Gender Issues in Australia

 [split from big up thread]

can't imagine it. i will be the first female homeowner in my family when i enter the market.

0o0ow so am i, first to go to university on my mum's side of the family and first to buy a house as a single person on a single income in my whole family, actually out of every female i know..

Wouldn't have been heard of 15 years ago, single female buying property ...

15 years ago was only 1993, I'm sure there were plenty of single women buying property then 

On single incomes with housing prices what they were? I doubt it, Government grants and the state of the economy currently is what is making it affordable for a single person on a reasonable income to purchase a property... let alone a single female.

My mum bought a house in 1989 on a low income, and she had lots of single friends who owned houses 

lmao

I had a few of mates with single mums(hot) that had bought their houses back then

Well there ya go, and im sure their hotness was relevant at the time.

All i know is that my parents on two resonable incomes, both gov employees struggled with a mortgage so how single women could afford to on a 'womans' wage 15 if not 20 years ago, surprises me. Your opinions and experience on gender equality and property affordability seem to different than mine!

awesome  

 As a 15 year old boy that kind of thing is extremely relevant imo

yup-mine are right

definitely my dear. prices were so much better for a purchaser 15 years ago.

in that time property prices have increased so much more than people's income.

Lol, of course they are darling, and everything is an argument and a competition and this forum and all the opinions are egoic expression of wanting to be right about everything

Im actually about 5 years off the mark.

It's great that women are being paid for their worth and not their gender and that property and housing is affordable for all single people now as oppsed to how hard and rare it was 20 years ago.

The opportunities for women probably have changed a lot more than I imagine... 20 years ago our headmistress told us we were dreaming if we thought our future bosses would let us wear pants to work instead of skirts 

Ok but go back to interest rates in the 80s and you see what she means.
And I don't know a lot of women buying houses on their own, full stop.

you woulda been buying then tho yer?

it wasn't that bad for women in 1988 bec. it wasn't what it is today, but you make it seem like we have just come out of the dark ages. 40 years ago i agree completely. but seriously, you were in school then, was your mum's life really that tough in the man's man's world she lived in?

there's really no point arguing about this with you though my dear, you have very strong beliefs and won't be swayed on them by what people post on here.

i also don't believe steve was trying to 1up you either.

hayley. i was going off of 15 years which bec first said. 93 i believe that is . it was a pretty good time to be buying property then. that's when my family decided to build, and they have never really earnt a lot of money between them.

and you're right, i don't know a lot of women on their own buying houses. i also don't know a lot of men that are on their own that do either. full stop.

though, it seems that just about the only people i do know that are single and have bought property are indeed women.

I think it's easy for people (men) to think that gender equality has been as it is now, for a lot longer than it has.

We havent come that far. For example - oooh lets say the "remarkable" hisotoric event of the US presidential election, OMG a black president!!! I wonder if there has ever been a female president, what about a female pime minister for Australia!! *note sarcasm* !!!

see: New Zealand

Like i said i was about 5 years off. No im sure it wasn't 'that bad', but it certainly wasn't equal, it's debatable whether we have full equality now!!

Whats really remarkable it your last statement:
"but seriously, you were in school then, was your mum's life really that tough in the man's man's world she lived in?"

The "Man's world" opening up a mine field of potential debate around gender equality.. but im leaving work and going home to chill so im out!

NZ is decades, at times centuries ahead of Australia. this is why they have so much contempt for us LOL

and Bec, after your last post Peggy McIntosh's article on white priviledge comes to mind. especially the bit about men's blindness to their own priviledges. did you read that one for Indigenous Australians and the human services?

 

Yeah 93 was a good year. My Dad bought his place in Henley beach in 91, got a damn cheap price!


Big up less than half an hour to go

Obviously missing my point...

Alana: check!!

this thread suddenly got gayer than xmas



big up

 In what ways though. How do women have it so tough in Australia?

We don't earn as much in many jobs doing the same job.


