The Angry White Man

[DanaC]

I happen to think teachers in general are definitely underpaid for the services they provide to our society

And that's kind of my point. Teaching has generally been a fairly female job (especially at the primary and non managerial level) and I believe that's one reason it's always been undervalued, even when schools were primarily private. Nurses also have generally been undervalued imo and that too has traditionally been a female vocation.

but in the case of this argument in general, men are viewed as the root cause of the problem. Men hold the power so men get to decide who gets paid how much.

Not at all. This isn't about men deciding how much women get paid, it's about a multitude of factors both individual and societal which have led to a situation in which the overall paygap between males and females is somewhere in the region of 20% for America and Britain and indeed much of Europe and Scandinavia.

My argument was in response to suggestions that ethnic minorities and women are more powerful in America than i seem to realise; itself in response to a thread about 'angry white men' and their plight.

In America and Britain Middle-class white males are the most economically and politically powerful group taken as a whole. This does not equate to some kind of conspiracy on the part of that group to retain that imbalance it is merely an observation of the current balance of power.

[Aliantha]

Men hold the power so men get to decide who gets paid how much.

So do you disagree with this statement?

The reason I believe this to be true is because every time I've had to fight to get paid what I'm worth, I've been presenting my case to a man. Every single time without fail, although I have generally worked in male oriented industries, so it's not surprising really.

I don't think the status quo is going to change on that front too soon though. Women in general tend to do female jobs and men in general tend to do male jobs. For those to choose to cross that invisible barrier, I believe if they've had the courage to do so, they most likely have the courage to stand up for themselves.

I don't think society can be blamed for the fact that more men than women work from the time they finish school till the time they retire. It's the way it happens to be, so of course men as a group are going to be more economically powerful in the workplace. You will find that it's women in general who really control the money in the domestic situation these days though, so I ask you...

who really has the power?

[TheMercenary]

[DanaC]

Define power. I would not argue that men 'hold the power'. I would argue that as a sex they hold more economic and political power. Power comes in different forms and is operated differently according to a variety of factors.

It may be that you have had to fight to get paid what you are worth against male employees. That doesn't mean men have created the current situation. The young women who graduate today with good degrees and go into law and medicine have (except in a minority of cases) been raised by fathers as well as mothers. How many fathers have sent there daughters into the world with the firm belief that they can do anything they set their mind to? I would suggest that with each passing generation, fathers and mothers are changing the world through the raising of their children. They are raising their sons and their daughters to a level of equality that would stagger our grandparents.

Both sexes are benefiting from this. Women are no longer excluded from the public sphere and men are no longer banished from the homefront. Change is happening at a generational level. We have come a hell of a long way. When I left school the opportunities open to me were much greater than they had been for my mother. When my neice leaves school her opportunities will be much greater than were mine or her mother's. Likewise, my brother's opportunities for active and close parenting have been much greater than were my father's and when his daughters find partners they are likely to be much more equal in their parenting roles in terms of father's rights to paternity leave etc.

We've come a long way, but there's still a way to go. I do not suggest that specific action is necessary or desirable at this stage, except in terms of tweaking bits of legislation aroung paternity leave and how unofficial caring is valued (there is talk over here about continuing to pay women's national insurance when they are out of work to care for children and elderly relatives, because so many women ended up on a half pension through gaps in working). There could in some instances be better enforcement of discrimination laws and equal pay rights. In terms of the glass ceiling that still exists in some fields, that will, I am convinced, dissipate as attitudes change over time.

I don't think society can be blamed for the fact that more men than women work from the time they finish school till the time they retire. It's the way it happens to be, so of course men as a group are going to be more economically powerful in the workplace.

Correct it just happens to be. Yet there have been changes already in how women are treated by the workplace when they choose to have children. It is no longer acceptable for an employer to fire a woman simply because she is pregnant. It is no longer acceptable for an employer to refuse to employ a woman simply because she is of childbearing age and married. Yet these were acceptable practises not so long ago. The world of work is slowly coming around to female lifecycles. It has for as long as paid work has been the norm, primarily favoured a male lifecycle. Unsurprising given that in its infancy that world was govened and inhabited primarily by men, with women as an economic adjunct to that. So...even the world of work has changed to take account of female lifecycles, this suggests it could potentially change even more. The world of work could become even more 'female-friendly' in terms of working patterns and lifecycles. At the same time, male lifecycles are beginning to alter. Fathers now expect to be able to take a fuller role in their children's lives from the start. Men will now take time off work when their baby is born, and are legally protceted in doing so. It is acceptable now, in a way it was not fifty years ago for a father to phone in work because their child is sick and needs tending. These factors were often what persuaded male employers (and a few female) that they should not employ women: time off to deal with sicks kids, time off to have a baby, time off, in short, to be a mum.

Things have changed, things continue to change. But there are still levels of inequality to iron out. How long it'll take and whether or not we'll ever truly reach parity in the economic sphere i do not know. But we are not there yet.

[Aliantha]

Well that was an essay and a half Dana. I'll give you a credit for that one.

I think we basically agree about this point. I just don't think the issue is one that's going to change through any kind of official actions. I think we basically have most, if not all of the laws in place to ensure gender discrimination doesn't occur in the workplace. It's up to individuals now. That's all I'm saying.

[Griff]

I :
am a Happy White Male.
stayed home with my kids reaping the benefits and consequences of that decision.
make about 1/4 my techie wife's income.
am a teacher and get amazing emotional benefits at work.
get compensated through HHS taxes so am happy with what I get.
understand that many people go into education for stable income and benefits but don't like kids, they should quit and get marketable skills.
think that in new tech areas there is no unexplained gap. Dedicated people get compensated.
believe people should choose differently if they don't like their choice.

[classicman]

The Author of that article was on with Glenn Beck last night and Michael Smerconish (radio) this am. Book deal apparently in the works.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well that was an essay and a half Dana. I'll give you a credit for that one.

So will I.