Fuck Sexism

[Truthordeal]

It's also simple bargening power. If Employee A knows that Employee B is paid $2000 for the same job, they'll want more money as well. It means that employees at the same level have to (gasp) be paid the same. But if employee A is willing to accept $2000 less than employee B, why should the business pay them more?

That's precisely why the wage gap between the genders still exists.

[ZeaLitY]

Yeah, there's no way that sexism plays any part of the reinforcement of the pay gap.

 

[Truthordeal]

What? You think the executives of these companies are secretly plotting against women? I can see it now:

Exec. 1: Hey bro!

Exec. 2: What's the matter? You look down.

Exec. 1: Its these damn women, all existing and stuff.

Exec. 2: Yes, I find the existence of an opposite sex to be quite vexing as well. What do you propose we do?

Exec. 1: I think we should keep on oppressing them.

Exec. 2: But how? We can't take their right to vote away.

Exec. 1: By purposely paying them less than men.

Exec. 2: Genius!

Exec. 1: Yes, it is brilliant. No girls allowed, lulz!

Exec. 2: BMFF! Best Male Friends Forever, because girls are smelly.

I'm a parodist, so I did exaggerate a bit...or rather, a lot...or rather, all of it.

But, really I think it has more to do with bosses knowing they can get away with it rather than some systematic misogynistic oppression mode they go into. Get rid of them being able to get away with it, and you'll solve the problem completely.

That was a really commonsensical answer, I know.

[MsBlack]

Truthordeal, I'm astounded that you're missing not just the gravity of wage sexism, but that it exists at all.

Sure, employers do try to Scrooge anyone they can, and doing so isn't inherently sexist. What you're missing is the simple fact that the reason for females being Scrooged so extensively is their sex. It's as simple as that; that's why it's such a major sexist issue.

If these employers were thinking, 'Hey, this person is obviously malleable; let's try and Scrooge 'em,' for any reason other than applicants' sex, it wouldn't be sexist.

But, as I'm sure you realise, that's rarely the case. Many employers consciously lowball females, and all those who do and more do so for unconscious reasons because of deeply-set sexist prejudices that they don't even realise.

If you really think that employers intentionally exploiting females through wages isn't a huge issue, or that wage disparities are just a coincidence or, worse, that it's the applicants' faults for 'letting themselves be exploited', you really need to wake up and read up. Wage disparities are one of the most accessible and acknowledged examples of sexual inequality, and yet you're failing to grasp even the basic issues at work here.

I think you'd do better to take a break from these issues in the arena of 'debate' and read up on the basics of sexism issues or even just look into basic examples of sexual discrimination. Heck, just open your eyes to the possibility that sexism is anywhere as much of an issue as Z and J claim. It's so widespread in society that to be so unaware or denying of it, you must have blinders on against it or spend an insane amount of time denying it, consciously or otherwise. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, but if you analyse even a fraction of what you see day-to-day, you'll see how rampant sexual inequality is. Better yet, think about how your own behaviour towards and preconceptions of other people changes based on their sex. Regardless of whether you agree with what you might call the more extreme positions opposing you in this thread, I think you'd do well to at least open yourself up to the premise that sexism is a massive problem by looking out for it yourself. It's hard to grasp social issues you've no experience of, you know? If you're disagreeing over something as elementary as wage disparities, you have little to gain from this thread, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.

[KebreI]

I always find it weird when something so perfectly correct comes from a /B/tard. 

[Truthordeal]

Truthordeal, I'm astounded that you're missing not just the gravity of wage sexism, but that it exists at all.

Ms. Black, I'm astounded that you seem to have overlooked my post earlier where I agreed that it was a major problem and laid out a solution for it. My solution, despite Thought finding a good hole in it, was a serious solution.

I'm not trying to make light of the issue of wage sexism, but rather of Zeality's accusation that there's some big sexist conspiracy behind it.

Execs, by and large are not doing it because they believe that women should be oppressed. They are doing it because they know they can get away with it, because they are women. Get rid of them being able to get away with wage sexism, and it will stop, and the issue will cease, and every thing can be gumdrops and ice cream for everyone.

Rather than whining over the problem, look for a practical solution. Mine was faulty, but at least it was something.

As I said before, I'm not going to talk about the very subtle social issues that Z and J are knowledgeable about, because I don't know enough about it. I do talk about the bigger problems because at least I have some ideas to help them.

Damn it all. I do something productive today with listing some solutions, but y'all are still riding my ass about it for no good reason.

[MsBlack]

Damn it all. I do something productive today with listing some solutions, but y'all are still riding my ass about it for no good reason.

That's why I suggested you go elsewhere to read up for yourself on the issues instead of arguing them here. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to argue little points if we're 'riding your ass for no good reason'; either you're not as self-assured as you're letting on or you actually think we might have a point.

I'd rather you gave my suggestion a try than us getting caught up in some long-ass point-by-point argument here, so I'll simply point some of where you're missing the basics.

