Are Women Happier Post-Sexual Revolution?

RW81233 · March 2012

i was a grad student rep on two of them and my best friend in grad school was for the other so yes, and the starting offers being discussed were significantly different...wtf more do you want?

JonnyPistachio · March 2012

I dont have any documented facts, studies, or statistical analysis, but I can simply chime in with personal experience....I worked in restaurants for a very long time and was included in the hiring of many high level management positions. The women were paid less. Same qualifications, but paid less. And I was present for negotiations during interview process. It was obvious gender discrimination in my eyes. That's just one sliver of reality though...

polaris_x · March 2012

Blockhead wrote:

really, I didn't see any in the body of your post...

well ... you can search for them yourself ... or you can search for "there is no pay gap between men and women" and find more articles to your liking ...

PJ_Soul · March 2012

Blockhead wrote:

Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...

I actually tried to read it, but I can't download it. Only have my phone and it won't work. However, I invite you to simply Google "pay inequity between men and women" and start reading. When you're done reading everything showing that it exists and that the inequity is at 77% average (and after checking all the sources, including the USCB and all its counterparts around the world, among others), get back to me. Should only take you a week or so to go through all the evidence showing the fact of pay inequities.

Oh, and I work at a university, and yes, it's true, men get paid more for the same positions, particularly in upper level admin. Same job, same hours, less pay.

inmytree · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...

this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...

I understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say. I never said a man can't stay home instead of a woman. You seem like you're trying to say that for me - why I don't know. My point, is that as a couple, it's harder than it once was to have either (man or woman) stay home and care for their child/children because of societal and financial pressures.

inmytree wrote:

and I get the sense that you don't understand what you're trying to say...

I feel exactly the same about you. So, we're on the same page there.

no you don't, you know exactly what I'm saying...

your posts are clearly biased....you kept going back to women working outside the home...when called out, you backpeddled and changed that to couple....

anyhoo, glad we got that cleared up...

Blockhead · March 2012

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

really, I didn't see any in the body of your post...

well ... you can search for them yourself ... or you can search for "there is no pay gap between men and women" and find more articles to your liking ...

Oh i forgot, "it's science" :roll:

inlet13 · March 2012

RW81233 wrote:

the increase in the labor supply is true i didn't actually argue that. what i argued/discussed/debated (whatever words your prefer) is that this increase in the labor supply is very minimal when compared with the export of labor, decimation of unions, etc...i think that's econ 101 as well - maybe 102 so kids don't feel bad about themselves and quit econ.

Ok, fair enough on labor supply. That means you agree as more and more women entered the workforce, the real wage either shrank or was atleast constrained in terms of growth.

My response to your point on unions being more important than the forementioned is simply I don't agree, and it's impossible for either of us to prove. Moreover, it's my opinion that unions can certainly prop up wages (to quote myself from earlier) in the short run for those who obtain union jobs. The negative is that they can also result in less workers employed (which could mean lower aggregate median wages), black markets and declining productivity (which is a long run problem to wages). It's way more complicated than just this, but the bottom line is - I disagree. I am quite certain you disagree with me too. So, that is fine. We're left disagreeing. But, one additional reason I felt no need to continue the discussion was that I don't agree about unions being more important.

RW81233 wrote:

again, the point with the carlin quote was that we have a country that has a large number of leaders who suggest they care about the "unborn" but work hard to make their post-birth life a living hell. that, i believe, far outweighs any unintended consequences of the post-women's rights movement.

Uh huh. I still don't see what being "ugly" has anything do with your or his stance on the matter. In my opinion, Carlin wasn't exactly a GQ model. Anyway, I'd simply suggest you don't add quotes on whole entire political sects of people being ugly in the future because they are inflammatory. I'm quite certain if roles were reversed, you'd agree.

inlet13 · March 2012

inmytree wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...

this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...

I understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say. I never said a man can't stay home instead of a woman. You seem like you're trying to say that for me - why I don't know. My point, is that as a couple, it's harder than it once was to have either (man or woman) stay home and care for their child/children because of societal and financial pressures.

inmytree wrote:

and I get the sense that you don't understand what you're trying to say...

