discipline posted:
Do you mean in the United States or elsewhere/worldwide?
USA would be nice; I was just curious and wanted to see a little chart that says which fields are the most unequal, and/or indicates whether public sector does a fairer job of things than the dirty low class private sector.
Lykourgos posted:
How do the statistics compare between different fields/sectors? curious who are the worst offenders when it comes to unequal pay. I know where I work, the majority are women and the highest paid person is a woman.
this is probably what you're looking for
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm
more statistics on women in the labor force
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook2011.htm
also note that these figures overestimate women's real earnings because of the way they're calculated
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/collegepayoff-complete.pdf
Edited by Lessons ()
shennong posted:
can you elaborate on what the gender dynamics are that make women less likely to unionise?
off the top of my head there's probably a social element, when women are conditioned to be docile/not to rock the boat they're less likely to agitate on behalf of their own rights, i'm just guessing though
discipline posted:Also a Fact is that despite material differences in GN & GS countries, women are still underpaid and overworked no matter where they were born or no matter where they go.
is this Gender Neutral and Gender Sexist?
shennong posted:can you elaborate
:~)
i always found it such a weak attitude to discount women's work. i've met really intelligent engineering students that just take a somewhat fatalist approach on the idiotic intellectual discrimination that goes on in the industry, basically being like "well because i'm a woman, they won't see me coming, and i have that to my advantage". i suppose thats really the sort of attitude that many women in power take, and only on Acquisition of power do they kind of sometimes score political points as being a "woman making headway for women", but most of the time it doesnt take any kind of transformational, mass movement character imo...
One way women can be empowered is through taking tasks they are typically required to perform and giving people the option of making these social labour tasks that are guaranteed by the state. One major task that women tend to do is take time off work to raise their kids. Infant care provided by parents is important and there should be extensive parental leave programs for the first year or two of a child's life. However, many parents want to return to work when it makes sense, but face high costs associated with child care access. For example, a private child care space in Toronto can cost something like $10,000 a year. Although some subsidized spots and programs exist, many low-income people in Ontario struggle with child care costs, or simply can't find or afford a space.
In Quebec, the last years of the centrist Parti Quebecois government a decade ago introduced a unique provincial child care program. The government of Quebec pays a subsidy to child care spaces that covers all but $7 a day of the costs. This credit is only available for regulated spaces in child care cooperatives, which limits the importance of private for-profit care and guarantees a basic standard of quality. This has greatly increased the number of children in child care. It also means that many more women are working. In fact, studies have shown that the extra tax revenue generated by women working more than pays the entire cost of the child care program.
Canada has a number of child care tax credits which are automatic and income-tested, as a way of detaching them somewhat from welfare programs. For example, there is a $1,200 a year national child care benefit for young children, as well as a larger set of child credits which are sometimes called "baby bonuses". These credits do not cover most of the costs of child-rearing, but they have helped mitigate some of the effects of sharp reductions in welfare payments and cuts in associated programs like housing supports. For example, a single parent with two children in Quebec is now considered above the low-income cut-off (LICO, sometimes used as a poverty line).
Midway through the last decade, the federal Liberal Party had built a national child care program that was aimed at increasing the number of subsidized spaces, with hopes of spreading the Quebec model. This was undone by the Conservatives, and it seems unlikely that most provinces will forge ahead without extra help due to their dire financial situations. However, Ontario has introduced full-day kindergarten as part of an early-learning strategy. It is plausible that the Ontario Liberals might try to build a budget agreement with the NDP that protects child care, but not even the NDP ran on a comprehensive child care program in the last election. The federal NDP, though, supports a national child care program.
