[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!

This thread is for discussing feminist issues--from the narrow meaning (a movement for social justice in terms of gender equality) to the broader meaning (a movement for social justice, period), and from the scope of issues in gaming and geek culture to kyriarchy in general.

Basic questions are allowed here for now, we will split out a Q&A thread should it become necessary.

Man, I'm not religious and I deeply distrust organized religion. But faith in The Party over everything is very uncomfortable to me.

Yep. But it's very real, here, on the Right.

question; What's the appropriate economic response to the asshole (typically mra) claim that

Spoiler:

"if women were really paid 70 cents on the dollar for equal work then every company would immediately jump to mostly or entirely female staffing to safe 30%!"

?

I don't enough enough about economic theory to make an educated response but I imagine there must be one.

krev82 wrote:

question; What's the appropriate economic response to the asshole (typically mra) claim that

Spoiler:

"if women were really paid 70 cents on the dollar for equal work then every company would immediately jump to mostly or entirely female staffing to safe 30%!"

?

I don't enough enough about economic theory to make an educated response but I imagine there must be one.

Because men are still the safer bet. They won't get pregnant, they won't leave work for months to take care of that child. And the things that employers like in men are things they don't like in women, so women have an even harder time getting hired outside of "feminine careers".

Also, many careers are still gendered in spite of men and women doing pretty much all of them.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the 70% based on overall or average or something rather than a direct comparison of the same position?

krev82 wrote:

question; What's the appropriate economic response to the asshole (typically mra) claim that

Spoiler:

"if women were really paid 70 cents on the dollar for equal work then every company would immediately jump to mostly or entirely female staffing to safe 30%!"

?

I don't enough enough about economic theory to make an educated response but I imagine there must be one.

Because very few companies if any have any kind of policy about paying women less as a rule. One of the main reasons that women get paid less in general is because they get hired but then are overlooked for promotions and raises, partially because there is a huge stigma against women asking for them. In white collar work, that can turn into a cycle: you're getting less pay and less title, and that's reflected on your resume, so the next person who hires you doesn't feel like they need to pay you much more than you're already getting, etc.

krev82 wrote:

question; What's the appropriate economic response to the asshole (typically mra) claim that

Spoiler:

"if women were really paid 70 cents on the dollar for equal work then every company would immediately jump to mostly or entirely female staffing to safe 30%!"

?

I don't enough enough about economic theory to make an educated response but I imagine there must be one.

My understanding is that it confuses correlation with causation. And explaining that to an MRA won't change his mind.

One aspect of the lower wage is a result of employers less likely to hire women. This means fewer positions available to women, and low demand/high supply inherently leads to lower wages. "Every company would immediately jump to mostly or entirely female staffing to safe 30%!" ignores the basic fact that companies already have an inherent bias against hiring women to begin with.

I could be wrong. I'm not an economist and I don't really study this stuff.

70% is the average. It includes the fact that women are typically relegated to lower-paying positions.

One of the most obscene demonstrations of this I've seen is in public school education. Teachers (a role dominated by women) are severely underpaid. School administrators, on the other hand, tend to get more reasonable or even excessive (in some peoples' view) pay. You'd think that in a field dominated by women, that would all even out... but it doesn't, because women don't climb that administrative ladder, men do. And it's not just because women prefer to actually teach, because there are less women every rung up that ladder. With both women and men climbing that ladder tending to start as teachers, you'd think things would end up the other way... but women in the highest leadership positions of public schools are still quite rare. Maybe not as rare as in other places... but given the disparity at the start, you'd expect *men* in such leadership positions to be rare if all else were equal.

So that's how things work in a *woman-dominated field.*

Another thing to consider is that whether or not it is reasonable to take pregnancy/etc. into account, if the cultural assumption is that men's work is more valuable than women's work, then of course job positions aren't going to be filled by cheaper women... because women are cheaper because they are perceived as being not as good, even if they are as good.

I've seen this personally in tech. Woman is doing fantastic work. New boychik comes in, has to be helped by her over and over again (which she does, despite the disrespect he shows her when he doubts she really understands the system... that *she wrote*). Six months later, boychik somehow ends up being given lead on the woman's pet project that she'd been trying to drum up support for for over a year.

At which point the woman says "f*ck it", and starts looking into working in some other place or in some other field where she might get paid less but at least she won't be treated like sh*t.

Yeah, one of my biggest beefs with how the wage gap number gets thrown around is that people take it to mean:
Engineer A is a dude and earns $100,000
Engineer B is a lady and earns $70,000

But as Hypatian explained, that's not the way the number should be used or interpreted. It takes into account women's tendencies to work in lower paying fields (teaching, social work, etc), stay at home, or work fewer hours per week (like me). You could argue that I make 10% less than my peers who work 40 hrs/wk to my 36 (or fewer on some weeks). But it was a choice I made after having my kid, and I don't feel like I've been a victim of the "motherhood penalty".

