cash in.
In crystallography circles, there's a slightly higher percentage of women than in other chemistry fields. The story is that one of the early pioneers needed to stretch his research budget and he was allowed to pay women less, so he hired more.
I'm sorry but you clearly don't have even the first bit of experience in the field if that's what you believe.
Sticking to what we can actually measure and not some airy, hand-wavey idea of what constitutes an opportunity, skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention. That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
The company that wants 4chan shut down also doesn't seem to exist; it looks like this was a publicity stunt by a social media agency.
http://www.theguardian.com/fil...
Wait, by top do you mean the top of the same side, or the top edge of the phone?
1) Why would you put the volume button on the top of the phone?
2) Wouldn't it make more sense that it's bending around the volume cut-outs because they're a big void in the side of the phone? No matter how tough it is, if it's going to yield anywhere, it'll yield there.
"Don't hold it that way" was actually Apple's official stance. They even put up a series of videos on the Apple site showing other brands' "dead spots", which lasted about as long as you could expect in this corporate climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/0...