While I think you gather that wage disparities between the sexes is a problem, you completely miss the sexist dimension to it. Wage discrimination and wage disparities are not the same thing; you acknowledged the latter, but not the former. I appreciate it's a subtle difference, so let me explain.

If someone exploits people who happen to be female because they think they're easy targets, that's not sexism. This is what you acknowledged happens, but you downplayed the sexist motivations that actually do come into play so often and which make it discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination because of why it happens, not because of the result itself. This isn't coincidental opportunism, it's intentional exploitation. There's a low-level error in your thinking here that puts you in a severely disadvantaged position to understand not only sexism but all discrimination in general.

You also severely underestimate the depth of the problem, particularly obviously when you think that just passing legislation to nominally eliminate wage disparities will be the end of the problem. Really, that you suggested that the exploitation would disappear if doing so became a bit harder for the exploiters to do, you showed yourself to have a simplistic understanding of the situation and apparently none of the underlying forces at work here. That's forgiveable if you remedy it, which is where 'reading up' comes in.

[IAmSerge]

It's also simple bargening power. If Employee A knows that Employee B is paid $2000 for the same job, they'll want more money as well. It means that employees at the same level have to (gasp) be paid the same. But if employee A is willing to accept $2000 less than employee B, why should the business pay them more?

Sure, employers do try to Scrooge anyone they can, and doing so isn't inherently sexist. What you're missing is the simple fact that the reason for females being Scrooged so extensively is their sex. It's as simple as that; that's why it's such a major sexist issue.

Fix problem two by fixing problem one?

Sounds great!  Now, to devise a devious plan to fix problem one....

by fixing the non-sexist problem we can get rid of a secondary sexist one!

now, I'm not saying this will fix all sexist problems, and I'm also not saying it will fix all sexist problems in the workplace either (stuff like lack of respect, and such.)

But it would be a start, no?

[MsBlack]

I don't think eliminating 'negotiation' altogether is a good thing. Even though it's often abused as a cover for discrimination, it can be a valid way for employers and employees to adjust their deals according to circumstances.

I would be in favour of something along the lines of making employers advertise their base conditions and imposing limits on how much flexibility the employers would have to change the conditions relative to other employees, which would mean that people wouldn't be significantly advantaged just for being more demanding or lucky, would limit the damage discrimination can do, would leave room for negotiation and some flexibility and would level wages more for people in similar positions. (Of course, then some employers would want to Scrooge everyone instead of some, which would mean ensuring that minimums are reasonably high.)

[Thought]

Are gender-specific names sexist?

[Uboa]

Are gender-specific names sexist?

Heh, I think gender-specific name calling is sexist.  For example, I'm a fan of Hell's Kitchen, but I think Ramsey goes too far when he calls any of the women a "cow".  It disappoints me to no end.  I know he's capable of showing much more class.

Of course, he uses other sexist names too, and I'm not fond of those others either.  "Cow" just took me by surprise. 

[Truthordeal]

Isn't cow like a British/Canadian equivalent of calling someone a bitch?

[Uboa]

I don't think they're equivalent per say.  I think cow is supposed to imply mental or physical sluggishness.  But, it does seem to be more of a UK thing.

[MsBlack]

Are gender-specific names sexist?

I use 'sexist' in the negative sense to mean unfairly discriminating on the basis of sex. It is also often convenient to refer to things like a female not getting a job because of her sex as sexist, because a sex has been relegated by the discrimination, even if what's described is not itself a case of such discrimination.

Sex-specific names are a specific case of sexism in the broadest sense—discrimination (negative or otherwise) on the basis of sex. As discriminations, they can be negative (in this case, sexist) if the discrimination is unfair, but are not necessarily sexist.

However, some sex-specific names, while not strictly sexist, promote sexism. Using sex-specific names reinforces the ubiquitous splitting of people along sexual lines, which always reinforces negative sexism. (That's a point that few realise; sexual distinctions always end up reinforcing negative sexism, regardless of whether they're necessarily 'offensive' or 'discriminatory'. This is a point which is the backbone to, for example, some of the more controversial intentions of feminists, such as neutering English grammatically. It should be obvious that being unable to communicate or even think without arbitrarily and constantly splitting people into divisive groups promotes discrimination, but gendered pronouns force this when the language's pronouns is used.)

Epithets like 'bitch' are always offensive when used in earnest regardless of the context, because they rely on marginalising or implicitly criticising a particular sex, no matter whom the target is.

On the word cow: from my experience, 'cow' is a generic insult for a woman (or, because of this, it is sometimes used against some men to imply that, 'They're manwomen,' or whatever nonsense), often with connotations of stupidity and inconsiderateness.

[Lord J Esq]

I interpreted "gender-specific names" to mean names like Betty and Marie, but everyone else is talking about female-centric words like ingenue and tramp. Which did you mean?