Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, I work at a chocolate factory, currently. I don't have access to all of HR's records so I don't know the rate that everyone gets paid, or what someone in my position would likely get paid (nor would it matter to me - I don't work for less, there was no room for negotiation). I know what some folks get paid, as I said, those I manage. They get paid more than I do. It's for the best....they actually make the chocolate, and I;m easier to replace than they are. Most of them, ironically, are convinced that they;d rather have my job than their own, unaware that OI make less than they do - because they have this quaint notion about "inferiors and superiors" in the workplace. I make more than my boss does as well, on an hourly basis - but less than he does overall for the same reasons that I make less than my little minions. Those guys are hardcore. 72hr work weeks, every week.

I think it would probably be the quality of the CEO's work that would cause the disparity (rather than an uberjanitor). Toilets can only get so clean..lol.

[Dystopia]

I think it would probably be the quality of the CEO's work that would cause the disparity (rather than an uberjanitor). Toilets can only get so clean..lol.

I disagree because even a lazy laid back CEO will probably make more than a janitor it at least the business is brining revenue. I'm not going to question that regardless of gender good and bad professionals exist - That's a no brainer, but let's say instead of the majority of male janitors make more than female CEO's - Would you really say that female CEO's don't produce quality work (The same as a male)?

[The Grand Nudger]

If the majority of male janitors made more money than female CEO's..., I'd be willing to propose that female CEO's did shitty work, or that the products that female CEOs found themselves peddling were shit. Yeah. In any situation where someones "inferior" makes more money - I'm ready to accept that the "inferior" is more valuable to the company than the "superior".

[Dystopia]

If the majority of male janitors made more money than female CEO's..., I'd be willing to propose that female CEO's did shitty work, or that the products that female CEOs found themselves peddling were shit. Yeah. In any situation where someones "inferior" makes more money - I'm ready to accept that the "inferior" is more valuable to the company than the "superior".

More valuable certainly.

Would you be open to studies about the problem? And if so, would you accept that it's gender discrimination if there was no evidence to suggest a female CEO's work is significantly different in terms of quality? I think companies and people who promote other people would have to be really dumb, and I mean really dumb, to elect a full demographic of incompetent CEO's, it's not very likely, and there are no facts that lead us to believe a female CEO is more likely to be incompetent than a male CEO..

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I don't want to step on any toes...but I believe that someone else asked you to substantiate a claim of gender inequality in one context, which you responded to by proposing a hypothetical in another (also hinting that there were documented instances of this other thing). If it's studies of the deflecting proposal sure, Id love to see that...... thought I already asked? If it pertains to the original, I believe you have accounts outstanding with someone else.

Personally, what really struck me as the hidden gem were our very finitely nuanced versions of the "standard model" of capitalism...why person A makes more or less than person B - and whether or not that's a very good indicator of their position on the companies totem pole. You mentioned some laws you guys had on the books that, to me, seem out of place in context but which, for you...seems to amount to a foundational portion of the same context. Isn't that fascinating?

[Dystopia]

Well, I don't want to step on any toes...but I believe that someone else asked you to substantiate a claim of gender inequality in one context, which you responded to by proposing a hypothetical in another (also hinting that there were documented instances of this other thing). If it's studies of the deflecting proposal sure, Id love to see that...... thought I already asked? If it pertains to the original, I believe you have accounts outstanding with someone else.

That depends entirely on who's making the positive and negative claim. What claim are you talking about?

Personally, what really struck me as the hidden gem were our very finitely nuanced versions of the "standard model" of capitalism...why person A makes more or less than person B - and whether or not that's a very good indicator of their position on the companies totem pole. You mentioned some laws you guys had on the books that, to me, seem out of place in context but which, for you...seems to amount to a foundational portion of the same context. Isn't that fascinating?

Explain this part better, if you don't mind. I mentioned a law forbidding paying less or more for people who exercise the exact same job (i.e. Two people who work as waiters), and I find those laws helpful to prevent unfounded discrimination.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure Wolf challenged the claim that women make less than their peers for the same work, while accepting that women make less than men - overall.

It sounds like a law that could do that, sure. It's also a slight departure from capitalism as-I-know-it in that here, you can hire an awesome janitor for $20/hr and a shitty one for $8/hr (or less - if we're talking about bending the law). We aren't forced to pay the same rate for all of our janitors (personally, I wouldn't want to be).

[Whateverist]

Oh wow, seven pages! Well thank you guys for the welcoming discussion! ^^

So much to say and so many things I want to reply to...I can't keep track of it all! Ahaha!

Not unusual for a thread to develop a life of its own around here. If you like where it's gone, go with it. If you had something else in mind, speak to it. If your efforts don't yield the conversation you wanted to have, refocus the question and make a new thread. (There isn't any limit.)

[Dystopia]

Pretty sure Wolf challenged the claim that women make less than their peers for the same work, while accepting that women make less than men - overall.

I probably expressed myself wrongly - I said the pay/wage gap is not only earning less for the same job, but the overall earnings of male or females and questioning what leads to that - If it is, like I proposed - Either biological features that lead women to less well paid (on average) jobs or are social norms and stereotypes (like the ones saying that nursing is a women's job while engineering is a man's job) responsible for that... And by all means, what do you think of this?

In my country, it's not likely that a female earns less than a male peer for the same job, given that it's punishable by law for an employer to pay an inferior wage for the same job, and if I'm not mistaken, it can get you a really heavy fine. However, I've read news about females making less than males in the US while exercising the same function - I actually don't have much evidence of this and I'm not worried about it - What worries me more about the pay gap are the reasons that lead women and men to be more likely to pursue certain careers.

It sounds like a law that could do that, sure. It's also a slight departure from capitalism as-I-know-it in that here, you can hire an awesome janitor for $20/hr and a shitty one for $8/hr (or less - if we're talking about bending the law). We aren't forced to pay the same rate for all of our janitors (personally, I wouldn't want to be).

~
That depends entirely on the job and such a law is not absolute, there are many exceptions. Labour laws are by definition limitations and departures from capitalism, have always been

[Surgenator]

Egalitarianism is defined as gender equality not feminism. Feminism focus is womens right which are being infringed on. Ido support feminist causes but don't classify myself as a feminist. This is because of the extremist who are small but very vocal.

Did you know that feminists care about men's problems too? You probably don't because you're making a generalization of the movement without having met, talked to or read articles from a rational pro-equality feminism.

I actually do know that feminist care about men's problems. Feminism has done lots of good things that improve our society. However, I have witness the darkside of feminism. My wife went to a Women in Science event (I couldn't go because I had to TA). The speaker was some feminist who prompted her speech with "this is not a man-bashing event." Her speech was good and didn't have any man-bashing in it. When it came to questions from the audiences, it then devolved into man-bashing where the speaker partook in. The attending women are all well educated, and they easily let the "small" minority voice dominate the rest of the conversation.

So when I hear "the extreme minority doesn't dictate what the rest do." I don't believe you. The idological extreme are more passionate and will do more to further their cause. This affect is a noticeble with Anita Sarkeesian going on Colbert Report as an example. The younger generation will picture Anita Sarkeesian when they think feminism. Hense, I do not call myself a feminist because I don't want to imply my support to the extreme feminist. Plus, egalitarianism fits my position much better than feminism does.