|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is more that it's systemic to the entertainment industry, and that attacking videogames specifically absolutely misses the point, not to mention being (for numerous reasons) especially resistant to change due to social pressure.I really want to address this one, because it really, really bugs me.
1) She has videos on movies, books and children's games. She isn't just 'targeting video games'.
2) That isn't a reason to NOT talk about video games, just because it exists in other places. I care about in video games because I enjoy video games, but I would also like the culture surrounding them to be more inclusive to people.
I'm sorry we aren't trying to solve the whole worlds problems with every breath, but that isn't a reasonable expectation. Stop saying it isn't worthy of being talked about, because it is affecting people and they should be allowed to talk about it.
Edit: I think most of what happens is unintentional and people don't realize they're doing it. Here's a gaming commentator talking about how he used to be an ignorant sexist, but hopes he's learning and doing better.
I think that a large part of the hatred for Anita Sarkeesian and the resistance to accept that these issues are really, how shall I say this, well issues, is the fact that basically in our country it's been shown that 75 - 90% of our disposable income spent of entertainment is spent by women. Which also means that in most venues, the advertising is also specifically focused to target women. That's already the norm all over the place. Now in niche markets, like specifically gaming/video games, where the vast majority of the population that buys is male, trying to insinuate the agenda that she does is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly, or both) as an attempt to outright ruin one of the last bastions of escapism, check your PC BS at the door and chillax a lot of people have or want.
You don't go to a party and than throw a fit till everyone else changes the music for you, you go and enjoy what everyone else is grooving to, or you go to another party.
Where did you pick up those statistics, Irontruth?
|
|
The other aspect of the wage gap is that women do most of the house work, even in households where both have a full time job. Women average 11 hours more housework per week, not including child care, for which they usually shoulder the majority burden as well.
What's the relevant part, though is if it's by choice or not (on average). Generally, woman choose to work less at work and more at home, but usually also doesn't account for things like mechanical work on vehicles, mowing the yard, and other things in addition to the 56+ hour work week. In general, women also feel that certain aspects of the housework are theirs, and do not trust others to do it to their standards, again choosing this rather than being forced into it. In the end, it still works out that way. Hour to hour, there is no wage gap.
Now obviously, this is generalized, and there are exceptions both ways pretty evenly. Men have become much more common "house fathers" in the last few years, and there are plenty of women that work right up there with the guys. But they are both much more exceptions than the average.
|
|
Where did you pick up those statistics, Irontruth?
Oh it's true. But jut like with the wage gap as a whole, you really have to put in into perspective to see the real deal. The 11 hours more house/kid work also is a little bit misrepresented. It fluctuates much more, because it involves thing like typically the mother takes the kid(s) to the doctors, but that likely doesn't happen every single week. So the 11 hours is a sort of broad average.
Bad statistics can be hilarious. The meme that Africans are so much less a burden on the environment because look at how much less toilet paper they use is a particularly fine example.
I am sure you have heard it. Americans use so and so many rolls of paper per week, while Africans only use a SINGLE SQUARE per day!!!
Yeah. My guess is: Rolls sold per year, divided by total population. I seriously doubt they excluded the people who are too poor to use toilet paper at all, leading to said "environmentally friendly" statistic.
However, the kicker is that if you actually compare men and women and also do take into account that the average full time hours for a man is 50+/week, while it is 36(ish) for women (usually by choice), that men also tend to accept more dangerous jobs where women tend to refuse them, men also tend to be forced to accept jobs that require more travelling or include aspects that they do not like, but will do them anyway, and also take into account that men generally take much less time off/away from work (both for personal time and health care, but also are more likely o work through lunch if asked), we actually find that the pay gap is non-existent.
According to this Fox Business News editorial (which is the same Fox article you linked) the Department of Labor statistics suggest that men work 9% more hours than women.
