5 minute video by Christina Hoff Sommers which nicely sums up my opinion of modern Feminism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

I think a fundamental problem with the narrative in this country is that we accept without question the claim that women are a victim class, which in my opinion is offensive to reason and to women themselves.

Men die earlier and more often. (1) Men kill themselves more often. (2) Men die on the job WAY more often, even when accounting for hours worked. (3) Men are more likely to be the victim of violence. (4) Men are discriminated against by our justice system. (5 and much more) Fewer men are accepted to and graduate from college than women. (6)

If any of the above stats were reversed we'd be having a nationwide crisis, billions of dollars would be spent and we'd be changing everything to correct the problem. I'm not saying women don't have problems specific to women (rabid fundamentalism encroaching on their bodily rights comes to mind) but the problems specific to men aren't even discussed.

1:http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
2:http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/rates02.html
3:http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0012.pdf
4:http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf
5:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/femaledeathrow.pdf
6:http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx

9/22/2014 11:40:32 PM

uh oh

9/23/2014 12:47:37 AM

The stuff you posted doesn't have anything to do with feminism (except maybe the education stats... if you at least acknowledge women tend to be more educated, but still are less likely to be promoted to upper level positions or to be paid as much, that's at least 1 thing you should believe women have a right to be upset about).

9/23/2014 1:43:08 AM

The stuff I posted is in regards to the narrative that Feminism proposes: that women are the oppressed class. It seems to me that men face a disparity of very serious problems that are completely sacrificed at the altar of the wage gap.

Quote :

"but still are less likely to be promoted to upper level positions or to be paid as much"

When controlled for hours worked and job experience? How much less likely? And I don't believe women are less likely to be paid as much for the same work. In fact, childless women appear to be doing better than their male counterparts.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/01/cities-where-women-outearn-male-counterparts/

I have a more generic problem with your response which speaks to my original point: if you define success in life as making more money (without controlling for anything) or holding more positions of power (even though this is a vanishingly small minority of men) then you can say men have the edge.

But if you define success in life as having more options to spend less time at work, more time with your loved ones, more spending power* and not being sent to an early grave, what then?

*http://content.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2031700,00.html

9/23/2014 2:20:10 AM

childless women, lol. You realize how cherry-picky that is...?

What about women with children vs. men with children?

Your basic argument seems to boil down to the belief that because men tend to coddle women, that women don't have a right to complain. But just because you treat someone well on your own terms doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. By your argument, you could ethically enslave a person as long as you provide for them. But fairness and freedom is allowing people to live on their own terms (within reason), and we live in a society where women can't really do this.

It's not really "equality" if a woman has to act like a man to be successful.

That's like saying gay marriage doesn't have to be legal, because a gay man can marry a woman if he wants.

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 2:50 AM. Reason : ]

9/23/2014 2:45:06 AM

While I agree that the narrative of "women as the victim class" does not have the same credibility that it used to, the stats you provided don't really do much to demonstrate that.

We die on the job more often because more men are attracted to dangerous jobs (though whether it's because or in spite of the danger depends). This is the flip side of more women getting drawn to jobs that don't pay very much (nursing, teaching).

Men are more likely to be the victims of violence because we are vastly, overwhelmingly more likely to be the perpetrators of violence. This isn't a class or even societal issue, this is biology.

Our dying earlier is a function of the above. If you're the gender that thinks that lumberjacking and soldiering and street crime sound like a good call, you're the gender that's gonna die earlier.

As for suicide, I seem to recall that women attempt it more often, and men accomplish it more often. So, see, we're better at some stuff.

---

Quote :

"Your basic argument seems to boil down to the belief that because men tend to coddle women, that women don't have a right to complain."

That's not his argument at all. It's not even close. The thrust of his argument -- sorry for putting words into your mouth here, stu -- is that the way we define "victimhood" in the feminist context is a bit warped.

Using the income/CEO positions/etc. definition makes the Tutsis in Rwanda, 1994, look like they're doing pretty good. Certainly they were the richer and more influential group, at least before they all got killed.

If women get paid less and are less likely to run a company, but they live years longer and are less likely to end up in prison or murdered, are they victims? If men get to run shit and make more money, but they get shot by themselves, get shot by each other, get locked up, or fall out of the cherry picker more often, are they the victims?

---

Now, back to my comfort zone -- arguing against disco_stu.

