[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.

The best part is that to fix the issue, the article recommends also giving paternity leave to men, so they don't feel like women are getting special treatment, and so they can also get away with being lazy workers. 'Cause it's fine when men do it.

Ugh.

If I understand it correctly in Canada it's simply called 'parental leave' and either parent can take it, or they can split it, up to a total of a year. (not a parent so I may be way off base here). I don't think I've read any research on how that move has affected such views in our society but the general impression I get from my mom friends it sure sounds like they feel they're the ones who have to, even if it makes more financial sense (or whatever other reason) for the dad to be the one to take it.

pyxistyx wrote:

Y'know. I've been reading The Secret History of Wonder Woman, which covers a large chunk of the suffragette movement in the early 1900's (both Holloway and Byrne were involved in the movement), and it's shocking just how much of the language and excuses used by men today IS EXACTLY THE SAME language being used by them in the early 1900's. That's over a CENTURY ago now.

Yup, it's right up there with the late 1800s and early 1900s and views on new immigrants coming to the US. Pretty much exactly the same arguments, just with different illicit substances and different ethnic groups. :\

Hate, hate never changes.

LarryC wrote:

Wow. That's some grade A BS there. Wouldn't you have to at least stake out one position and stick with it? Should women work or take the leave? One or the other.

I think you're calling for rationality from unreflective reactions. Part of the value in this research is that it draws subconscious thoughts into our individual and social consciousness, where they can be discussed and hopefully mitigated.

Demyx wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Wow. That's some grade A BS there. Wouldn't you have to at least stake out one position and stick with it? Should women work or take the leave? One or the other.

They have staked out a position -- that women should really just leave the workforce once they are mothers. But they can't say that without getting in hot water.

And on top of that, if you don't need maternity leave because you aren't having kids, you're strange and threatening and there's something wrong with you.

You are definitely threatening.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

You are definitely threatening.

Whatever horrors and torture she is threatening you with, I hope she follows through.

Usually she threatens me with "The Bachelor".

*shudder*

Yellek wrote:
Demyx wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Wow. That's some grade A BS there. Wouldn't you have to at least stake out one position and stick with it? Should women work or take the leave? One or the other.

They have staked out a position -- that women should really just leave the workforce once they are mothers. But they can't say that without getting in hot water.

And on top of that, if you don't need maternity leave because you aren't having kids, you're strange and threatening and there's something wrong with you.

Maybe you could take some maternity leave due to having cats. I'm sure that wouldn't be strange or threatening!

I feel the fear.

I think she clearly deserves some sick pet leave, considering what happened to Mal!
Is that a thing in the US/Canada? Sick child leave?

Eleima wrote:

I think she clearly deserves some sick pet leave, considering what happened to Mal!
Is that a thing in the US/Canada? Sick child leave?

Well, I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US we only care about the health of a child until birth. After that, they're on their own. Sick child leave would be unamerican.

Eleima wrote:

I think she clearly deserves some sick pet leave, considering what happened to Mal!
Is that a thing in the US/Canada? Sick child leave?

I think the closest legal thing in the USA I can think of is FMLA leave, which does not have to be paid but your job is supposed to be protected. That is intended for longer (weeks) leave however.

Eleima wrote:

I think she clearly deserves some sick pet leave, considering what happened to Mal!
Is that a thing in the US/Canada? Sick child leave?

My job in Canada offers family illness days, paid time off to look after someone else who is sick, or even to look after your kids if all their caretakers are sick. The latter is how I've mostly used my FI days.

I can use one of my 2 sick days, 2 personal days, or one of my 10 vacation days. but luckily I have an awesome boss who lets me work from home as needed so I don't have to use any.

This article is so discouraging.

Women Get Lower Salary Offers When They Won't Say What They're Making.

So basically, as a woman, you should disclose your previous salary so as not to appear uncooperative, but probably lie and say it's higher in order to get a decent offer.

Yellek wrote:

This article is so discouraging.

Women Get Lower Salary Offers When They Won't Say What They're Making.

So basically, as a woman, you should disclose your previous salary so as not to appear uncooperative, but probably lie and say it's higher in order to get a decent offer.

Wait isn't that what everyone is supposed to do anyway?

Creepy guy on the street, has approached me multiple times and today I make out him saying "I would give you everything". I tell him no thanks, and curse my reflex to say "you too" after he ends with "have a nice night". I hope your night is terrible, actually.

Amoebic wrote:
Yellek wrote:

This article is so discouraging.

Women Get Lower Salary Offers When They Won't Say What They're Making.

So basically, as a woman, you should disclose your previous salary so as not to appear uncooperative, but probably lie and say it's higher in order to get a decent offer.

Wait isn't that what everyone is supposed to do anyway?

Eh, I just hate the idea of having to start off lying. It throws off my confidence level.