Jesus I hate this argument, you'd think it was a personal attack the way guys react to it. Deal with it. Women have been discriminated against in history and we are still not treated like equals in many situations.


Lawyers are a good example and dealing with the boys club of barristers out there. They think you are a "skirt".

oh go work out in one of your all female gyms

 


*goes to fernwood to man hate*

it is mind-blowing stuff hey.

Spanky, you are a bloke, it is hard to see through our lens, our daily experience, the way we were conditioned to be submissive little princesses mkay. don't get me wrong, i consider myself a huMAN-ist these days as i fundamentally reject the feminist stance to focus purely on women by ignoring men - this is not the 'equality' they supposedly fight for - they are effectively doing the same oppressive thing unto men as men did to women.

and for example, domestic violence will not reduce in our society if it marginalises our men by silencing their voices, or refusing to work with prepetrators. although, i though a few woman who are doing this, and rightly so.

if women want equality, then we should be able to block them in basketball!


i think this is a totally shit statement. i turned 18 in 2000. you had the same rights as me then. you have the same rights as me now. i think it's easy for people (women) to try and use the past to benefit them now. if nothing else, to try and make them feel like men owe women. you're pushing this argument to the wrong generation. i, as do 95% of my friends treat men/women/drifty equally. but you still seem to believe men are against you.

bec, do you ever expect a guy to pay for you? ever? for a meal, movie, anything?

i also said a man's man's world to you because you are implying so much that it was. that's all. the fact that you read so much into it proves my point that you believe your ideas so much that there's no point arguing with you anyway as you will always see your view, and no one else's.

 Where does that happen though? I hear that argument all the time. It's not like there is a male rate and a female pay rate. In Australia I mean, other countries I can see it happening.

 I don't take it as a personal attack, I have just never seen it myself. ( I am not really a corporate high flyer) I am genuinely interested how a company could get away with something along those lines.

 I can see how as a lawyer it would be tough. Point taken. *hires Ally Mcbeal Box set*

I laughed.

that was very well put alana.

bec, can you see what you are doing?

oh noes! don't get girls to turn on each other, we could really do without.

*awaits predictable girl-on-girl action joke* 

Girls get it pretty rough in the IT industry as well. Like Hayley alluded too, they are seen as 'skirts' and I imagine most of them find working conditions very difficult at times.

It probably doesn't help that I sexually harrass them regularly, I suppose.

maybe on university entry forms the first question should be changed to are you a woman or aboriginal or torres strait islander? 

 Fair enough.

 I guess I have never really been in jobs which have looked 'down' on women in the workforce. At the bank I worked with 90% women (I had about 5 different 'mums'.) The bank were also reasonable with having women in upper management positions.

 Just something I haven't been exposed to.

 Also with the pay thing, maybe I am taking it too literally. I simply do not agree that a man and a woman in the same job at the same company with the same employment record, experience etc would be earning different salaries.

same. guess that's the difference.

Well, I am sure you will be exposed to it when you get a big boy job

And I totally agree.

Working in the engineering/construction industry you'd think it would be extremely common.
But not in my workplace anyway. There are a number of women in department manager roles here & they are highly respected in their fields within the industry.
The biggest area of complaint (from what I hear) are when some of the women are required to go on site (and some meeting situations) and have to deal with the older big rugged manly types.

i find it hard to understand how women can feel they are not treated equally.

I wasn't conditioned to be a submissive princess at all, that's why I want to be a princess now 

In my daily experiences I encounter individuals who don't treat women as equals, but I consider them individual idiots rather than society in general.

I do agree that there is inequality in pay because a lot of the industries that are mostly filled by women are undervalued, e.g. nurses, teachers, childcare. But imo that's a society ethics issue not a women issue even though it has an effect on women.

we are groomed from the day we are born DM. colour = pink, toys = barbie, magazine = (mindless) dolly, advertisement = housewives, car = small piece of shit most likely, work (unpaid) = motherhood and husband, career = skirt etc etc.

and to quote Ru Paul (sp)? 'we are born equal, the rest is drag'. gender roles is a powerful social and cultural construct that goes through most life aspects.

edit: i wanted to start a similar thread, but thought i'll be blasted for my relentless nerd-outs LOL

Thanks Spanks!

