h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"What's even more depressing is that being a knuckle-dragging thug is still provably a recipe for success with women. "
Agree, you´re right.

Have you watched Jersey Shore, Next and other tv programmes about dudes and bitches? Women have no dignity and enjoy that submission to the alpha dude.

But you are wrong if you think that that is a general biological trait of women. It´s a cultural one, a learned one, both for men and women.
Have you watched or know about the Berlusconi tv? According to your way of reasoning, Italian women and men are the most biological gifted, there are dudes and bitches a-plenty.

Most women I´ve met like sensitive and sensible men, men who have something interesting and funny to say. Men who don´t need to last to be nice ( do you really believe that?)

You think you know women and men behaviour and can explain it in terms of biology, you are an ignorant, as simply as that.

"the "knuckle-dragging thugs" who had no political ability never stayed there very long."

Indeed. But until recently, their replacements at the top were not suave operators - their replacements were more knuckle-dragging thugs. The operators were invariably standing behind them. The only question was which knuckle-dragger had the best operators standing behind him.

I'd say it's a mark of civilisation how far down the social hierarchy you have to go to find someone who has gained or maintained their position by force of arms. The more civilised the group, the less likely their leaders are to be leaders because they're strong, and the more likely they are to be leaders because they're good liars.

"Women have no dignity and enjoy that submission to the alpha dude...you are wrong if you think that that is a general biological trait of women"

Didn't say it was. I said it was a biological trait of men to try to dominate. I'd be surprised if women (in general) EVER enjoyed it. The key being that what women enjoy or don't enjoy has never been relevant in this context.

"a big assumption for starters that animal societies are naturally shaped by the behaviour of alpha males"

Who was talking about animal societies? Who was talking about looking at other animals for examples?

It is, indeed, true that bonobos function in a matriarchal society. Chimps don't. Gorillas don't. Orang utans don't. So what? Gibbons are monogamous, and who is deluded enough to think that that desperately unnatural sexual practice is in any way desirable or realistic for humans?

And indeed...so what if humans don't? The Feminist political is that women need not consent to male actions (one expression of this is in the Bindel argument you object to). Further...if 'natural' male, willy waving activities lead to dangerous nonsense such as the centuries of spear chucking you refer to, women *should* not assent to it.

My interpretation of the Feminist argument is that it goes way beyond equality in a society whose parameters have been set by men: it's about running the world in a better way.

The Feminist political -> The Feminist political argument

Why do men shout at women in the street?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12771938

"Men have been indoctrinated into it, and it's been a privilege for them to walk down the street fantasising about women
Maggie Hadleigh-West Activist and film-maker"

eh?

Some interesting quotes in today's Guardian from a victim of feminism:

"I am still waiting for one single 'feminist' newspaper columnist who called me a man, a fraud, or a liar to apologise," she said. "Up until November 2009, I would have said I was a feminist. Then I found out the hard way that feminism in this country is like the Ivy League: it's mostly filled with the sort of people you spent your school years avoiding."

And: "I've tried to give a shit about maternity leave and who does the housework, and all I can come up with is, if your job doesn't give you as much time off as you want, suck it up or get another job. If your partner doesn't do the washing-up, same.

"Why this need to publish endless tomes on the subject? It seems a pretty lame preoccupation when there are still eight countries in the world where a woman can legally be put to death for adultery."

How refreshing.

I don't read that as being from a "victim of feminism" but from a disgruntled journalist who hasn't actually encountered any genuine feminists. As previously stated I know a lot of feminists and they're all nice, well adjusted people. Saying that the media/internet ranters are representative of the average feminist is a bit like saying the Jack Chick is representative of Christians.

Although I can understand you being supportive of someone who thinks "sucking it up" is an appropriate way to deal with working conditions you don't like (not that maternity leave is "time off" by any stretch of the imagination... oddly enough, and I'm sure this has been said before, having a baby is not like having a nice holiday)

Ah so 'feminist journalists' aren't 'real' feminists because they aren't nice like 'real' feminists and say nasty things about men that no real feminist would say?

Well... no. Not all 'real' feminists are going to be nice people, nor are all the ones I know nice all the time. Nor did I even *imply* that all feminist journalists are ranty types who say nasty things.

However, it is true that ranty vicious journalists who claim to be feminists cannot ever be taken as really representative of the average feminist. I don't regard anyone with a hostile personal agenda as a 'real' whatever they claim to be.

