Feminism, Defined

[Emiliana]

Let me ask about this.

Accept as true (though it very well might not be) that women in the work force are more likely than men to leave an employer for extended periods of time for maternity leave or to exit the workforce altogether in order to become a stay at home parent. Assume that this results in increased costs associated with the average female employee versus the average male employee. (i.e. Since women are more likely to leave the work force, the expected cost of a female worker will be higher than the expected cost of a male worker because re-hiring and re-training costs will increase.)

Would this increase in the cost of a female worker justify women receiving lower compensation equal to the difference in expected costs between male and female workers?

No. At the very least, that would be unfair to all the women out there who aren't having babies for one reason or another.

[Katya]

Generally, I also think it's worth noting that there is no central organization to the feminist movement. There are very large feminist organizations and there may be people or causes that most people who call themselves "feminists" support, but you can't take any one (extreme) branch of feminism and hold all other feminists accountable for what they say or do.

[Defy V]

Let me ask about this.

Accept as true (though it very well might not be) that women in the work force are more likely than men to leave an employer for extended periods of time for maternity leave or to exit the workforce altogether in order to become a stay at home parent. Assume that this results in increased costs associated with the average female employee versus the average male employee. (i.e. Since women are more likely to leave the work force, the expected cost of a female worker will be higher than the expected cost of a male worker because re-hiring and re-training costs will increase.)

Would this increase in the cost of a female worker justify women receiving lower compensation equal to the difference in expected costs between male and female workers?

No. At the very least, that would be unfair to all the women out there who aren't having babies for one reason or another.

1. When you are comparing men and women working in the same jobs, they get paid about the same. According to this article, http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender- ... st-Fiction, wage gap nearly disappears "when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." In fact, one girl who graduated with me and is working at HP told my husband that she was offered a higher salary than guys who graduated with us and had the same job offer as her.

2. Let's say woman X has a baby, and she costs the company C for training, maternity leave, etc. Let's say woman Y does not have a baby, and she costs the company 0. Then the expected cost is C/2. So if the company does decrease women's salaries in general by C/2, then X gets a bargain and Y gets less than she ought to. So it's tempting to say that we should not deduct a woman's salary at all.
But then look at man X and man Y. Both cost the company 0. So they should get paid on average C/2 more than women since they cost the company C/2 less than women on average. If they don't, then both men are getting ripped off.

You're either going to be unfair to men or unfair to women who don't use maternity leave. If you are unfair to men, you are unfair to all the men. If you are unfair to women who don't use maternity leave, you are only unfair to some percentage of women (depending on how many have babies). Thus, you'll generally hurt a smaller amount of people if you choose to be unfair to some women rather than all men.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant because of what I noted in 1. (that women in the same positions as men make the same amount of money).

[Eirene]

As to your first point, Eirene, it really doesn't matter to me how someone decides to help, my issue is with the claim that feminism is about bringing equality to everyone, when really it ought to be said that it is interested in bringing equality to WOMEN (and to a lesser extent, concerned about LGBQT issues (my apologies if I got the order in the acronym wrong.)) It is like when the NAACP claims to be concerned about all minorities, and then everyone is up in arms when a representative for a local chapter is named who happens to be Hispanic. There's nothing wrong with working with issues that affect African Americans, but don't pretend that you're concerned about every minority when you're really only concerned with black issues.

As to your second point, is that really about leaving Utah, or about leaving BYU? In my employment, I've had more than one female boss, and I can't say that they've been treated by their superiors any differently. The only time I've seen a woman treated differently is sometimes there's a girl who we lift heavy things for, but in fairness, that's more because she's like 85 pounds than it is because she's female.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. The NAACP example was helpful, thanks. I can understand not liking the words not lining up with the perceived actions. My personal opinion is the same as I said before: that spending less time on men's issues isn't generally a matter of bad intentions or not caring, but rather a matter of individuals having limited resources and picking the battles that are most important to them. I really do think most self-identifying feminists would support things like draft registration being mandatory for either everyone or no one (instead of just men), but you don't see a whole lot of articles or picketing over that particular issue because it just isn't as important to most feminists/masculists as things like wage gaps, glass ceilings, and oversexualization of women. Maybe this just comes down to me being an eternal optimist about people's intentions, or projecting my own intentions on to them, but I really do think most feminists have good intentions about men's issues, but limited time to spend on them.