 Definitely agree with that.

 But on the other hand, prostitution and stripping seems to be tipped in favour of the ladies.

 Swings and roundabouts.

 

Do you want to be a male instead?

I gotta say, we got the better end of the deal.

  @ the roundabouts.

on a serious note, there are quite a few men in the sex industry. i knew someone who, while in the states came across a lot of men who are homeless selling themselves to survive - not to mention other sex industries.

edit: Rob, i think we are both getting fucked in the arse tbh.

But we receive so many conflicting influences/messages, why would we be influenced by the stereotypically female ones more strongly than the stereotypically male ones? e.g. lots of girls things are pink, lots of girls things aren't pink.

I went to school in the late 80's "girls can do anything" era so maybe that's why I think I can! We were encouraged to do all the non-girly stuff!

I wasn't even allowed a barbie dammit... and I'm gonna make the world pay

the whole 'girls can do anything' in the 80's, 'you can have it all' and 'girl power' in the 90's and to-date are big crocks of urban-mythology-crapola imo. and quite often you will find that such language is attached to advertising, mass-produced music etc etc i.e. the spice girls, and they made a killing as a marketing machine!

i think it quite similar to 'we live in an equal society because we have human rights' etc. yes, we may have rights and other rhetoric that is reproduced by gossip, text, language and culture.

but in reality, our society in NOT constructed in reality to allow such mythological liberties and freedoms for some people.

2nd edit: an afterthought, what do you think influences those 'idiots'? and as a female, i find it very very difficult to buy hoodies, sneakers, jeans etc that i actually like. please spare me from your pastel, pocker-dotty crap 'fashion' designers who take their leaf out of 'society' mkay.
edit: i decapitated all my barbies, much to my younger, girly sister's displeasure. and i have been a tom boy all my life so i was a happy chappy collecting spiders, riding my bike and making bike tracks in the backyard LOL

It's not all urban-mythology-crapola because schools actually did change what/how they taught students by encouraging girls to do more maths, science, tech studies, etc. Nothing to do with marketing.

I was thinking about becoming a high class male escort.

And speak for youself, Alana!

check my 2nd edit, and watch some marketing at its best on television, or on the drive home from work, come back and tell me it has NOTHING to do with marketing.

and oh, i wonder * * why there is a MASSIVE gender imbalance in technologies, sciences and maths - as toys condition us from a early age. boys are encouraged to play with computer games, girls with their brat dolls. this trend is slowly starting to improve, but only marginally and in the last 5-10 years.


edit: speak for myself, how do you mean? and DM, the marketing factor was just ONE of the factors i explained!!

Fashion is functional art.

If you don't like a particular designers style or creative expression, don't wear their clothes.

If you can't find the kinds of clothes you want, why not make your own?

Use that pent-up negative energy which you like to direct at these psuedo-issues you seem to harbour such resentment to and do something creative and positive with it.

You can start by making me a nice t'shirt with a slogan that says 'Converted Feminist'

Rebecca Sleep - standing for reverse sexism since 1983 

 

I mean, I don't feel like I am being ice creamed in the ass, so speak for yourself.

when you need to move house, do you call up a woman and ask her to help you move?

it is not horrendously frowned upon for a woman to physically attack/assault a man, but what about the other way around?

when you're a kid and you're in tears who do you run to? which gender tends to be more overtly in touch with their feelings, especially in a public forum?



men and women are not equal, they are not the same, they never will be.

i am not saying one sex has higher status or whatever, just saying that instead of trying to push for equality, why dont we celebrate/be proud of or differences/natural instincts? give and take and all that jazz...

Only if she has a ute I can borrow

its not nice hey.