A handy title to attach a concept to is sometimes helpful: pink collar ghetto (although that last word may be problematic these days).

This is not to say that there isn't a gender gap in tech positions. In many places there is a gender gap when comparing the same job, just that it isn't necessarily 30%. I've seen some studies, but I don't have time to dig them up right now, so I will find them and post again.

(To be continued)

Obama just permanently protected women's rights to contraceptives and abortion.

One of the main concerns about the results of the US Presidential election is the impact Donald Trump will have on women’s rights. He is prolifically misogynist, boasts about sexually assaulting women and wants to get rid of abortion; these aren’t just things that show being sexist can boost a man’s career – they starkly oppress the freedoms of women.

But Barack Obama is here to save the day, once again. The Obama administration has just signed off on a rule that will permanently protect Planned Parenthood, the nonprofit which provides access to birth control, sexual health and cancer screenings and, in some of its clinics, abortions.

The monumental ruling will see US states blocked from defunding the family planning provider for “political reasons”. The the Department of Health and Human Services-proposed rule says that ‘Title X’ family planning – basic reproductive support for 4 million low-income Americans. Funding can only be withheld if the provider’s “ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries” is not done so “in an effective manner”.

The rule will extend to protect Planned Parenthood from states who want to defund it there purely because some clinics offer pregnancy termination services.

That's great, but how is it permanent? If it's an executive order can't Trump just reverse it?

This is great, but I couldn't find anything in the links how this works. Was it an executive order? How was it implemented in such a way that Trump can't just wipe it out when he comes in?

I just saw the link - I don't really know how these things play out over there

Obama only signed off on it after the comment period was over, DHHS were the ones that actually proposed it. (Link to an article from when the rule was first proposed in September)
It sounds like it could be reversed, but Trump would have to have the Department of Health and Human Services propose a new amendment to undo this one. Since the president gets to appoint the leaders of the DHHS (Secretary of Health and Human Services and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services), I think it is something Trump could undo.

Ok, a quick primer on how rulemaking and regulations actually work, since it's not something most people know much about, including me a few years ago.

Rulemaking starts when Congress enacts a statute; much of the legislation that Congress does is less about new laws and more about directing the Federal agencies to do something. Though the where the specific rulemaking comes from is a bit more varied.

From there, the agency in question issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, followed by publishing the rule in the Federal Register. Once it's published, there's a period of public comment, when anyone can submit written comments. (This, by the way, is one of the best but little known ways to influence the Executive branch: agencies are often required to respond to every comment.) They have to justify the rule under a long list of relevant metrics.

After the comment period, they respond to the public comments and publish the Final Rule. Though the Draft Final Rule first needs to be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget: Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, OIRA is required to make sure that all the non-rulemaking alternatives have been considered and to do a cost/benefit analysis. OIRA is the cause of a lot of delays.

If the Final Rule isn't challenged, it takes effect. A lot of the earlier process is designed to carefully avoid getting challenged in court, which is one reason why the whole process takes so long.

I should say, it takes effect...as long as Congress approves giving funding to it.

I'm radically simplifying the process here; the nuances of each step get even more complicated.

(This, by the way is why I'm dubious about Trump's plans to remove two rules for every one that gets added. The process is already super-elaborate, and the definition of what counts as "one rule" is a bit squishy.)

The rulemaking in question is Document Number 2016-21359, which will alter 42 CFR 59.3.

THIS HERE. THIS RIGHT HERE. THIS.

Hypatian wrote:

At which point the woman says "f*ck it", and starts looking into working in some other place or in some other field where she might get paid less but at least she won't be treated like sh*t.

I'm going to quote everything like that from now on.

Gremlin wrote:

(This, by the way is why I'm dubious about Trump's plans to remove two rules for every one that gets added. The process is already super-elaborate, and the definition of what counts as "one rule" is a bit squishy.)

What's stopping him from just ignoring all that?

Demyx wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

(This, by the way is why I'm dubious about Trump's plans to remove two rules for every one that gets added. The process is already super-elaborate, and the definition of what counts as "one rule" is a bit squishy.)

What's stopping him from just ignoring all that?

I'm no expert, but I think the main check is the judicial branch. The entire process is geared so that the regulation will survive a juridical challenge. Anyone can challenge the rule in court.

Now, some of these procedures and requirements exist because of executive orders. He could, for example, revoke Order 12866 and 13563, and eliminate the ORIA review. But most of those executive orders are designed to reduce the regulations that get passed and raise the bar for government intervention. He'd have to issue new orders with new requirements.

Other restrictions, however, are part of existing statutes. Each agency has a specific authority granted by Congress, is required by law to follow the procedures in the APA, and is not allowed to violate constitutional or statutory rights. If your rights are violated, you can sue.