Which doesn't jive at all with your 36/50+ hours a week disparity.
gaming/video games, where the vast majority of the population that buys is male, trying to insinuate the agenda that she does is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly, or both) as an attempt to outright ruin one of the last bastions of escapism, check your PC BS at the door and chillax a lot of people have or want.
You don't go to a party and than throw a fit till everyone else changes the music for you, you go and enjoy what everyone else is grooving to, or you go to another party.
I just want to clarify.
Are you arguing for keeping sexism in games right there?
If not, single sentence restatement of intent would be helpful.
Next you tell me there's something sexist in separating bathrooms between men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms.
There's a fine line between wanting equality and trying to stomp the other side with irrational demands.
And apparently, women don't ever objectify men in any way, but the opposite always happens.
Lastly, that's a loaded question Irontruth. Don't try to put words in the Advocate's mouth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
College. I honestly couldn't tell you the various sources anymore, but here's what a 5 sec Google search showed for starts (I just grabbed a few to be honest), and when I get up I'll do a more honest look for you.
So, this is interesting, I thought:
"Men, in contrast, often take jobs with less desirable characteristics in pursuit of higher pay. They work long hours and overnight shifts. They tar roofs in the sun, drive trucks across the country, toil in sewer systems, stand watch as prison guards, and risk injury on fishing boats, in coal mines, and in production plants. Such jobs pay more than others because otherwise no one would want to do them."
I looked up a bunch of these jobs: tar roofers, over-the-road truck drivers, sewer toilers and coal miners on those Pay for XXX websites. None of them were terribly lucrative positions, most of them in the mid $40k range. In fact, I don't think a single one of them compared overwhelmingly favorably to teachers' salaries.
For example: Roofers
So, if men make more money because they are performing dangerous, dirty, menial jobs...then how come those jobs pay about the same or less than teaching?
And how come dirty, menial jobs that nobody wants to do like cleaning toilets or taking care of patients in old folks' homes (which, I hear, can be quite a dangerous profession) don't pay more?
That's actually a good question, since the current model makes no damned sense.
Politicians get paid like crazy for just sitting around and fiddling with their fingers here in Finland.
Meanwhile, miners risk dying if the freaking mine collapses or something, yet they don't get even half that cash...
Well, I dropped out of Catholicism before I was confirmed, but I don't recall any religious (or, for, that matter, cultural) reasons to pay roofers more than toilet cleaners.
Edit: Citizen Icyshadow's edit made my post irrelevant.
Sorry, I have a bad habit of sorts. My mind shuts down for a moment when I write, then reboots long enough for me to edit the text and finish the thought I had.
Lastly, that's a loaded question Irontruth. Don't try to put words in the Advocate's mouth.
I'm honestly asking for clarification. I made that statement because that is how it reads to me. If that isn't his intention, he's welcome to reword it and explain what he means.
Would you like to know how I came to that summation though?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ guy In the wage disparity gap, the issue I that certain groups purposefully presented faulty info, comparing full-time women to full-time men, and then also part-time women to part-time men, which side by side appears to show that men make more money in the exact same job/circumstance.
However, the kicker is that if you actually compare men and women and also do take into account that the average full time hours for a man is 50+/week, while it is 36(ish) for women (usually by choice), that men also tend to accept more dangerous jobs where women tend to refuse them, men also tend to be forced to accept jobs that require more travelling or include aspects that they do not like, but will do them anyway, and also take into account that men generally take much less time off/away from work (both for personal time and health care, but also are more likely o work through lunch if asked), we actually find that the pay gap is non-existent.
It's really only if you look at it from a very skewed way can you find the that show woman are underpaid, and the fact is, they are not, with some more realistic numbers indicated that women might even be at 1% over men, when all thing are taken into account.
Except for all those damn inconvienient studies that show the same resume with only a name change being sent out and getting vastly different call back rates and salary offers.