AND i have designed clothes, but in my feminazi days i refused to sow LOL, but i did very well in home economics. which was an all-girl class goddammit.

i do have a good business mind, but i refuse to apply it because of my dogmatic commitment to human services. i believe i could make a killing 'cos i have spoken to many females who have said the same thing. there is NOTHING out there. i buy the largest size in boys clothes/smallest mens' sneakers. my favourite hoodie is a dark grey/black camoflague (sp?) one i bought from best n less boys' department!

and i've known of a girl who owns a ute btw!!

Kurko, we should have equal pay, be equal. humans are meant to be equal. but i agree wholeheartedly we have differences in a biological sense. but the rest is constructed and i refuse to conform.

i find it hard to believe that you don't get equal pay, but i wont question it.

so where do these inequalities remain?

when we have an uno night, i am going to get you!!! 

the aforementioned arguments regarding pay, sexual harrassment and the glass ceiling are derived from statistical data from the ABS.

You're a walking contradiction.

You claim to have designed clothes, but you refused to sew. You can't complain about no one catering to your admittedly bizarre and narrow fashion tastes, then say you refuse to sow even though you 'design' clothes.

Then you say you have a great business mind, but refuse to apply it or engage it. You can't complain about the lack of services or facilities available to assist or mediate your psuedo-issues, or complain about the state of how marketing companies are subverting us, then say you have a great business mind and refuse to apply it.

You dress like a boy as you want to gain acceptance from boys, not because designers don't cater to your tastes. You want them to like you, so you dress like them to be included by them. Some girls play on their femininity to attract males e.g. dresses, painted nails, fancy hair-do, sexy fragrances whereas you play on your 'tom-boyish' looks and behaviour e.g. hoodies, skatie shoes, bike riding, collecting spiders etc

At the end of the day Alana, we're all animals trying to procreate. We all go about it in different ways (dates, arranged marriages, chloroform etc) so you should take a deep breath, count to ten and thank Allah you don't live in the Middle East.

Edit - I bet you don't even know how to skateboard! :P

An intelligent oddball, happily promulgating his futarchist vision of the world, and writing papers on ideas markets. He has a blog called Overcoming Bias. Futarchy is rather unique, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm pretty sure I don't like it.

He is also a professor at GMU, which is high on my list of universities I'd love to go to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson

"There are few allegations of underpayment to women in private enterprise fields such as computers, advertising, or the media."

He must have been writing in the 70s.

Computers, advertising and the media were nascent industries then (compared to now at least ... and the fact he calls it "computers" rather than "Information Technology" is telling) but there are thousands of articles precisely about pay inequality in these industries now days.

It definately reeked of everything in the 1970's I despise. 

Including your birth?

 

Try 1981 mofo!

How can you concede that the main force of the argument is very convincing and then say you despise it?


Edit: Also interesting. It is American, but I am sure that makes little to no difference.
http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

Because, as I posted, the argument he was steering towards macro-level economics was quite good. Out of the to-date context, but fairly reasonable.

Your thoughts on Arrah Nielsen's pwning of modern day complaints?

Who is that?

Furthermore, what is 'pwning'?

The woman who wrote the article in my link. Edit: In case you missed the link - http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn

 

You should know by now that I don't open links.

Will check it now.

edit:

Skimmed through it because it was shit.

It actually matters it is an American article, because the ABS has released data that women in Australia still earn less than men. Yes, she pointed out a valid viewpoint as to the economic realities that disadvantage women in the workplace. However, this quote demonstrates how inferior her brain matter is;

"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.

Well, why can't you stop making categorical, blanket statements on familial structures, norms and pressures? There are infinite numbers of variations and diversities between peoples' circumstances, and what they can do practically and realistically. For instance, the rise of information technology has and will continue to enable more people to work from home.

So what you are saying is the paragraph is wrong because sometimes the arrangement difficulties don't exist? Certainly sometimes they do exist, making it correct. 50-50 in some situations is unrealistic, and in fact detrimental to the family unit. In more than half of those situations it is decided by the family unit that the female will spend more time at home, meaning an anomaly in the data if you don't allow for the correct controls. This makes her argument correct. She isn't saying it is right that more females choose to stay home by the way, just that they do.