Two criticisms of child care subsidies relate to the costs and their distribution. That is, if you pay everyone's child care, then most of the money will go to well-off families that might be able to afford their care. If you track distribution of child care money, it is fairly random across the population, meaning it is not necessarily a good antipoverty bang-for-your-buck compared to just giving money. That's the other point, as well, that you could simply give young parents say $7,500 per child per year more and they might decide to buy child care, they might not and decide to stay home and take the money to subsidize staying off work. You could also target that money so only low-income families got most of it, which would save money. In reality, though, the cost of a child care program seem low compared to benefits it generates. For example, you could probably fund an Ontario-wide program on the Quebec model for the cost of raising the sales tax by 1 percentage point, and it might end up generating more money than that down the line.
futurewidow posted:
good idea making a separate thread, now none of the men will post here
dont bank on it
discipline posted:
I could get polemical and say that women are shoved around since girlhood, constantly socialized to adapt and avoid conflict, and there is some literature that goes into it, but I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for.
i enjoyed your post very much and am also interested in this if you have time to make another. ty
Crow posted:
this makes me feel bad!! i like to contribute to a discussion when im askin qs but i seriously dont know shit about gender issues wrt to workplaces other than in academia, and thats not super interesting unless you like to think about tidbits like that there's more gender discrimination in german academic positions than in american ones
An idiot could point out that men in poor times endure the poverty subjectively by a real contest to be a best fighter, to conquer a girl and fight best amongst his comrades.
All people know that women and girls suffer always in the most vile ways when the already weak bastions of family and then - - - well, this needs more and much more penetrating peeking !
you want to know, though, beyond any historicist language, beyond even what we abstract from what we know goes on every day: prostitution, mutililation, unbearable suffering....
if you want to know the truth, then it has already been said a million fucking times: The price of freedom is Death.
we aren't joking anymore.
Edited by sosie ()
deadken posted:
i find this home industrialisation thing really interesting, in a kinda depressing way of course.... contemporary western gender relations are iirc to a large extent a product of the industrial revolution; while large numbers of women were put into industry at the same time a new dynamic emerged where rather than the whole family engaging in artisan or agricultural labour work was deterritorialised into the factory, a distinction was created between 'work' and 'home' that took on an explicitly gendered aspect.... it seems like in the third world imperialism is having its cake and eating it, maintaining the patriarchal work/home distinction but directly extracting value from home-work rather than allowing domestic labour to just be employed in the reproduction of the working class.... how prevalent is this phenomenon + are there any kewl articles i can read + learn my head with. has unionisation among domestic labourers even been attempted. couldnt it be done w/, i dunno, a bunch of old cellphones and sms or something, there are ways to overcome physical isolation (as we internet posters all know too well.....)
d00dles the putting-out and piecework systems were a MASSIVE part of the early industrial revolution, like only fordism really displaced it, so I'm not sure you can characterize it as anything new and unusual in industrializing periphery nations, or an unprecedented twist in the evolution of capitalism
discipline posted:shennong posted:
i enjoyed your post very much and am also interested in this if you have time to make another. tyWhat do you want me to heh, elaborate on? Female socialization in general or how it would apply to labor relations?
i'm interested in the extent to which existing patterns of female socialisation in precapitalist societies provide a substrate that's tractable for the kind of gendered effects on labour markets that capitalists want to generate, and the extent to which capital and capitalists shape female socialisation in order to provide that substrate. like are there examples of precapitalist or non-state societies (south/southeast asia strikes me as a good place to make comparisons here) with a high degree of gender equity that have resisted the effects of capital on gender, etc?
also i def wasn't saying that SA/SEA has gender equitable societies generally but rather that there is a large variation in the extent of gender equity between societies in that region (particularly in the zomian massif) which would be interesting to look at in terms of the effects on their integration into global capitalism (to the extent that's happened)
Edited by shennong ()
discipline posted:
Unemployment is high in general in that part of the world (See: 2011 for more info) and it's not until recently that people have figured out you can pay a woman for half the rate of a man. So yeah women are getting integrated, slowly and painfully, but generally it's at the expense of men, not in addition to men. It's a different story than what you're looking for I guess.
this is what happened in britain in the 19th century too
DRUXXX posted:
I hooked up with one of my friends visiting from the NYC chapter of our crew last nite and she asked me to choke her. And I did it. Was that wrong?
It wasn't, but bragging about it under the false guise of being “concerned” about your actions is pretty distasteful.