The other aspect of the wage gap is that women do most of the house work, even in households where both have a full time job. Women average 11 hours more housework per week, not including child care, for which they usually shoulder the majority burden as well.
Does house work include yard work?
Where did you pick up those statistics, Irontruth?
Here's one study. An hour off on the difference, the other one I saw was a UK study (17-6, vs the 17-7 for the American study).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other aspect of the wage gap is that women do most of the house work, even in households where both have a full time job. Women average 11 hours more housework per week, not including child care, for which they usually shoulder the majority burden as well.Does house work include yard work?
Do you think a statistically significant number of men would NOT report yard work as chores?
Yard Work at the Ancestral Anklebiter Home:
My father, who is a lifetime member and enthusiast of the local Fish and Game association, has a formula that for every hour of yard work he does on my parents' house, he can do two down "at the Club."
This ends up with, indeed, my mother doing most of the yard work at their home.
She complains sometimes, but I think, by now, she realizes that The Club has been the secret of their successful lifelong monogamy.
Of course, my mother also works more hours than he does, and also makes more per hour, I think.
Anklebiter men are a lazy, shiftless lot.
Do you think a statistically significant number of men would NOT report yard work as chores?The other aspect of the wage gap is that women do most of the house work, even in households where both have a full time job. Women average 11 hours more housework per week, not including child care, for which they usually shoulder the majority burden as well.Does house work include yard work?
Depends on the wording of the study. House work is girly and possibly embarrassing, mowing the lawn and cutting down shrubs is MANLY. Some folks might not consider it housework either for those reasons, or because its outside.
Also time and effort aren't the same thing. Doing Laundry or mopping the floor isn't nearly as hard as mowing the lawn.
For example: RoofersSo, if men make more money because they are performing dangerous, dirty, menial jobs...then how come those jobs pay about the same or less than teaching?
They pay more compared to other jobs of the same skill level.
You don't even need to have graduated the third grade to tar a roof or mine coal, but most states require a bachelors degree too teach high school.Now, compared to other professions that require a college degree, teaching pays squat, especially for math/science/engineering teachers.
It's a matter of comparing apples to apples, not apples to llamas. And some 60%+ of college graduates are women.
Also time and effort aren't the same thing. Doing Laundry or mopping the floor isn't nearly as hard as mowing the lawn.
Of my friends and relatives that own homes, none of them consider the stuff they do outside housework because it is recreational. My friend Dennis, for example, fixes cars as a hobby so working for 14+ hours over a weekend to fix his or his wife's car is like an opportunity to work on a project. Same with gardening.
My dad is the same way. He elects to do almost all the "yard work" which includes tending multiple gardens and about an acre of prairie because by hobby and by profession he's a botanist/horticulturalist whereas his wife is a financial planner.
I don't mean this to disagree with you, IT, just in answer to your question.
Anklebiter men are a lazy, shiftless lot.
Damn! The elder Mr Gersen used to leave for work at 4:30 am and get home, if he was lucky, by 7:30 or 8:30 pm. We younger Gersens didn't begrudge him some time alone in the garage endlessly tinkering with old automobile parts (the old man's only hobby, and when I was in high school he had no friends at all that I know of).
The sad thing is, compared to the elder Mrs Gersen, he was lazy and shiftless! My mother worked 10x harder than he did, I think. And my wife is constantly scolding me for being lazy.
The only other place I'm aware of where women earn more then men (besides porn of course) is at Wimbledon where men and women now enjoy the same prize money but women have fewer matches.
Go ahead and add my job. The CEO is a woman, over half the executive and administrative staff are women, virtually all of HR/Scheduling and Training departments are women (save one individual, who is a total dbag, but that's neither here nor there). Of the 36 supervisors in 6 zones there are 9 men.
So virtually the entire advancement ladder is jammed up with women. This despite the fact that, of the actual rank and file employees (CAs), men account for the same amount of hours worked. The actual proportion of women to men is something likd 60/40 but relatively few of the women work full time (lots of soccer moms, college students, and elderly ladies supplementing their retirement income) whereas virtually all men do.