And about leaving Utah, I could very well be conflating BYU culture with Utah culture, since admittedly, I only lived in Utah around the time I was going to BYU. I think Marduk, UofE, and Katya brought up some good points with people having different experiences based on different fields. I might have gotten a particularly bad experience being in a field (pre-med) that, at BYU, is heavily male-dominated and has an often-deserved reputation for its students being arrogant, self-important, overly ambitious, and rather conservative (and yes, I know that everyone, myself included, knows some nice BYU pre-meds, but among the group as a whole, especially when you look at classroom behavior, the reputation is pretty well-earned). And now I feel like I'm just ragging on BYU when I actually really, really loved my time there and had 99% great experiences there (stuff like this being part of the 1%).

The reason I brought all that up in this post and in my previous post was to point out just one of the downsides of treating men and women differently. At the very least, when you're in an academic or professional setting where you're judging the value of people's ideas and actions, it just doesn't work to treat people as men and women. That's when you get sucky things like not being taken seriously because people are trying to be nice, or people getting a free pass out of a criticism because they're "the softer gender." You just have to treat people as people, at least until you get to know them, and even then, you still don't treat them like a man or a woman--you treat them as an individual (who of course has masculine or feminine characteristics, but who as an individual, doesn't adhere to any one stereotype). So what I was really trying to say was that I don't like being treated like a woman--I like being treated either like a person (when people don't know me) or like an individual (when they do).

[Katya]

In my opinion, women and men are different. Thus, they should be treated fairly, but it's ok to be treated differently. Heck, I don't want to be treated like a man. I want to be able to ask a man to lift heavy objects and to pay for dates, and even to ask me on dates (well, those last two was for when I was single, not now. Clearly.) and to take out the garbage and fix the sink. On the flip side, I'm willing for it to be assumed that I'll do laundry and stay at home with the kids and make dinner. I'm also willing to let individual circumstances ride out over stereotypes. I'm happy to manage the money while Yellow does dishes. I'm not saying that I think we should all live by stereotypes. Oh dear heavens, no. I'm just saying that I think it's ok to let women and men be different.

Everything you've said in this paragraph has to do with individual choice. You've named a dozen different preferences that you and your husband have as individuals, some conforming to gender stereotypes, some not. As a feminist, I don't want to force you to change anything about what works for you in your marriage. I want you and your husband both to have as many options as possible so that you can choose what will make you both the most happy, and if your children or siblings or neighbors want to go with a different division of labor, I want them to be supported in their choices, as well.

[Katya]

Accept as true (though it very well might not be) that women in the work force are more likely than men to leave an employer for extended periods of time for maternity leave or to exit the workforce altogether in order to become a stay at home parent. Assume that this results in increased costs associated with the average female employee versus the average male employee. (i.e. Since women are more likely to leave the work force, the expected cost of a female worker will be higher than the expected cost of a male worker because re-hiring and re-training costs will increase.)

Your premise is flawed. (Your subsequent reasoning and conclusion is also flawed, but we'll set that aside.) You're assuming that men (and childless women) don't change jobs as often as childbearing women because they're not taking maternity leave or dropping out of the workforce to become SAHMs. However, we don't live in a culture where the average worker is employed by the same company for 40 years.

BLS economist Chuck Pierret has been conducting a study to better assess U.S. workers' job stability over time, interviewing 10,000 individuals, first surveyed in 1979, when group members were between 14 and 22 years old. So far, members of the group have held 10.8 jobs, on average, between ages 18 and 42, using the latest data available.

Bialik, Carl."Seven Careers in a Lifetime? Think Twice, Researchers Say." The Numbers Guy, September 4, 2010.

10.8 jobs over 22 years is an average of a little over two years per job. Even if you assume that half of those jobs were part-time jobs held during the worker's undergraduate years (and therefore not "real" jobs), that's still 5.4 jobs over 18 years, which is less than 4 years per "real" job. (This is also assuming that no one in the survey was unemployed or dropped out of the workforce for any other reason during that time. Adding in those factors only compresses the amount of time they were working, which makes the turnover even higher. You're also not accounting for the fact that paid maternity leave is contingent on returning to the same position at the end of the leave. A woman who stops working to go on maternity leave is a better investment than a man who leaves his job entirely, because the woman is at least coming back to work for some length of time.)

With that kind of turnover already inherent in the workforce, I don't see that you can make the idle claim that women are inherently worse investments as employees than men.

[wired]

Accept as true (though it very well might not be) that women in the work force are more likely than men to leave an employer for extended periods of time for maternity leave or to exit the workforce altogether in order to become a stay at home parent. Assume that this results in increased costs associated with the average female employee versus the average male employee. (i.e. Since women are more likely to leave the work force, the expected cost of a female worker will be higher than the expected cost of a male worker because re-hiring and re-training costs will increase.)