There is a violence stat that you leave out, and which remains by far the clearest way to show that men are more generally the oppressors and women, the oppressed. Between the genders, of course, far more men commit violence against women than vice versa. A distressingly high proportion of women can claim to be the victim, not just in the broad class sense, but of an actual specific crime. I won't look up the domestic violence and sexual assault stats, in part because African internet is shaky but mostly because they'd be too depressing.

At best, we can claim that males as a bloc are indiscriminate victimizers -- we'll fuck up anybody, including members of our own team.

---

And lastly, stepping away from these specific arguments to the basic idea of the thread title.

The problem with discussing "feminism" is that there really isn't any such thing as "feminism." It is the most diffuse and self-contradictory excuse for a movement that there has ever been. Anarchists look organized in comparison.

There are massive, fundamental fault lines in feminism that make it impossible to talk about as such, and certainly impossible to argue with. Posed with a room full of feminists, I could make the statement "Lindsay Lohan is a slut" and get the following responses:

"She is, and it's creating a negative image that hurts the cause of women's equality."
"You're just intimidated because she's embracing her sexuality, and that's empowering!"
"'Slut' is an offensive term used by the patriarchy to control women's bodies."
"She is a slut! I love it!"
"She is a victim of male dominance because all sex is rape."

All by people claiming to be feminists.

Is being a stay-at-home-mom empowering or a sign of servitude? Is joining the military a display of your power and independence or is it subservience to the military-patriarchy complex? For that matter, is female exclusion from selective service good or bad?

Different camps of feminist disagree on all these points.

Remember #yesallwomen? It was in response to the valid statement on behalf of many men that "Not all men do these horribly sexist/oppressive things, so please don't lump us in with them." The response they got was that stupid hashtag, which essentially says, "Doesn't matter, you're on the team that at one time or another has oppressed all of us."

Well, the same type of logic applies to feminists. Not all feminist movements or their adherents advocate beliefs that are radical or, frankly, insane*. But they're on the same team.

*-"Insane" as in "would lead to the extinction of the human race," which is true of some sex-negative feminist thought

9/23/2014 5:07:11 AM

Quote :

"We die on the job more often because more men are attracted to dangerous jobs (though whether it's because or in spite of the danger depends)."

I am often taken aback by the bizarrely high fraction of workplace accidents which are accounted for by simple roadway accidents. The jobs where you drive more, you die more. Police, check. Truck drivers, check.

While men might be "attracted" to these jobs, there's nothing really sexy about the dangerous parts of it. There's no glory in driving off the side of a bridge while making a delivery to Walmart. Professions like lumberjacks have very tangible risks but the number is small.

There's nothing that really prevents women from taking just as large of risks as men. Real estate is an area where women have come to dominate, and this has a modestly high risk. Again, because of the driving involved.

So I can't really concur that men go for more dangerous jobs. You can't tell how dangerous it is just by looking at it, and the motivational factors are unclear.

Quote :

" if you at least acknowledge women tend to be more educated, but still are less likely to be promoted to upper level positions or to be paid as much, that's at least 1 thing you should believe women have a right to be upset about"

Again with the cohort flaw. Upper level positions are filled with old people. These people graduated in 1970 or so. So your education argument doesn't apply to them. We experienced an inflection point in recent history where women began to get educated further than men.

The impact from that shift (in the upper levels) won't be seen until that cohort is near retirement. Young people today are competing in a very different competitive environment, and the cohort's business culture ages just as the people do. Broadly applying an agenda to all segments of our society at the same time only shows a lack of understanding of demographics.

The baby boomers grew up (and graduated in) a sexist world. Short of a baby boomer holocaust, you can't change this fact. You also can't change the fact that they are the business leaders. They won't be forever. They'll die someday. Unless that life extension technology gets into gear. Then you'll never get rid of the sexism instilled into them. Ever.

9/23/2014 8:48:00 AM

Moron, it's not cherry-picking when it is demonstrative of the fact that the wage gap is manufactured largely because of the choices women make to have the flexibility to raise children. The women that don't do that somehow are doing as good or better than their comparable men.

Quote :

"But fairness and freedom is allowing people to live on their own terms (within reason), and we live in a society where women can't really do this. It's not really "equality" if a woman has to act like a man to be successful. That's like saying gay marriage doesn't have to be legal, because a gay man can marry a woman if he wants."

I don't know how you interpreted any of that from what I said. In what way cannot women in The United States of America in 2014 not live on their own terms (within reason) in a way that men can, exactly?