So a significantly disproportionate number of women are selected for advancement, which includes a lighter workload and higher paygrade, than men.
I'm not going to try to tell you this is the same everywhere, in fact I suspect the opposite is true in most places, but it is an anomaly in which I live.
more or less complete disappearance of capable, intelligent, skilled teachers because it pays so poorly etc.
I know I got out as soon as I'd saved enough for grad school. And a lot of my so-called "colleagues" were probably less qualified than the janitor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They pay more compared to other jobs of the same skill level.
You don't even need to have graduated the third grade to tar a roof or mine coal, but most states require a bachelors degree too teach high school.Now, compared to other professions that require a college degree, teaching pays squat, especially for math/science/engineering teachers.
It's a matter of comparing apples to apples, not apples to llamas. And some 60%+ of college graduates are women.
Yeah, I get that.
But here's her original argument:
"Women tend to seek jobs with regular hours, more comfortable conditions, little travel, and greater personal fulfillment. Often times, women are willing to trade higher pay for jobs with other characteristics that they find attractive.
Men, in contrast, often take jobs with less desirable characteristics in pursuit of higher pay. They work long hours and overnight shifts. They tar roofs in the sun, drive trucks across the country, toil in sewer systems, stand watch as prison guards, and risk injury on fishing boats, in coal mines, and in production plants. Such jobs pay more than others because otherwise no one would want to do them."
And it strikes me as pretty strange. First, because the jobs she lists as manly jobs that pay a lot, don't. Second, because the jobs that I can think of that hit the same criteria (minus the travel, but how many coal miners travel?) that are "for women" pay even less. Third, because if women are taking jobs that afford greater personal fulfillment, doesn't that indicate that at least some of them are getting college degrees? And then they only end up making the same as the undesirable "manly man" jobs?
I don't know, almost every line in those two paragraphs sets off my bullshiznit-detector alarm.
I also don't really have any particular thoughts on the whole wage gap think. Where I work we have a f*+%ing union. You better believe men and women make the same amount for the same job.
If it were a class issue then there would be just as many female CEOs, from the same social background, making just as much money as the men, as class isn't gender specific.
I just have to unpack this, as well.
1) I'm not saying it's not a gender issue, I'm saying it's not necessarily purely an example of bias or prejudice. It's entirely likely that there are simply less women going to school for business or finance degrees that lead to CEO positions.
2) If it were merely a gender issue you'd expect to see the same pay gap bear out through all income levels. Instead we see the gap widen as pay increases, especially so once you get into the 6 and 7 figure range.
So part of the issue to me isn't whether there's a problem with this, because I think it is indicative of a problem (institutional sexism in Wall Street) but whether it's something that social reform and new laws can fix. You can't force women to go into business and finance, and you can't force publicly traded companies to elect on the basis of gender; the trends are either market driven or an aggregate manifestation of individual bias on Wall Street.
Yeah, I get that.
But here's her original argument:[SNIP]
And it strikes me as pretty strange. First, because the jobs she lists as manly jobs that pay a lot, don't. Second, because the jobs that I can think of that hit the same criteria (minus the travel, but how many coal miners travel?) that are "for women" pay even less. Third, because if women are taking jobs that afford greater personal fulfillment, doesn't that indicate that at least some of them are getting college degrees? And then they only end up making the same as the undesirable "manly man" jobs?I don't know, almost every line in those two paragraphs sets off my bullshiznit-detector alarm.
I also don't really have any particular thoughts on the whole wage gap think. Where I work we have a f~+~ing union. You better believe men and women make the same amount for the same job.
I guess you don't think of 40k a year as a lot.
As someone getting by on 15-20k a year it's a king's ransom.The actual median wage in my state is about 26k a year, and someone making 40k is several standard deviations above the average.