Your premise is flawed. (Your subsequent reasoning and conclusion is also flawed, but we'll set that aside.) You're assuming that men (and childless women) don't change jobs as often as childbearing women because they're not taking maternity leave or dropping out of the workforce to become SAHMs. However, we don't live in a culture where the average worker is employed by the same company for 40 years.

BLS economist Chuck Pierret has been conducting a study to better assess U.S. workers' job stability over time, interviewing 10,000 individuals, first surveyed in 1979, when group members were between 14 and 22 years old. So far, members of the group have held 10.8 jobs, on average, between ages 18 and 42, using the latest data available.

Bialik, Carl."Seven Careers in a Lifetime? Think Twice, Researchers Say." The Numbers Guy, September 4, 2010.

10.8 jobs over 22 years is an average of a little over two years per job. Even if you assume that half of those jobs were part-time jobs held during the worker's undergraduate years (and therefore not "real" jobs), that's still 5.4 jobs over 18 years, which is less than 4 years per "real" job. (This is also assuming that no one in the survey was unemployed or dropped out of the workforce for any other reason during that time. Adding in those factors only compresses the amount of time they were working, which makes the turnover even higher. You're also not accounting for the fact that paid maternity leave is contingent on returning to the same position at the end of the leave. A woman who stops working to go on maternity leave is a better investment than a man who leaves his job entirely, because the woman is at least coming back to work for some length of time.)

With that kind of turnover already inherent in the workforce, I don't see that you can make the idle claim that women are inherently worse investments as employees than men.

1. I started my post with, "Accept as true," because I know there are strong arguments that it isn't true. I am not as concerned with its truthfulness as I am with the consequences if it were true.

2. I don't think the source you've provided demonstrates anything conclusive enough to draw conclusions that I am wrong. Simply because people change jobs a lot does not mean that all people will change jobs at an equal rate. Also, I can't find any numbers on it, but I would guess that women utilize government-mandated leave programs (Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Family Medical Leave Act) more than men do. As a result, even if they change jobs at the same rate, there is definitely a higher cost associated with the extended leave that doesn't accrue with others. Finally, it's possible that this could be true in some professional fields and not others. For instance, some firms make hiring decisions with the hopes that someone will stay with them long term. But all of this is tertiary to my real question. So I'll try to make the hypothetical a little more concrete and I'll reverse the genders.

Assume that a firm makes hiring decisions based on an expectation (and hope) that individuals will work for them for 20 years. They have noticed that single men tend to leave the firm at a rate much higher than other individuals. (The firm is located in a small town with not a lot of great dating options for bachelors; further, working at this firm allows men to get great jobs elsewhere.) Consequently, they want to pay single men less by the amount of the increased average expected cost between them and all other employees. Do you think they should be able to pay them less based on that? (Note, I'm not asking if they legally are or if you would work for them, only whether the you think the law SHOULD prevent them from changing their pay based on that information.)

EDIT: Or perhaps another hypo that might track the pregnancy hypo a little better. A firm hires both men and women. The only difference in cost it has noticed between the two is that the insurer's co-pays for men tend to get higher after having worked at the firm for a year. Consequently, they want to pay men less by the difference between the two co-pays. SHOULD they be able to do this?

DOUBLE EDIT: And I also realized that your source isn't useful for another reason: it might be that women make up every single one of the employees that change jobs for that figure. (I know that's not true, but you get my point.) It could be that the number is high because of women in the work force (or because of men in the work force, or because of white people in the work force, etc. etc.)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

1. When you are comparing men and women working in the same jobs, they get paid about the same. According to this article, http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender- ... st-Fiction, wage gap nearly disappears "when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." In fact, one girl who graduated with me and is working at HP told my husband that she was offered a higher salary than guys who graduated with us and had the same job offer as her.

Whoah there turbo! 1. This is a pretty weak source. 2. If you go to the "98%" study she's citing by June E. O'Neill, you'll find a much more nuanced (and complicated) study that doesn't easily boil down to the wage gap disappearing. There are lots lots more studies explaining the wage gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–femal ... ted_States is a good starting point - apologies for the url link not working), and the issue is far from settled.

And if we're talking personal experience, I had a CEO tell me privately that he mainly wanted to hire 21-25 year old males (in a company of around 35 with 2 female employees).