We also have equal pay laws by the way. It is, once again, the men in different male dominated industries that make up the difference (and sales, because that is commission based, and men perform better).

No, I am saying that her argument does not factor in relevant complexities. Her logic is simplistic, I am not saying she is incorrect.

Yes, we have equal pay laws. However, this does not currently translate to the economic outcomes and data out there. I thought you of all people do not equate law into grounded, practical realities and economic outcomes categorically.

I am not saying there isn't still income disparity, I am saying that it is because of the data that people are using. If women were actually getting paid less for the exact same work, then class action lawsuits would abound.

Her argument doesn't need to factor relevant complexities, her argument is not about whether things should be different in the home, or whether technology will help even the disparity, or the changing zeitgeist in home relationships. It is about the fact that right now, as we speak, more than 50% of the time, women choose to take more time off for children than men, and whether that is right or not, it destroys the importance of the vast majority of wage disparity data.

I am not disputing what she is saying about the 50-50 etc. I do think that if you are building up an argument in an article, blanket statements should be a no-go. And making assumptions about what is unrealistic is what turned me off. Sure enough, you must limit your perspective to curb it directly to one aspect of an argument. But I really did not like hers.

edit: Ok, you are right Tobi.  

can someone make this their signature?

love your effort tobs, but you were 'pwned' here




this thread stinks of stale jizz

i for one don't really understand how an opinion can be free from bias...

  They can't be, nor should they be. Obviously you shouldn't let bias effect your acceptance of contradictory facts, rather, contradictory new facts should change your bias.


You mean in the argument where the side that isn't me admitted defeat? Or in that particular quote, in which Alana asked for my opinion on a socio-economic matter, whilst restricting me from using my own socio-economic opinions?

I get the feeling, like always, I got pwned in your mind because you had already decided the result before the debate.

See, when Alana and I debate, if an issue gets resolved, the other side admits it, and alters their world view a little. When are you going to acquire this important life skill? I'm still waiting for something better than your stoner cop out for not realising the chasm between the mean and median in regards to wages, and how you managed to completely annihilate your own argument. My intuition tells me that in quiet corners, away from more discerning minds, you still use that data to pull the wool over the eyes of others.

i'm glad i'm not the only one that had no idea what jayar was on about.

Yeah, I agree. But striving for a level of objectivity is essential in all areas of life and work etc.


I did that to piss you off haha...

was watching 9AM this morning while eating my muesli and saw this:

Dr Elizabeth Celi
Psychologist, Dr Elizabeth Celi, highlighted the alarming statistics that show just how many men are being abused and discussed the incorrect perception that men can look after themselves. Elizabeth also examined Australia's health policy for men.

pretty eye opening little piece of television   

I posted stats and the problem of under-reporting rape/domestic violence etc committed against men earlier. It's a damn shame, and one of the reasons I turned my back on feminism in favour of humanism.

women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job

One study does not make a scientific or even social truth.

And despite the actual impossibility of controlling for these factors without using clones and Truman Show-esc experiments, isn't this even more ammunition in the feminist arsenal?

Because even in supposedly controlling for all these factors, there's still a 2% discrepancy in pay between men and women, based on the idea that women choose not to be brain surgeons and prison officers...

Feminists argue the reason they don't choose because they're socialised not to, and ostracised when they do try to take on those roles, and this seems to support their claims about inequality, not debunk them.


Australia has one of the highest rape per capita percentages in the Western world.

I blame dubstep.

And videogames.

 

Rapists should rape the willing.


Gendered socialisation is REAL.

its a damn shame that more women are'nt raping men 

 

Now there's a thought...

Not necessarily, no. But one study that is conducted with greater attention to detail makes a better study than 1000 that aren't.


It really isn't that hard to control for, unless you are concerned that they didn't separate the people that had one day less experience, or got 98% for their final exam at Uni instead of 100%.


Although they may still use it, no, and if you don't understand why you haven't been paying attention in this thread.