But then, I work in a traditionally "girly" job in an office answering phones (er...sort of).
Women do get more college degrees, significantly more actually, but a lot of them go into "frivolous" things (notice scare quotes) like education, social sciences, underwater basketweaving, humanities, etc. Which I can't blame them for because I find that stuff infinitely more interesting than math or science.
So if you go to college for 7 years and get a bachelors in womens studies and a masters in social work, come out 100k in debt and are offered a 12 dollar an hour job at a womens shelter, should society compensate you because you're a woman making less than a man with the same amount of education working as an aeronautical engineer? I leave that as an open question, not suggesting an answer at this time.
...
I don't know, almost every line in those two paragraphs sets off my bullshiznit-detector alarm.
Your not alone in this
I also don't really have any particular thoughts on the whole wage gap think. Where I work we have a f&@~ing union. You better believe men and women make the same amount for the same job.
Even with union jobs you have to worry about opportunity gaps, where a woman's resume will less likely result in an interview. You also can have issues with women recieving less positive reviews for the same behavior, resulting in lower rate of promotion. Those are hard to identify and deal with, but studies have found both to be quite common in many fields.
I guess you don't think of 40k a year as a lot.
As someone getting by on 15-20k a year it's a king's ransom.
Yeah, I'm in the same income range. (I only work part-time--I was including myself in the lazy and shiftless Anklebiter men.)
But more importantly than what you or I think, does someone writing for Forbes, The Capitalist's Tool thinks 40k is a lot?
Even with union jobs you have to worry about opportunity gaps, where a woman's resume will less likely result in an interview. You also can have issues with women recieving less positive reviews for the same behavior, resulting in lower rate of promotion. Those are hard to identify and deal with, but studies have found both to be quite common in many fields.
Reviews?!? Promotions?!? What kind of shiznitty union is this?!?
We do things by seniority.
Even with union jobs you have to worry about opportunity gaps, where a woman's resume will less likely result in an interview. You also can have issues with women recieving less positive reviews for the same behavior, resulting in lower rate of promotion. Those are hard to identify and deal with, but studies have found both to be quite common in many fields.
I'd be interested to see these studies, have any linkage handy?
Anklebiter men are a lazy, shiftless lot.Damn! The elder Mr Gersen used to leave for work at 4:30 am and get home, if he was lucky, by 7:30 or 8:30 pm. We younger Gersens didn't begrudge him some time alone in the garage endlessly tinkering with old automobile parts (the old man's only hobby, and when I was in high school he had no friends at all that I know of).
The sad thing is, compared to the elder Mrs Gersen, he was lazy and shiftless! My mother worked 10x harder than he did, I think. And my wife is constantly scolding me for being lazy.
In Papa Anklebiter's defense, this is post-layoff. I think he made more and worked more hours until the late '90s.
I think the Yard Work Rule has always been in place, though.
The actual median wage in my state is about 26k a year, and someone making 40k is several standard deviations above the average.
Interestingly, the median wage of a Milwaukee roofer was about $3,500 less than the national median, ending up at $29,500 or something. I couldn't find stats for a Wisconsin truck driver-- 2nd EDIT: it drops $7,000 from $42k to $35k--, and I don't think you guys have coal miners, but I could be wrong.
So if you go to college for 7 years and get a bachelors in womens studies and a masters in social work, come out 100k in debt and are offered a 12 dollar an hour job at a womens shelter, should society compensate you because you're a woman making less than a man with the same amount of education working as an aeronautical engineer? I leave that as an open question, not suggesting an answer at this time.
I don't know about all that, but I think the idea of someone taking care of battered women making $12/hr is pretty scandalous.
My edit ruined your joke, Citizen Krensky. My apologies.
Our median for everything is going to be a bit low, though, because there's lower cost of living, other than Madison and Milwaukee which cost as much as your bigger cities. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.
|
|
gaming/video games, where the vast majority of the population that buys is male, trying to insinuate the agenda that she does is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly, or both) as an attempt to outright ruin one of the last bastions of escapism, check your PC BS at the door and chillax a lot of people have or want.