[Tao]

I've been turned away from multiple jobs due to my gender. Only one business was kind enough to let me know that, which I'm ok with, as was I with the job listings that come right out and say "males need not apply". Its when I showed up and completed half the interview and was dismissed out of hand that I found myself frustrated. But in the end that is how the world works, I knew it long before I sought a degree in my field and no amount of law nor lobby will change it.

Meh.

[Dragon Lady]

I've been turned away from multiple jobs due to my gender. Only one business was kind enough to let me know that, which I'm ok with, as was I with the job listings that come right out and say "males need not apply". Its when I showed up and completed half the interview and was dismissed out of hand that I found myself frustrated. But in the end that is how the world works, I knew it long before I sought a degree in my field and no amount of law nor lobby will change it.

Meh.

Remind me what your degree is in, please.

[Imogen]

Tao, that's so illegal it makes me hurt.

One of the girls in my leadership class is SO PROUD that she got hired as an engineer even though she was worst in her class because she's a woman, and got the same luck now that she's a lawyer. I want to tell her "if you were ugly, no one would have hired you, but your boss can dress you up and trot you out as their 'token female' to make himself look good."

but i keep that impulse under control...mostly...

[wired]

While I've heard of (but can't vouch for) a hiring preference for female engineers, I can assure you that she didn't get the job as an attorney simply because she is a woman. The legal profession has many, many female applicants. If she is good looking, then that could be the difference - law firms (and pretty much any employer) loves to have good looking people to interact with clients.

[Imogen]

While I've heard of (but can't vouch for) a hiring preference for female engineers, I can assure you that she didn't get the job as an attorney simply because she is a woman. The legal profession has many, many female applicants. If she is good looking, then that could be the difference - law firms (and pretty much any employer) loves to have good looking people to interact with clients.

I'd agree with you, wired, but she's the only woman at her firm, and she was hired about 3 years ago (but was not the last one hired). I had a friend apply there, and she didn't even get an interview. This firm isn't looking to hire another woman any time soon.

[wired]

Ah, I overlooked that aspect. Even though there might not be discrimination or preference in the profession as a whole, there definitely can be at individual firms. Carry on.

[Imogen]

it's actually extremely prevalent in the private firms in my area: hire a token ___________ and that's all you need to prevent your firm from looking racist/sexist/whatever! it's a sad commentary on my area.

[Marduk]

Imogen, it is not illegal (at least, the challenges are usually, but not always, lost) if one can prove that gender has a direct impact on job performance. Of course, discrimination cases are always hard to prove anyways, since folks are so rarely that direct about it, and will almost always deny that they were even when they are that direct.

[Whistler]

I believe Tao refers to massage therapy?

[Marduk]

Sauron, as long as we're pointing out flaws, the original study which established the 74% was also very, very flawed. That's the problem, I suppose, with any study that challenges the status quo to that extent; there will always be detractors pointing out problems with the study.

[Portia]

Did anyone read the Economist's special section on women's situation in the global (especially white-collar) workplace? It was really good, thorough, and debunked many myths. I only read the print edition but the e-edition can't be that hard to find.

And to address Marduk's question of who studies the male psyche and when: um, pretty much everyone, forever. The best novels, music, films, and television shows I've ever read, listened to, or watched were produced by men. Having Twelfth Night, Beethoven's 9th, and Mad Men, e.g., all being from a male perspective certainly gives you insight into the world from a man's perspective. Can you name a concerto by a woman that's up there with Tchaikovsky? A female director like Orson Welles? I can't, and I think women would actually be particularly SUITED to the creative arts. There are obvious reasons why women haven't, say, run the world's fastest 100m dash. Not even gotten into the top 10, possibly even 50, composers? "Traditional gender roles," to put it benevolently, and "sexism in music education, historically and even today," seem like a relevant response. Basically, men are already successful in the ways that I would want to be successful. Making money, getting published, discovering DNA . . . The contrast between Rosalind Franklin's and James Watson's careers is a one where I'd rather be the dude (and I'm hardly butch, and I love men, both carnally and as my only friends, so where anyone would assume that success or recognition is some kind of exclusive commodity that decreases as more women get it . . . ).

I helped my sister on a book report today, and she commented that the character spent most of the time at home (she had to make an adventure map), and what a contrast that would be to The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Boys have adventures, and girls stay home, even in 2012.

And on a lighter note.

[Unit of Energy]

There actually is a significant lack in current research about family life where men are concerned. Just because there is an abundance of male accomplishments in the past does not mean that the past is sufficient for the present. The past needs to inform, but should not be thought of as complete in our knowledge.