When was my argument ever that feminists are wrong about everything? I just think they supererogate the subaltern too often. They take a minor truism, and make it the prevalent matter in their philosophy. I'm sure there is pressure felt from more socially accepted gender roles. Society is full of humans. The vast majority of humans are fuckwits. This is always going to cause problems. I'm sure there are rich capitalist employers who still refer to African-Americans as niggers in their home life as well. Big surprise, the world still needs to improve. It's not that they have nothing to fight for, it is that they should stop crying wolf, because it gets hard to believe them when it really does matter. Just quietly, those horrible self-hating women at the IWF all have PHD's and high paying jobs in male dominated industries, I'm sure they have felt ostracised as well. In fact they write about it at times. It just so happens that this has nothing to do with the argument.

On more important matters, why is there a huge gap at the bottom of my post?

My guess is you've been getting so excited with your posts/debates with Alana that you are drooling on your keyboard and the liquid under the enter key has resulted in many line breaks being entered.

 

I thought it was a touch of narcissism taking up more space on the thread.

Also, can someone explain to me why the feminist movement went from being proudly individualist, to deciding that they'd like to be Marxist, but with an extra serving of impractical absurdity. I'm a huge fan of strong, independent women. Whinging pinkos, not so much.

What are these Pinkos you speak of? Any left-leaning person?

Which feminist movement are you posting about? Some are collectivist (Black Feminism; Marxist Feminism), some are individualist (White Feminism, Radical Feminism), while others are a mixture of both or any of the aforementioned (Postmodern Feminism).

The vast majority of feminist output I happen past these days is heavily marxist, or post modernist in tone.  I hardly ever see other types any more. Feminist literature has almost become another way of saying leftist postmodernism these days. What's her name, the Australian feminist who wrote a reader's guide to Anti-Oedipus, spent the majority of the time equating its post modern ramblings to feminism, as if they were perfect analogues. I know Deleuze and Guattari aren't technically post modernists, but there is little difference.

I have heard of that book, but haven't read it and I don't know who wrote it.

Feminism has always been essentially left-wing, however, the most famous feminist; Greer actually comes from a fairly affluent background. Her book the Female Eunech (sp?) was written for middle or high class white women. However, you would love her argument against marriage, infact, I think you both have used the same words to describe it LOL.

What are pinkos?

Pinkos are socialists/the left. A lighter shade of red basically, although in the case of Marxism, pinko was not the best choice of term obviously.

Greer has her moments. She also has plenty of moments that send me in to paroxysmic rage. She defended Shakespeare from the absurd attacks of other feminists from memory, which I rate. I imagine we would be quite similar on the marriage front.

I gave Anti-Oedipus about 18 chances. I have decided that it is predominantly the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of charlatans, no matter how poetic, and exhaustively referenced. If I want to dissect every single line of prose I'll read Joyce personally.

Hmm.. I thought so.

I won't even bother with feminist literature anymore. Maybe skim the latest now and then. I am on the hunt for masculine theory lately. I do have to consider gender-specific views on class and race, so the humanist standpoint can only take me so far.

Prepare yourself to be frustrated by the 9.99% of space feminist thought takes up at uni, compared to masculine theory should you do any sociology sub-majors.

edit: nah, postmodernism is getting a fair amount of attention though.

gah! stop it man, stop taking yourself so seriously. you dont have to try and win the internet everytime you log in.
it will help your contentment and outlook on life no end



ouch, that last point actually hurts me man

if you actually even vaguely knew me in an intellectual sense, you'd know that im open to a good argument and regularly change my ideas based on the best evidence available or if the argument is framed well (which this shouldnt be taken as a personal attack, but frankly to me, much of what you write can come across as naive as the greenleft-socialist utopia tripe [that you curiously seem to love slinging in my direction]) and again, i would prefer to read your personal opinions rather than the endless critiquing of those of others, the latter appears to outweigh the former from you most of the time, imo.
but i guess its more convenient for you to assume im stupid and patronise everyone else.
is the nastiness really necessary?





straw,... umm people

It's no fun picking on you if you are actually going to get offended Julian. Of course I don't think you are actually stupid. Certainly, I regard your IQ to be higher than average. I'm an arrogant curmudgeon. That is how I work. I'm actually quite content with it. I wouldn't take it to heart if I were you.

