I'm hard pressed to consider 20-50 year old American women as having been culturally oppressed

Great Debates
161

Actually, I got a raise looking them, blinking three times and saying, “you know that an equal pay act was passed in 1963, don’t you?” They took the hint and backed down. This was several jobs ago for me.

But salaries are highly private. I only knew because we’d gotten salary based bonuses and the guys were talking, and I realized mine was 30% less than theirs. Which is why the conversation with HR came up. Otherwise, I’d never have known.

Its really hard to prove discrimination in court. A conversation between two people is going to turn into “he said, she said.”

162

Did you agree to your pay when you were hired?

If you do better work for less pay than you can demand equal pay or you’ll leave. If the company refuses then you probably don’t want to work for a stupid company.

163

That sounds like exactly what she did.

That said, this not something that normally comes to your attention. Most people don’t talk about their salaries with co-workers, and in fact many work places discourage it.

There are many reasons that one person can start at a lower salary than someone else. But if the reason they are offered a lower salary, or that they get smaller raises is their sex, that is illegal. Finding out about it, much less proving it, is extremely difficult. The recent supreme court ruling highlighted the problem. In the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case, even though a jury found that discrimination took place, since Ledbetter did not find out about it till years later, she was time barred from filing suit. How many people (who don’t work in HR) know how much their peers at work are getting?

Jonathan

164

Which is pretty much what I did. They paid me more. And within a year I left for somewhere that paid me still more. And within three was making three times what I had made when I was “the underpaid woman.” And I ran into one of my old coworkers not too long ago, still there, still in his job, and almost certainly not making three times what he was making back then.

I agreed to the pay when hired, but this was six years into my term there - I’d received several raises and promotions - my grade had even been reclassed and my salary “competitively adjusted.”

But…I had to ask HR to get the raise. To ask, I had to know I was significantly underpaid compared to the men in the same position. To know, someone had to imply something they shouldn’t have. And when I did ask, HR found it reasonable and did not answer with something like “well, their customer service skills are better” or “they have additional responsibilities” or some other bullshit that MIGHT have played off as non-sexist. They said “well, men have families to support.” Since this is a thread about 20-50 year old women and sexism - that piece of information seemed pertinent.

165

Women were needed to bear more children to replace the war’s inevitable loss of life. One man (assuming he’s normally fertile, and normally interested in sex) can sire many children in a month. A man in poor health, say some guy who lost a leg or something in the last war, can easily impregnate at least a score of women a month, every month, for as long as needed. A woman needs nine months to carry one pregnancy to term. The bottleneck for rebuilding population is with the women, and having a shortage of women will affect this rebuilding. A man in poor health, say some guy who lost a leg or something in the last war, can easily impregnate at least a score of women a month, every month, for as long as needed. A woman’s life isn’t more important than a man’s is, it’s the fact that every woman who’s out on the battlefield is a woman of childbearing years (usually) who isn’t sitting at home, waiting for her bun to emerge from the oven.

As for the rest of it, opening doors and all that, that has traditionally been only shown to women of the middle or upper class, not lower class women. It’s not being polite to women as individuals, it’s more a matter of respect for their male relatives. See Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech. She says, in short, that the men who accorded courtesies to white women didn’t accord those same courtesies to her, but instead expected her to work and be treated as a man, yet not have the same rights as a man. Frankly, I’d rather not have doors opened for me in deference to my sex, if it means that women, including my daughter and myself, are considered to be just as worthy as men, with all the rights and privileges that men have traditionally kept for themselves.

166

“A woman’s life is more important than a man’s” has nothing to do with respecting women as human beings, and everything to do with respecting them as property. Basically, what it boils down to is “your life is so precious that we are just going to have to make sure you don’t make any bad decisions here.” No thank you.

My last vacation (one of the more amazing experiences of my life) was almost ruined by someone with this line of thinking. Someone deep in the bowels of the decision making machine decided my life was so precious that he had the right to forbid me from going to a place that in theory could be dangerous (It’s not at all, really. But some people see it that way.) So I got a message saying that my vacation request was denied because it “wasn’t a good time.”

I called them right back and asked them why it was a good time for my male colleague leaving for the same place just one day earlier than me.

The waffled a bit and finally did end up giving approval.

This wasn’t in America, so it is a different thing all together. But I think it is still a useful example of why “protecting women” can be very harmful.

167

If you don’t mind my asking, where was this, and where were you travelling to?

168

One comment I will make about the feminism argument in general that does stick in my craw as a woman is some women’s refusal to accept that women are legitimately different biologically from men. In other words, as mentioned above, there are some physical limitations many women have (such as height and weight and muscle mass) that may prevent them from doing certain jobs. Similarly, there are biological differences that make women more equipped to fill other roles, such as those related to motherhood.