9/23/2014 9:18:27 AM

I never said that men were attracted to danger as such. But look at the number of lumberjacks (and aspiring lumberjacks) who are men. Look at the number who are women. Obviously there is a wide gulf there.

Generally speaking, jobs that tend to involve violence, long-distance travel, heavy equipment, the outdoors, and other risk factors are male-dominated. Since a lot of those jobs aren't particularly prestigious or well-paid, there must be some other draw to them, and clearly that draw has not impacted women as strongly as men.

9/23/2014 9:32:33 AM

Quote :

"There is a violence stat that you leave out, and which remains by far the clearest way to show that men are more generally the oppressors and women, the oppressed. Between the genders, of course, far more men commit violence against women than vice versa. A distressingly high proportion of women can claim to be the victim, not just in the broad class sense, but of an actual specific crime. I won't look up the domestic violence and sexual assault stats, in part because African internet is shaky but mostly because they'd be too depressing. At best, we can claim that males as a bloc are indiscriminate victimizers -- we'll fuck up anybody, including members of our own team."

I'm not entirely convinced that this is even the truth. I'd bet that female domestic violence (including same-sex female domestic violence) is actually the most under-reported crime there is making statistics on the matter difficult at best. And I don't think ending our culture of violence will be achieved by pretending men have the monopoly on violence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the diversity within Feminists I think that's a fair point, but if you get that same room of feminists and ask them if they believe that women in America are oppressed you'd get a pretty uniform response. They may disagree on prostitution or pornography, but on the victim-status of women I doubt it. And that's the only claim I'm discussing at the moment.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"Generally speaking, jobs that tend to involve violence, long-distance travel, heavy equipment, the outdoors, and other risk factors are male-dominated. Since a lot of those jobs aren't particularly prestigious or well-paid, there must be some other draw to them, and clearly that draw has not impacted women as strongly as men."

My thesis is that women are equally drawn away from these jobs more as men are drawn to them because they don't afford the flexibility or opportunity to have and raise children. Women have the power to choose what to do with their lives (to whatever degree their circumstances allow) the same as men.

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2014 9:45:42 AM

^^
Having children isn't a choice, it's a biological imperative.

And there's still a gap even for women who don't have children.

9/23/2014 9:47:40 AM

Quote :

"Having children isn't a choice, it's a biological imperative."

And I'm the misogynist.

9/23/2014 9:49:42 AM

... for the women that choose to have them.

If you can't see the flaw of supporting a system where women who choose to have children should be punished for this, that's where you need to start to understand feminism.

Quote :

"" if you at least acknowledge women tend to be more educated, but still are less likely to be promoted to upper level positions or to be paid as much, that's at least 1 thing you should believe women have a right to be upset about" Again with the cohort flaw. Upper level positions are filled with old people. These people graduated in 1970 or so. So your education argument doesn't apply to them. We experienced an inflection point in recent history where women began to get educated further than men. "

I wasn't referring to historical trends. To this day, women are less likely to be promoted for a given experience/education for the same biases disco_stu has (they might have kids. or if they have kids, they'll take too much time off to take care of them).

Quote :

" That's not his argument at all. It's not even close. The thrust of his argument -- sorry for putting words into your mouth here, stu -- is that the way we define "victimhood" in the feminist context is a bit warped. ... If women get paid less and are less likely to run a company, but they live years longer and are less likely to end up in prison or murdered, are they victims? If men get to run shit and make more money, but they get shot by themselves, get shot by each other, get locked up, or fall out of the cherry picker more often, are they the victims?"

the prison/murder/danger jobs thing are a result of men coddling them. I suppose that's my personal hypothesis, but the alternative explanation is that even if we waved a wand and raised little girls and boys to have the same proclivities, then they still wouldn't choose those jobs, but I don't believe this is true.


[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ]

9/23/2014 10:01:07 AM

Quote :

"If you can't see the flaw of supporting a system where women who choose to have children should be punished for this, that's where you need to start to understand feminism."

You call it punishment. I find that completely backwards. I think that's where our disconnect lies.

9/23/2014 10:09:17 AM

Quote :

"They may disagree on prostitution or pornography, but on the victim-status of women I doubt it"

Eh, maybe. I suspect you'd find some nuance that is relevant to this discussion. I suspect there are plenty of feminists who would reject the "victim" label for a variety of reasons. It implies weakness, for one. Then we have the whole range of issues you have pointed out. Then we have the fundamental fact that "victim" is kind of nebulous and not much help in describing large groups of people. Any given class is going to have, or appear to have, relative advantages and disadvantages.