From the legislative side, as I said, Congress controls appropriations. If they decide not to fund part of the process or the result, it doesn't get implemented. For example, if they pass a law requiring a study to be done as part of a particular bill, and then later decline to fund that study, they can block the rulemaking process. Given the current political landscape, that's less likely, of course.

Great write up Gremlin. I live in the world of environmental regulations, which have become a legal minefield in recent years. Regulations are constantly being stayed, vacated, remanded, repealed, or stuck in proposal limbo. I had to chuckle when I saw "permanent" in a headline about a regulation.

Gremlin wrote:

If the Final Rule isn't challenged, it takes effect. A lot of the earlier process is designed to carefully avoid getting challenged in court, which is one reason why the whole process takes so long.

I should say, it takes effect...as long as Congress approves giving funding to it.

Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate+House have the absolute power to kill any new regulation, nevermind just withholding funding.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

If the Final Rule isn't challenged, it takes effect. A lot of the earlier process is designed to carefully avoid getting challenged in court, which is one reason why the whole process takes so long.

I should say, it takes effect...as long as Congress approves giving funding to it.

Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate+House have the absolute power to kill any new regulation, nevermind just withholding funding.

Yeah, good point. I should emphasize: when I said I was radically simplifying the description, I meant it.

Promised link to Pay Gap comparing Like to Like jobs. - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/12/pf/g...

Article Topics: wrote:

1. Women generally earn 79 cents for every dollar men earn.
2. The pay gap really adds up.
3. The gap is often much smaller if you compare like to like.
4. Still, no industry yet offers equal pay for equal work.
5. Some high-skilled jobs have the worst pay gaps.
6. Occasionally, though, women get paid more than men.

The doctor example is really surprising and one I don't understand. In my (former) practice for example, which was a private practice group, our doctors are paid based on productivity - the more patients you see the more you earn - and an even split of profits. Everyone is paid on the same formula and for transparency everyone sees what everyone else makes. The men in the practice tend to earn more but that is because many of the women restrict their hours so practice at 80 or 90 percent time so earn less.

So it's true the women (on average) earn less but would that be considered equal work when they are seeing fewer patients? It seems like they accounted for that but I'm guessing it would be hard to really account for it unless you dug deep. On the outside it looks like we pay females in our group less but I don't see how it could be a more equitable system.

What that makes me question, is WHY the women all seem to restrict their hours. Presumably, due to time needed at home, and the fact it's assumed the household/kids be primarily managed by the woman. While your practice can't exactly be held accountable for that, it goes back to the overall assumption that it's ok for women to bear the brunt of that work and not acceptable for men to adjust their schedules to accommodate taking care of it equally.

For sure that is some of it but in medicine it's a little more complicated. I'm too lazy to look it up but in my experience many physicians are married to other physicians. I think that's a whole different discussion on the societal restrictions for highly successful highly educated women when it comes to a partner.

So in our practice for sure there are some women who restrict their practice for home responsibilities. But that's actually a minority. Many of the highest earners have young children and hire a nanny. One of our surgeons has a stay at home husband.

The ones who really limit their practice are childless but married to docs - one a cardiologist, one an ophthalmologist - and they just really don't need to be high earners.

But no question for many female physicians restricting hours is due to wanting to be home for children. And it's not usually for typical household duties as almost all the docs I know hire help for housecleaning and lawn care. It's more of a desire to be there for sports and school activities, etc. And that certainly has to do with gender. But Im not sure how you fix that?

DocJoe, the system you are describing is equal work for equal pay. The women get paid by the same formula as the men (assuming the base values are the same). They choose to work fewer hours in order to have time to (insert priority here). Choosing to work fewer hours is a societal pressure/expectation that can contribute to the pay gap if the number of hours worked then feeds into promotions or pay raises, but does not have to be a negative.

So I don't want this to devolve into a commentary on healthcare but I think it is illustrative of some of the issues in pay inequity in what is about as egalitarian system as I can think of.

Physicians in the US are paid for doing something. That something can range from procedures like surgery (that pay the most), physically seeing patients (and not by the hour but essentially by the visit) or in my field things like administering chemotherapy (which is what pays oncologists by far the most). So you can see where the pay incentive lies - with doing things to patients.

In my field, the most highly compensated docs are the ones who see the most patients. They are also by and large the worst doctors. Listening and talking to patients, going over treatment options, all of the things that we think of as the qualities that we appreciate in our doctors results in less compensation. And in oncology, you don't get paid for helping a patient understand that it is in their best interests to stop treatment. You get paid for giving them more treatment.

So when I think about the doctors that I know, the "traditional" female gender role - listening, comforting, etc - does not pay well. I'm running the risk of stereotyping here but I think this is one of the reasons male doctors tend to be more "productive". It is certainly largely true in my specialty. I would think that maybe professions such as law would be similar?