This is probably going to get me flamed… but, I do think that men and women can be equally nurturing, making both very well-suited for parenting; but you can’t get around that men have a specific “male” system of hormones while women have a speicific “female” system of hormones. That often translates to women (particularly those who are nursing) often being better equipped to staying home the first few years of a baby’s life than the baby’s father might be.

I realize that there are exceptions. Motherhood is not all biology; otherwise, you wouldn’t have so many successful situations where babies have been adopted or men have perhaps fit the role of stay-at-home dad better than their wife would have been a stay-at-home mother.

But it does drive me crazy because it seems that refusing to accept those differences as real means that bothmen and women have less choice or it complicates things when choosing which path they’d like to follow.

As a woman who works full time, I often wish I could work less because I do want to stay home at least part-time. Me working full time means both less time with my children and it also means that the house (the management of which used to occupy women full-time) takes up virtually all my free time at home and a lot of my mental energy otherwise, putting a lot of stress on me and, secondarily, my family.

My current job requires a lot of expertise, but the work is doable in around 20-30 hours a week. Even though I’d be willing to take a comparable pay cut to work fewer hours, I know that a) my employer wouldn’t allow it and b) I wouldn’t be taken as seriously as an “expert” in my field, even though I am capable of gaining and processing the same knowledge and completing the same amount of work in less time. My field is very difficult, but I have a good base and can respond quickly to changes.

I feel like the expectation that it’s one or the other - I’m either a progressive, career-minded woman with children or a 50’s-style housewife - puts a hell of a lot of stress on me and my family and that, in some ways, feminism has backfired. Yes, I now have the priviledge of being able to continue supporting my family despite being 8 months pregnant and there are legal protections in place to make sure I don’t lose my job for recovering from a delivery and bonding with my child, but at the same time, I don’t have the luxury of taking care of my own sanity because if I want a career, I have to be both a full-time parent and homemaker (as does my husband) on a part-time basis and a full-time worker when I don’t necessarily need to be.

So I guess my issue is two-fold: in our intense desire to get equal treatment in the workplace, some women seem to have lost sight of the fact that we’re still biologically different from men. Yet if we do recognize those biological differences or even the need of someone - whether it’s the woman or the man - the run the household and nurture the kids even on a part-time basis, many of us (men and women included, though men probably moreso, even though they could probably start back full-time at higher pay than a woman would) it doesn’t matter anyway. Which means that both members of a couple are SOL unless we have a very understanding employer or start our own business, which is frequently not possible.

169

Huh? Your employer cares about you so much that they choose where you take your private vacations?
How do you know that this was sex discrimination? Maybe they had a legitimate reason–and didnt want to approve your vacation because they wanted your services at work? (after all, you say that your male colleague was on vaction at the same time.)
In my (very small) office, we NEVER allow 2 colleagues to be on vacation at the same time, because when one is gone the other has to help cover his work load.

Maybe what you see as gender discrimination was just some bureacrat trying to make his own life easier, by not having too many people on vacation at once.Then he backed down and approved your request–but, again, not because of discrimination, but just because he wanted to make his own life easier by not arguing with you.

170

Then I’m not sure what the problem is. Most companies will try to hire people for as little as they can. You agreed to the salary and they later increased it when you demanded equal pay. I don’t see this as evidence of female oppression. (My apologies if you aren’t claiming it is oppression.)

171

They paid her less because she was female, even though she was more qualified and a better employee than the men they paid more.

They paid her less specifically because she was female, by their own admission. Not because she was hired at a different time, not because she was hired by a different person, not anything like that. Just simply because she was a woman.

And you don’t understand why that’s considered evidence of sex discrimination? Are you whooshing me or trolling me? :dubious:

172

It’s a complicated situation that doesn’t make sense in American terms. But yeah, that is what happened and I do have reason to believe my interpretation of the events is correct. I’m not telling this story to point out some huge injustice. It makes sense here.

Rather I just want to point out why the “women are precious and should be protected” attitude is not just harmless politeness. It’s an attitude that leads to women’s lives being smaller, less adventurous, and more constricted. We do it to ourselves, too. This cultural attitude ultimately fills women with fear, such that they curtail their own lives and stick to the safer paths. We dampen our own dreams.

My dream is to wander the world. The best moments of my life have been stuff like taking a poor-man’s cargo canoe up the Niger River to Timbuktu with nothing to eat but some rotting goat meat and nowhere to sleep but the dunes on the banks.

I’ve been told I shouldn’t dream that, since it’s possible I’ll end up raped on the side of the road or something. I’ve been asked over and over again why I’m not more scared. But, just like a man, I’m able to weigh risks and make decisions. I’ve decided the risk of being raped is more acceptable than the certainty of missing out on my dreams.

I don’t think most men make their life decisions based on their fear of violent crime, and I don’t think the evidence shows that it’s rational for women to, either. But talk to women one day. You’ll find for many of them fear of violent crime is one of the major facts in why they live their lives the way they do.