Quote :

"the prison/murder/danger jobs thing are a result of men coddling them."

A lot of people would argue that the history of the human race doesn't show much coddling of women. Beating, raping, and treating like chattel, yes. Coddling, no.

9/23/2014 11:07:46 AM

Quote :

"To this day, women are less likely to be promoted for a given experience/education for the same biases disco_stu has (they might have kids. or if they have kids, they'll take too much time off to take care of them)."

It differs by country. There are many places where this is overtly recognized. Studies have identified many countries where the young cohort of workers sees discrimination-based divergence of men from women. But there are also many nations where they've reached statistical parity. It would be wrong to continue with the focus you articulated in those nations. You're stating so-much in certain terms, and you're outright wrong. The other side of the discussion is also frequently wrong too, which I'm sure will make you feel better about yourself. There are many many places where the young cohort has reached "promotion equality".

But again, if you're talking about the advancement of old people, you might as well be in la la land. They were subjected to many gender-specific cultural differences that have long term echo effects on their career track. The only clean statistics you'll ever get are on young (born 1975+) people.

9/23/2014 11:21:44 AM

9/23/2014 1:19:14 PM

IBT BridgetSPK

9/23/2014 1:20:03 PM

Quote :

"A lot of people would argue that the history of the human race doesn't show much coddling of women. Beating, raping, and treating like chattel, yes. Coddling, no. "

LOL, i know, but we (or at least I) am talking about how women are treated in modern day America.

9/23/2014 3:18:54 PM

children are optional last i checked

9/23/2014 4:10:00 PM

In the context of a feminism discussion, that's an insinuation that the solution to the gender gap is for women and families to stop having children.

Does that not seem like a problematic perspective in the context of modern day American society?

9/23/2014 4:24:06 PM

No, the "solution" is to stop painting women who choose to have children instead of progressing a career as disadvantaged. We need to stop looking at the end result (the supposed gender gap) and thinking this is something that needs to be fixed.

And we need to oppose Christian fundamentalist assholes at every turn to ensure that the choice remains available.

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2014 4:33:52 PM

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 4:35 PM. Reason : nvm]

9/23/2014 4:34:51 PM

^^ you're missing the point.

This doesn't just affect women that have children, this affects all women, because of the perception that they might have children one day. A young woman who has no child, who hasn't even decided if she wants a child, would be discriminated against because an employer thinks (reasonably) she might one day have a child.

9/23/2014 5:33:03 PM

How do you know that's actually happening?

9/23/2014 5:45:29 PM

Quote :

""

Hell yeah, we need to hurry up and get this feminism thing done so I can wear flip flops and t-shirts to the office.

I get a little perturbed every time I see one of my female supervisors walking down the hall wearing sandals and a sleeveless shirt in the middle of the summer.

9/23/2014 5:57:02 PM

Quote :

"This doesn't just affect women that have children, this affects all women, because of the perception that they might have children one day. A young woman who has no child, who hasn't even decided if she wants a child, would be discriminated against because an employer thinks (reasonably) she might one day have a child."

Yeah, as someone who works in HR, I have never once in my working career ever heard of this happening while I've been in the professional world. Maybe in the 1950s, but not now. I don't know where you're pulling this BS out of, but just stop.

9/24/2014 11:01:37 AM

it happens

9/24/2014 11:07:57 AM

Well that settles it then.

9/24/2014 11:10:20 AM

Quote :

"Research has found that all women of childbearing age face some disparity because employers expect they will have children at some point during their careers (Etaugh and Study, 1989)."

http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/research/papers/Burgess_Motherhood_Penalty.pdf

It was clearly demonstrated in that study, and present-day studies still demonstrate a wage gap for women without children, which is likely due to this same effect.

9/24/2014 12:26:05 PM

There is a huge problem in tech and other fields where any dissent, like mentioning that men have more testosterone than women, will be met with accusations of sexism from Social Justice Warriors looking to make a name for themselves.

They kind of drown out the legitimate problems women face.

9/24/2014 1:16:48 PM

^^Have you read Etaugh and Study, 1989?

Quote :

" and present-day studies still demonstrate a wage gap for women without children, which is likely due to this same effect."

Do you have any of those studies then? Or is this where you just say "THERE ARE STUDIES" and I'm supposed to believe that settles the facts of the matter?