The pinko stuff is all to keep it light hearted. You are undoubtedly pink though.

So are you going to admit you were wrong about tax laws?

i wont.
but forgive me if you do come across a tad touchy in your responses sometimes.


laws? i never entered into a discussion on tax law.
im still waiting for a link that supports your earlier outrageous claim that the top 15% of earners pay as much as the 85% rest of us put together. ive already met you half way when i admitted mixing up median with average

Outrageous? Although I'm having trouble finding statistics that confirm or deny either side, it seems fairly intuitive. I'll give a quick math assessment when I get home tonight. I mean for fucks sake, they say the top 10% of Americans own 90% of the wealth(quite possibly not true though)...the top 15% here can't own 50%? you only need one person making millions to need hundreds of average paid workers to even out the balance again. If you can find out what the median wage was in 2001 I can give you an 8 year old assessment if you like.

owning the 'wealth' and paying taxes are not the same thing



anyway, we digress: more penis vs vagina, thanks.

The data you had said that the people above the median paid the same aggregate amount as those below the median, which means that if there are 15% that earn money above the median level, the top 15% pay the same aggregate amount as the bottom 85%. Hey, it's your data.

I have an interesting study to post to bring it back to penis vs vagina, but I will post it in the morning. This data actually supports the whining feminists in a particular matter.

vagina ftw!

or even, i'm rooting for vagina!!

Leader Gender Bias

Taken from Overcoming Bias.


In an experiment on gender perceptions, psychologists Cameron Anderson and Francis Flynn gave one group of MBA students the original Heidi Roizen case for later in-class discussion, while the other half received a copy that was identical in every way, except that "Heidi" became "Howard."  In a study currently under review, Anderson and Flynn report that while both Howard and Heidi were rated as equally competent (they were the same person, after all), students described the female version of the character as overly aggressive, and were much less likely to want to work with or hire her.

That was from Slate.  Here is the New York Times: 


In 2006, Catalyst looked at stereotypes across cultures … and found that while the view of an ideal leader varied from place to place - in some regions the ideal leader was a team builder, in others the most valued skill was problem-solving. But whatever was most valued, women were seen as lacking it.  Respondents in the United States and England, for instance, listed "inspiring others" as a most important leadership quality, and then rated women as less adept at this than men. In Nordic countries, women were seen as perfectly inspirational, but it was "delegating" that was of higher value there, and women were not seen as good delegators. ….

Study participants were shown videos of a job interview, after which they were asked to rate the applicant and choose their salary. The videos were identical but for two variables - in some the applicants were male and others female, and the applicant expressed either anger or sadness about having lost an account after a colleague arrived late to an important meeting.  The participants were most impressed with the angry man, followed by the sad woman, then the sad man, and finally, at the bottom of the list, the angry woman.

I expect gender biases are only a tip of our iceberg of biases on who are good leaders.  It seems we use leaders less for making good decisions, and more for inspiring, motivating, and comforting.   As they say:

To be a leader, find a parade and get out in front.

Decision markets (such as fire-the-CEO markets) can help overcome biases about which leaders make good decisions.  But they can’t help as much with biases in who people let themselves be inspired or motivated by.  Anyone have a better idea?

Yeah, I have read about the above issues before. I'm glad to become a social worker as the field has different values in regards to leadership ideas. i.e. Democratic, grass-roots community organisation, to be led by the peoples' wisdom etc.

Feminist aphorism for the day: "If you think of women as human, they are exasperating on account of their incredible feebleness; of course, it’s all right if you don’t think of them as human at all."
                                                                         Celia Green

Even with a PHD from Oxford, no college is currently willing to give Celia tenure.

WTF?!?

 

wow

You lost me at hello!