Unfortunately, plenty of people still feel like this decision of mine is theirs to make. I think it goes back to the days when rape was basically a property crime against the male relatives. But then again, apparently I’m a raving feminist.

Anyway, my risk. My decision. My life. I’ll decide to what degree I need protecting, thank you.

173

I feel like prey most of the time, and I live my life in order to avoid being hurt, just because I’m a woman. The first time I felt I was in danger for being female was when I was 8-years old and a male classmate tried to grab my butt. I turned on him and tried to club him with my satchel of books, and then he wanted to retaliate by pounding me into a sidewalk. I’ve always been scrappy but I’m pretty sure I would have caught the bad end of that. Fortunately his friend pulled him away from me before any punches were thrown. The next time I was 12 and a man crept along in his car as I walked home from school. He never said anything to me, I didn’t even get a look at his face, and I ran away to get away from him, but the inexplicable vibes I got from him made my hair stand on end. Since then I’ve had many other occasions of having men want to hurt me only because I’m female. Sometimes those men have just looked me over, or came sniffing around me, trying to figure out how much I’d put up a fight if they tried to hurt me. Again, it was often nothing concrete, just a gut feeling, like a very bad vibe.

It’s just a fact of life that many men (not all of course) want to hurt women and are physically capable of overpowering women. These are probably the fringe men who are violent and/or emotionally unstable, but still there are lots of them. I often prefer to be alone, away from crowds, but I’ve learned that I get more attention than I want when I’m alone, especially from unstable jerks. There is just something about an “unfettered” woman that triggers the predatory nature of certain types men. So I do pick and choose when/where/how to be alone. I forgo certain places and activities where I don’t feel safe. I go to crowded places when I’d really prefer to hike alone in the woods for hours. I seriously resent having to limit myself to certain activities, but I continue to do it. That’s not to say you shouldn’t do what you want to do or travel where you want to go. And I agree you’re the only one who should make decisions about what to do about your life, and where you should travel. But I’m just pointing out that many of us women unsafe because our firsthand experiences of close encounters have taught us to feel this way.

174

In the United States, it’s considered a serious put-down to call a man anything feminine. Hell, even girls don’t like to be called “sissy.” It is either a mild reproach or a compliment to call a girl a “tomboy,” and a high compliment to consider a woman “one of the guys.” Any sign of weakness on the part of a man is considered to be indicative of his being too “girly.”

The laws have changed, and the conscious position has improved. But we continue to be a society that essentially looks down on and rather dislikes women. I don’t see this improving with the current generation.

175

What’s a company supposed to say when they admit one employee is making more than another? Clerical error? I’m sure I’m getting paid less than others in my company who are no better than me. Is that obvious evidence of me being oppressed?

If the company refused to raise her salary then I would agree that that was oppression but it’s not oppression just because one person is paid less than another.

176

What would I say, if I were a corporate drone who got caught enacting wage discrimination? I’d lie, of course. They didn’t. The flat-out admitted that they were discriminating against her because of her gender. “Men have families to support” as a reason why they get paid more for the same work should have gone out the window around the time they did away with belted maxi pads.

I don’t know, I’d sure feel oppressed by it regardless of the reason for it. Fortunately, my salary is determined by a chart that calculates the number of post-bachelors credits I have and years in the profession, so there’s no room for this sort of bullshit.

How are you still missing the fact that they admitted they were paying her less for no other reason than her gender? That is pretty damning evidence of oppression. Certainly it’s worse than anything I’ve ever experienced. But I’ve been pretty lucky in that respect.

177

Depends on the reason. Are they paying you less because you are a member of a class? Because you are Jewish, Black and Gay? Then, yes, its evidence you are being oppressed.

Class discrimination cases are really hard to prove though, because you generally need statistical evidence of discrimination AS A CLASS. Generally that is something like running box charts against salary by gender and discovering a statistically significant difference in mean salaries in the same employment class.

In this case, the company had, the year before, settled such a case brought by their African American employees that cost them several million dollars in fines and back pay. I didn’t bring suit, so I don’t know if underpaying female employees was systemic, or if it was just me. Knowing what I know about them, systemic wouldn’t surprise me, and they caved darn quick if they weren’t scared.

(ETA: They settled one after I left on age discrimination - they’d done a layoff that didn’t have anyone under 50 cut. They weren’t the brightest knife in the corporate drawer when it came to these things - good ol’ boys.)

178

If I understand the original story correctly, the company knew full well that the men didn’t have a family to support. Their answer could be nothing more than a lame alternative to “we hired you as cheaply as possible”.

179

If they’d said “we hired you as cheaply as possible”, she wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on. So basically, you’re saying the HR person REALLY screwed up. Hiring someone as cheaply as possible is not illegal. Specifically indicating that one person’s pay is less then another’s due to a protected status, is.