I feel exactly the same about you. So, we're on the same page there.

no you don't, you know exactly what I'm saying...

your posts are clearly biased....you kept going back to women working outside the home...when called out, you backpeddled and changed that to couple....

anyhoo, glad we got that cleared up...

Troll much?

Blockhead · March 2012

PJ_Soul wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...

I actually tried to read it, but I can't download it. Only have my phone and it won't work. However, I invite you to simply Google "pay inequity between men and women" and start reading. When you're done reading everything showing that it exists and that the inequity is at 77% average (and after checking all the sources, including the USCB and all its counterparts around the world, among others), get back to me. Should only take you a week or so to go through all the evidence showing the fact of pay inequities.
Oh, and I work at a university, and yes, it's true, men get paid more for the same positions, particularly in upper level admin. Same job, same hours, less pay.

Its been debunked to may times to wast my time reading that.
I assume you were present in your univeristy members interviews and saw the negotiations taking place.
Same positions dosent mean jack shit if one person is right out of school and the other have been doing it for 20 years... Have you heard of a thing called experience? Alot more goes into pay than just your job title and hours...
I can't imagine a Univerisy with PUBLIC records would take on this kind of liability...
But if you say so...

inmytree · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Troll much?

um

you wrote:

Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this place.

polaris_x · March 2012

Blockhead wrote:

Oh i forgot, "it's science" :roll:

this is a report published by the Canadian gov't ...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/Resea ... 0-30-e.htm

if there is a wage gap in a somewhat socialized country like Canada - you can postulate on what that would be in the US ...

Statistical evidence demonstrates that women continue to earn less than men in Canada, as in all the countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This is the case despite the fact that women are catching up with men in labour force participation, and have caught up with men in educational attainment. The gap between what women earn and what men earn is known as the gender wage gap.

please note the bolded part ...

amethgr8 · March 2012

the sexual revolution wasn't the women's liberation movement of the early 1900's.

if more choices and a better overall acceptance of oneself equals happier, then everyone is happier.

eh?

amy

riotgrl · March 2012

PJ_Soul wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

hedonist wrote:

(just didn't think it'd be so divisive!)

Thank you.

I didn't think it would be divisive either. In fact, I thought there's more here that we would all agree on, then would disagree. But, I guess I was wrong.

I find it. Interesting that you find it surprising that this topic is divisive. Of course it's divisive... I find it surprising that so many men don't understand why women are so defensive towards men when it comes to issues like this. Women are members of a group of people who have been consistently abused, humiliated, degraded, and dismissed since the beginning of time, basically. I don't get how men can't grasp that concept. Of COURSE it's divisive when men start chiming in about whether or not women's new found levels of freedom and equality are 'good for them'. Are you kidding? It's practically like white men discussing whether or not the end of of slavery was good for the blacks. Those men could be the most anti-racist, slave-hating people in the world... but that ddoes't make the fact that they're even discussing it any less irritating to black people... as though it's even a question! And there is always the underlying fact that their history as the down-trodden and abused, be it personal history or cultural, is a direct result of the acts of the same types of people discussing the issue. Sorry guys... it's a knee jerk reaction (a totally justifiable one) for women to get their guard up when men start pontificating on this issue

I agree that this topic is divisive for these reasons. As a woman, this is my life too. I am 40 years old and was brought up by a stay at home mom which was great. But my dad worked 2nd shift until I was 12 years old and I rarely ever saw him. That had a huge impact on me, even more so as a woman because I never had a man consistently in my life to relate to. My dad is a wonderful person and he worked hard to provide for us so my mom could stay home BUT I regret having so little of a relationship with him. I have no doubt I'll get blasted for saying this but...

Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.

riotgrl · March 2012

Oh and just another thought on wage discrepancy.... I teach at a public high school and our salaries are based on education level and years of experience so men and women make the same. However, the discrepancy comes in the number of women in administration (assistant principals, principals, superintendents and others who work at the Board of Ed) Fewer women are in those positions so you will see a wage gap. There are fewer women because we are staying at home OR in my case and in the case of several colleagues we won't go through the time, expense, and hassle of trying to move up because family is our priority and we are still primarily responsible for picking up the kids, fixing dinner, and running the kids to softball, football, cross country, etc. Guess where I'm headed now

RW81233 · March 2012

amethgr8 wrote:

the sexual revolution wasn't the women's liberation movement of the early 1900's.

if more choices and a better overall acceptance of oneself equals happier, then everyone is happier.

eh?

amy

sexual revolution came about during second wave feminism/women's lib (ugh) which was simply about breaking the social structures posed by biological determinism, and we have now entered third wave feminism concerned with post-structuralism (Foucault and the like) whereby social structures are constantly changing, biological determinism has given way to social influence (the panopticon) and so on. This is where Blockhead's question about homosexuality and female/male issues are conflated. There are many feminists who disagree with one another depending on where they stand 1st/2nd/3rd wave. The type of feminism I most closely align with is 3rd wave whereby nearly everything is socially constructed and biological determinism is considered too simple. Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct (there are degrees of sexuality in this conception thus no one is a perfect hetero/homo sexual), just the same as gender (there are degrees of masculinity and femininity that overlap and diverge). This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social structures. In that case, discrimination of homosexuals and discrimination of women are both understood as not good.

PJ_Soul · March 2012

Blockhead wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...

Its been debunked to may times to wast my time reading that.
I assume you were present in your univeristy members interviews and saw the negotiations taking place.
Same positions dosent mean jack shit if one person is right out of school and the other have been doing it for 20 years... Have you heard of a thing called experience? Alot more goes into pay than just your job title and hours...
I can't imagine a Univerisy with PUBLIC records would take on this kind of liability...
But if you say so...

Think what you want I guess - you seem to REALLY want to believe what you're saying... but you're still wrong. I've seen women with WAY more experience, education, and ability get paid less than men in the same position, my current director included. And many others here say they have experienced or witnessed the same thing. It's happening man. I'm not sure what offends you about this concept so much. I would think that anyone who cares would take the testimony here and think, 'wow, that's unfair; what can be done to stop this?' I mean, it's clear that women have been discriminated against forever - why the concept that it's still happening only about 100 years after sufferage, only maybe 30 years after any true movement started happening with women's equal rights (in our part of the world), would be so difficult for you to accept is beyond me. Does racism not exist anymore either?

RW81233 · March 2012

What's funny is that even the link to the study he provided found that discrimination of women over pay still exists, but he didn't read it and wants to believe that it doesn't. In blockhead's world no discrimination exists and anyone can make it in america so anyone who complains better shut their damn mouths. At least that's how I read his posts - could be wrong.

inlet, on the other hand, will get hung up on stupid shit that I even said was wrong but part of a quote and won't even address what was the crux of the quote. the reason being is that outside of the asanine "conservatives are ugly" statement (that was asanine), carlin makes a very good point. he also refuses to discuss how outsourced labor has been far more detrimental to real wages than women in the workplace, because hating on unions is way easier than talking about tax breaks, the effects of Free Trade Zones, and Free Trade Agreements, Wal-Mart sales stores, and so on. Each of these things have been way more devastating to American and Global societies, but they don't fit the narrative that women in the workplace are making everyone unhappy.

brianlux · March 2012

My last thought on the subject (thank you, Lou):

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-361656 ... sic_video/

polaris_x · March 2012

riotgrl wrote:

Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.

it's called socialism and the right have managed to make it a dirty word ...

RW81233 · March 2012

polaris_x wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.

it's called socialism and the right have managed to make it a dirty word ...

it's kind of funny that socialism, or socialist policies would serve as a very viable answer to the idea that we are all unhappy because we don't get to spend time with family, and that neoliberal capitalism is at the crux of the problem. wonder if the OP would be up for a shift towards something like 1 and 2 year paid leaves for children?

Are Women Happier Post-Sexual Revolution?

Comments

Categories