In the case of positive movements, that is... obviously negative political movements are choc-full of hostile personal agendas and wouldn't survive without them.

From an entirely different conversation elsewhere I was presented with this observation:

So... women are, in general, paid less than men for doing the same work? The figure often quoted is, on average, women are paid 80% of what men are paid, for doing exactly the same jobs. Let us, for a moment, imagine that that is true. (I know, it's a stretch, but go with it for a bit).

We know how capitalist free enterprise works. Private companies have a duty, indeed an obligation, to maximise their profits and hence the value of their shares. The two basic ways to increase profits are (a) increase income and (b) decrease costs. Pretty simple stuff. Every company will cut its costs at every opportunity, especially in these hard financial times.

Now: if we for a moment imagine that it is true that women who do exactly the same work as men get paid 20% less... which private companies have hugely increased their competitiveness and massively reduced their costs by hiring only women?

Why do I, a man, have ANY chance of ever getting a job if it's true that a woman could do it just as well for many, many thousands of pounds less every year?

We live in a competitive, capitalist system. If there are two resources, both equivalently good, one 20% cheaper than the other, anyone who uses ANY of the more expensive one will soon be out of business.

So how come any man has a job?

Because the reason women get paid less is that ingrained institutionalised sexism says they don't do as good a job as men. If private companies believed women could do as good a job they'd be paid the same as the men.

Actually, Mr D...it's a bit more complex and to do with stratification in the labour market. Hourly paid/salaried; low paid/better; part time/full; contractor Ts&Cs/employees. Women are over represented in all the wrong places.

(No time for a full analysis of reasons, I'm afraid.)

At the 'Good' end, where men are employed, market forces elevate as much as depress pay (think of bankers) - but not at the lower end.


Incidentally...

>>women are, in general, paid less than men for doing the same work? The figure often quoted is, on average, women are paid 80% of what men are paid, for doing exactly the same jobs.

That may be true - although equality legislation is meant to have stopped that. *However*...it's often difficult to make cross-sex comparisons. It can be more meaningful to compare between predominantly female and predominantly male jobs. A more meaningful question might be why 'women's work' is valued less than men's?

"If private companies believed women could do as good a job they'd be paid the same as the men"

I think someone needs a course in economics... no company that hopes to stay in business pays its employees any more than it thinks it can get away with.

The true fact is this: if private companies believed women could do as good a job as men (for less money), they'd employ women INSTEAD.

The observation is that they don't - so what is going on?

"where men are employed, market forces elevate as much as depress pay"

Market forces don't incentivise companies to elevate their costs unnecessarily.

What company (bank or otherwise) that hopes to maximise its profits pays more than the minimum it believes it can get away with? If that minimum is high compared to the average wage, that's a feature of high demand for a limited number of people with the requisite skills. I'm paid more than average, for example, because there are relatively few people who can do what I do. Not that few, mind you, so I'm not commuting in Ferrari, but I do OK because my skills are relatively rare and in demand.

"A more meaningful question might be why "women's work" is valued less than men's"

Economics answers this one bluntly:
(a) "women's work" requires fewer skills, so...
(b) there are more people available with the skills prepared to do the work for less pay (supply is high)
(c) the demand for the work is low

You might just as well ask why is flipping burgers valued less than brain surgery. Same answer.

What things do you characterise as "women's work"?

So you've come to this with a starting position of:
a) economics is dead easy
b) feminists should shut up.

business as usual.

<>

You gonna pay for me to do it?

Also, the notion of "women's work" is utterly ludicrous and only really exists because of the ingrained institutionalised sexism I mentioned before. The ONLY things IN THE WORLD that are truly female-specfic are child bearing, childbirth and breastfeeding. After that the distinction is just the rantings of desparate men realising that not only can women be embarrassingly good at traditionally male roles, but that men are quite often embarrassingly bad at traditionally female ones.

"the notion of "women's work" is utterly ludicrous"

In fairness, I

(a) didn't bring it up and
(b) questioned it when it was brought up by NtM.

"a) economics is dead easy
b) feminists should shut up"

Er... no. Rather: economics has a few basic tenets which are pretty universally true and easily recognised (e.g. small demand, high supply = low price, high demand, small supply = high price).

And feminists might like to try to explain the observation that despite men being, they tell us, 20% more expensive than women FOR EXACTLY THE SAME WORK, companies persist in wasting their money employing men.