[Edited on September 24, 2014 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2014 2:43:14 PM

i would also like to point out that the working population and culture of 1989 is much different than in 2014.

9/24/2014 9:54:35 PM

Quote :

"which is likely due to this same effect"

what makes that likely? a cultural study from a time before many college graduates were even born? come on

9/25/2014 12:59:58 AM

Instead of arguing whether or not children create a wage gap I will argue that they should create a wage gap. Having a kid automatically decreases productivity. You will miss more hours of work than you would if you didn't have a kid.

One could even argue that women in general should experience a wage gap. I haven't read the thing myself, but I remember in one of the Freakonomics books they referenced a study that shows that work missed by women for menstruation-related problems accounts for a significant percentage of the difference in earnings. A lot of sick days, it appears, fall on a 28 day cycle. On behalf of the world's men, we're sorry, but we didn't invent the uterus. If we had, we would have made a lot of improvements -- scrap the whole bleeding thing, and put an on/off switch on the babymaking ability, stuff like that. But evolution hath decreed that you're going to get sick every month for most of your working life.

9/29/2014 5:25:23 AM

Quote :

"Instead of arguing whether or not children create a wage gap I will argue that they should create a wage gap. Having a kid automatically decreases productivity. You will miss more hours of work than you would if you didn't have a kid."

Men have just as many kids as women do. This still discounts the fact that there are more men in total over the prime working ages, slightly diluting the penalty of raising a child. Uneven age distributions of parenthood are obviously a larger effect. But even larger than that is the effect of single motherhood, which is fast approaching half. With more education (which generally equates to higher earnings), men statistically spend more time with their kids. So this "anticipation" effect of employers isn't very self-consistent with regard to white collar jobs. Of course, in spite of progress among the educated, the burden of parenthood is probably shifting further to women on the scale of our entire populous. That's pretty much the story of all modern feminism.

But that menstruation argument is pretty much crap.

9/29/2014 7:34:14 AM

Quote :

" Men have just as many kids as women do"

True, but historically far fewer men than women produce offspring. If you hire a female employee she is more likely to have kids than a male employee.

Quote :

"But that menstruation argument is pretty much crap."

I accept that it might be, but why? Something more than your say-so would be nice. It came from a fairly trustworthy source, and on the surface it makes sense. Periods suck. We have all known people to miss work for them. Men do not get periods.

My gut reaction is that any wage gap is bad and should be destroyed, but since the whole point of this thread is reassessing whether our gut reactions and unquestioned assumptions about feminism and gender are correct...yeah.

9/30/2014 4:05:34 AM

but society has accepted that children are something we want to promote (as made evident by numerous other tax and social policies), so we should not penalize women because only their gender can produce them

i propse a different way to stop this problem: have paid Maternity leave and encourage men to take time off too. if men took off time for new children, it would narrow this particular disparity.

9/30/2014 8:50:59 AM

Quote :

"i propse a different way to stop this problem: have paid Maternity leave and encourage men to take time off too. if men took off time for new children, it would narrow this particular disparity."

Hasn't this already happened? Well, we don't get legally mandated paid leave in the US, but this is irrelevant to your point anyway. That would have to do with promoting child rearing, with zero relation to gender equality. The leave with job protection is mandatory for both genders equally.

9/30/2014 9:52:53 AM

no, not at all, it hasn't already happened, how are you so misinformed?

the fact that it is unpaid is is certainly relevant, since being unpaid makes it impossible for most families to afford having both parents take off and makes it impossible for single parents to take off for more than what they absolutely have to. if it was paid leave, then taking maternity leave wouldn't contribute to the wage gap which would narrow that particular disparity.

i'm having trouble understanding how to explain that better, i thought it was fairly clear

9/30/2014 10:02:53 AM

Quote :

"being unpaid makes it impossible for most families to afford having both parents take off and makes it impossible for single parents to take off for more than what they absolutely have to."

Yes, families do this very thing. One parent (presumably the mother) takes off 3 months, then right after that the father takes off 3 months. Or take the leave at the same time, it doesn't affect this discussion.

In the long run, a child typically costs the parents close to 5 years equivalent of (one person's) wages. So 3 months of lost wages isn't the end-all-be-all. If fathers prioritize their work too highly to take their leave, then you won't fix that through greater generosity. It's a shitty form of wealth redistribution. If you want employers to further contribute to our children, then tax them more and build a goddam daycare system. Or daycare vouchers for all I care. It's more efficient than paying an employee to care for her child against her preferences, when her salary is set by skills having nothing to do with caring for a child. In your system, Marissa Mayer would get paid more for 1 week of caring for her child than most people get paid in a year. It's a dumb system.