You don't go to a party and than throw a fit till everyone else changes the music for you, you go and enjoy what everyone else is grooving to, or you go to another party.
I just want to clarify.
Are you arguing for keeping sexism in games right there?
If not, single sentence restatement of intent would be helpful.
I'm simply making an observation on why individuals like Anita and the idea that video games and gaming being full of womyn hatezes is not universally agreed upon, and even if it is acknowledged as sexist, generally taken as going both ways. I'm not in any way making a personal opinion.
To me, the closest argument that would make sense is to take something that women do much more than men, and do to relax and get away from the world that is bugging them, (work, dealing with other people, whatever). Running on little sleep and just waking up, the first thing that comes to mind is social interactions. So to make things like facebook and texting more "man friendly", a similar push would be along the lines of, hey lets put some more sexual/attractive images into facebook, and maybe add some sound affects of dice rolling, famous action movie quotes, and maybe some guns shot sounds, and lets built it in directly so it can't be turned off, but rather change the way the basic social interaction programs work.
How well do you think that would be received, (regardless of if it's a good r bad, or even both idea), buy the (for the sake of argument much more female-centric current users), who go there for an escape from the real world.
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.
Still not getting your point.
|
|
Bad statistics can be hilarious. The meme that Africans are so much less a burden on the environment because look at how much less toilet paper they use is a particularly fine example.
I am sure you have heard it. Americans use so and so many rolls of paper per week, while Africans only use a SINGLE SQUARE per day!!!
Yeah. My guess is: Rolls sold per year, divided by total population. I seriously doubt they excluded the people who are too poor to use toilet paper at all, leading to said "environmentally friendly" statistic.
If your going to assert that the statistics are bad with the implication that they are ridiculous and false, pleases show counter studies or proof of some kind. Unrelated anecdotal stories don't really show anything.
Which doesn't jive at all with your 36/50+ hours a week disparity.
It's possible that that link is using a different year of study than what I'd last read. I believe, it was 2009-2011 while, I might have read something more recent. It's also possible that you are not accounting for the part-time work on both sides, with more young men going for jobs earlier than women more often, though again not universal.
As for the jobs question, I'm not really understanding what you are asking. Are you considering jobs in the military, police, firefighters, trash clean-up, and much more along the broad spectrum. Also, in all of those cases (minus trash) women are actively targeted for promotion over men, hoping to encourage more women to join.
Except for all those damn inconvenient studies that show the same resume with only a name change being sent out and getting vastly different call back rates and salary offers.
Could you show some of these studies? I'm not familiar with them.
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.Still not getting your point.
Not to speak for Doodlebug, but I believe he's pointing out that, by the time you get promoted (through whatever means) to a high income position, your salary still doesn't match your expenses. M'lord Dice complains about this whenever he totals his ledgers.
Or, he may be saying that one high-earner can throw off the bell-curve. I've asked m'lord Dice about that, but he just laughs and laughs whenever I raise the subject.
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.Still not getting your point.
At one point you were like, woah, Doodlebug, $40k is a lot of money here in WI where we're all dirt poor, and I'm saying those jobs apparently don't pay $40k in WI.
Are you considering jobs in the military, police, firefighters, trash clean-up, and much more along the broad spectrum.
No. I was only considering the jobs that Ms. Lukas used to illustrate her point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to speak for Doodlebug, but I believe he's pointing out that, by the time you get promoted (through whatever means) to a high income position, your salary still doesn't match your expenses. M'lord Dice complains about this whenever he totals his ledgers.
Or, he may be saying that one high-earner can throw off the bell-curve. I've asked m'lord Dice about that, but he just laughs and laughs whenever I raise the subject.
What am I saying now, Dicey?
[Smack]