I consistently undervalued myself when I was working as a software guru in tech. Three separate times when interviewing for big companies, after enough years under my belt that I would be considered relatively senior, I asked for salaries that I thought were completely outrageous, along with full benefits, options, relocation assistance, the works. I figured they'd be a good place to start negotiating. Each time I got pretty much everything I asked for (which holy crap I should have asked for more, eh?).

Unfortunately, without a PhD in computer science, I eventually hit a parchment ceiling.

I was never asked what I was currently making. Isn't that kind of a shady question anyway? Maybe it's different now. I've been out of the market for a decade.

BadKen wrote:

I was never asked what I was currently making. Isn't that kind of a shady question anyway? Maybe it's different now. I've been out of the market for a decade.

We have asked this question to interviewees, not as some kind of nefarious tactic but simply to get an idea if they're out of reach or not. To avoid us making a fool of ourselves when proposing something too low-ball.

To be clear: that women have to lie to get a similar wage proposal as an equally qualified man is completely sexist and horrendous, but asking for someone's current/previous wage is not shady in and of itself.

dejanzie wrote:
BadKen wrote:

I was never asked what I was currently making. Isn't that kind of a shady question anyway? Maybe it's different now. I've been out of the market for a decade.

We have asked this question to interviewees, not as some kind of nefarious tactic but simply to get an idea if they're out of reach or not. To avoid us making a fool of ourselves when proposing something too low-ball.

To be clear: that women have to lie to get a similar wage proposal as an equally qualified man is completely sexist and horrendous, but asking for someone's current/previous wage is not shady in and of itself.

Ooookay, but doesn't asking for compensation requirements fill that purpose? It seems to me that asking about someone's current compensation is just an excuse to be stingy with an offer (or worse, discriminate against them). After all, an interviewer can't get that kind of personal information from a former employer.

I remember applying for one job that required you to use their interface to plug in all your work history including a required field for starting AND ending salary at each and every job you listed. Couldn't even put n/a to move past the field. I noped out and didn't apply.

BadKen wrote:
dejanzie wrote:
BadKen wrote:

I was never asked what I was currently making. Isn't that kind of a shady question anyway? Maybe it's different now. I've been out of the market for a decade.

We have asked this question to interviewees, not as some kind of nefarious tactic but simply to get an idea if they're out of reach or not. To avoid us making a fool of ourselves when proposing something too low-ball.

To be clear: that women have to lie to get a similar wage proposal as an equally qualified man is completely sexist and horrendous, but asking for someone's current/previous wage is not shady in and of itself.

Ooookay, but doesn't asking for compensation requirements fill that purpose? It seems to me that asking about someone's current compensation is just an excuse to be stingy with an offer (or worse, discriminate against them). After all, an interviewer can't get that kind of personal information from a former employer.

They can if you allow them to. I've run into employers that sometimes make it a condition of being hired (including my current one). I had to fill out a form and give it to HR at my previous employer so she could tell the new one what my salary had been.

I think asking current compensation is reasonable, though it certainly can lead the less scrupulous to attempt to low ball an offer.

As for lets say over stating current pay I suggest as an alternative plan be prepared to add when asked what you make today to say what you think is a reasonable minimum offer.

For a given company type it should be easy enough to find what is typical for your skill set and experience factoring cost of living changes. Point out this all is readily available information.

In my opinion this has the advantages that you do not risk being caught in a lie and you clearly set your expectation of reasonable compensation based on industry standards.

I still feel like based on what that article stated, women will be judged as uncooperative if they say anything other than a straight answer of current pay (true or otherwise). Any dancing around the issue or stating what you expect as your salary will be held against you.

Yeah, like a lot of things it affects men too, but women are affected in ways that makes it different in both degree and kind.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Yeah, like a lot of things it affects men too, but women are affected in ways that makes it different in both degree and kind.

Article says that men benefit from not responding.

I still think it's a horrible question to ask. Employers could just post the base salary up-front along with the job description and skills required rather than trying to keep everything secret if what they are really worried about is an applicant being out of their price range, and it doesn't waste an applicant's time applying for jobs with low-ball compensation for that set of skills.

Sure, we could tell employers that they shouldn't gender discriminate based on how applicants answer these types of questions, but why even provide that opportunity when it's going to continue to happen? It's a bad question.

bekkilyn wrote:

I still think it's a horrible question to ask. Employers could just post the base salary up-front along with the job description and skills required rather than trying to keep everything secret if what they are really worried about is an applicant being out of their price range, and it doesn't waste an applicant's time applying for jobs with low-ball compensation for that set of skills.

Sure, we could tell employers that they shouldn't gender discriminate based on how applicants answer these types of questions, but why even provide that opportunity when it's going to continue to happen? It's a bad question.

When I was hiring, we posted a salary range and it didn't stop people making $80,000+ from applying to our role advertising $40,000-50,000.

Edit: That also didn't stop us offering $55,000 for a spectacular candidate.