Quote :

"if it was paid leave, then taking maternity leave wouldn't contribute to the wage gap which would narrow that particular disparity. "

And women would still fall behind in promotions and contributions to the work of their companies. All your solutions are poisoned.

[Edited on September 30, 2014 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

9/30/2014 10:21:39 AM

i said narrow, not solve, and said one particular disparity, not all

and you are still missing that what parents currently do is unpaid, which discourages both parents (and disproportionately discourages men) from taking time off.

if it was paid leave then both parents would take off more time and when both parents (men and women) are taking time off for maternity then it will become less of a negative for only women which means that they would be penalized less for it

in my head this is pretty obvious, you may think it's "dumb" but at least 120 countries have paid maternity leave

[Edited on September 30, 2014 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

9/30/2014 10:29:12 AM

The ability of men to take leave from their job does not come down strictly to laws anyways. I'm having a child soon, and my company does not offer paternity leave. Could I take 2 weeks vacation and then take unpaid leave for 3 months? Sure

Could the company express their disappointment in me, then give me a shitty bonus at the end of the year, or even fire me later for "performance issues"? The most likely would do the former, and possibly the latter, and there's nothing I could do about it

9/30/2014 12:38:10 PM

Quote :

"Could the company express their disappointment in me, then give me a shitty bonus at the end of the year, or even fire me later for "performance issues"? The most likely would do the former, and possibly the latter, and there's nothing I could do about it"

And with paid leave laws you'll find yourself canned suspiciously soon after the office finds out your wife is pregnant.

Are there ways around this? You can absolutely legislate out the issues as they come up like wack-a-mole. But dtownral needs to recognize that he's offered an astoundingly complicated solution which isn't compatible with US employment law as it stands, and certainly not NC law.

I'm not even necessarily opposed to the kind of European socialist utopia that this describes. But in the transition process, you are dancing on a knife-edge, risking throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The people who are hurt by halfway implementations are always the people you're trying to help.

9/30/2014 12:55:41 PM

its so broken and complicated that over 120 countries have paid maternity/paternity leave as well as a few US states

first you make it paid, the social acceptance will follow




[Edited on September 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM. Reason : look, paid leave is not a fringe issue, its one of the top issues regarding reproductive rights]

9/30/2014 12:59:07 PM

I'm still awfully curious how it's justifiable to compensate people for maternity leave based on their existing salary, since it's completely regressive. Why should we be implementing any regressive subsidy?

To satisfy dtownral's argument, it gets even worse. In order for it to make sense, a male CEO would be entitled to the full duration of paternity leave at his salary, obscenely inflated as it is. I don't dispute this would level the playing field, but it's a bribe which comes at too high of a cost. Considering that this is wealth redistribution, there are much much better ways to redistribute that wealth. If you exclude these individuals, then you don't satisfy your gender equality goals.

So it's either hugely complicated, or simply absurd. The fact that it's popular doesn't negate the blow-back from screwed up incentives. I can't even figure out how to make the incentives coherent in the first place. I'm still waiting someone to clear that up.

9/30/2014 1:49:59 PM

yeah, all of these things have been thought about before, that's why some systems involve both a minimum (that is sometimes even subsidized if you earn below a certain amount) and also a maximum benefit amount so that it's not too regressive. some systems even allow you to work partial hours.

its really not so complicated that it can't be worked out



[Edited on September 30, 2014 at 2:35 PM. Reason : you should do some reading]

9/30/2014 2:32:55 PM

http://www.thelocal.se/20121107/44276
Sweden's gender wage gap persists: study

I'm not confident that paid leave for men and women has any impact on the "wage gap problem" illustrating the non-issue nature of the "problem" you're trying to solve. I believe most of the gap is caused not by the obvious lost time for raising newborns but in the career choices women generally make to afford flexibility throughout the lives of their children.

The part I find completely ridiculous is that feminists think this is oppression. Maintaining a majority of the spending power, work less, be with your family more = oppression.

9/30/2014 2:41:15 PM

the career choices that women tend to make should be forced to pay more then

9/30/2014 2:42:46 PM

I'd respond if I didn't think you were trolling me. Crap I responded.

[Edited on September 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2014 2:45:58 PM