[Unthinking Majority]

But this isn't a question of Christian values.

It's not that men and women don't want to live in single-income homes or raise families. They materially can't.

The anti-feminists - the Reagans and libertarian conservatives of the world - have done more to destroy traditional institutions of family than any feminist.

I know what you're saying, and i'm not a neoliberal nor economically conservative, but I don't think it only comes down to one variable (economics). And I'm not only blaming feminism. More people just don't want kids, you have to acknowledge this. I know many people like this personally. They don't want to be tied down with the responsibility, they would rather spend their time and money on themselves.

Yeah it's expensive to raise kids, it always has been. My parents had several brothers and sisters and they grew up without much money in houses much smaller than today but they still managed. No big master bedrooms with on-suite bathrooms, 1 car for the family, out of town vacations were rare and they never took commercial flights for vacations to the Caribbean every year, maybe they had a trip like driving to Disneyworld once every 5 years. Some people have certain lifestyles they wish to maintain, and the medical technology & abortion rights now exist now to limit children to whatever people want. So a lot of it is what priorities people have. Saying "they materially can't have kids" is nonsense. What they can't do is have more kids while maintaining a certain standard of living/lifestyle. And i'm sorry but many women want to have careers while also raising families, most weren't forced into the workplace. You can't blame everything on capitalism as if people are simply victims, people have also made certain choices.

[Unthinking Majority]

The criminalization of existence didn't exist 150 years ago.

What does this mean?

Rape and domestic abuse was much higher - so high, a bunch of non-voting women even got men to ban alcohol over it. The onset of easy divorce may have led to more single-family homes, sure, but for a good reason. The alternative is a worse outcome.

I'm not saying all divorce is wrong, yeah there's abusive relationships that should end. But I think there's many examples of easy divorces leading to better outcomes for the parents but worse outcomes for the kids.

Real wages were higher and growing with productivity until the 1970s - I guess feminism is to blame for that.

Again:

Neoliberalism, job exportation etc is a big cause for wages stagnating, there's multiple factors involved.

I wouldn't deny the right for women or both parents to work, that's fine people have a right to do as they wish and it's even healthy psychologically for them & their kids, but there are also some consequences to these actions. Do you think flooding the job market with almost 50% more workers didn't contribute to stagnating wages? Wages are largely based on supply and demand, so vastly increasing the supply of workers is going to reduce the leverage or most workers.

Do you think significantly increasing the incomes for families by having both parents work didn't contribute to inflation, especially in housing prices?

I'm not trying to say "feminism = bad!", i'm all for equal opportunity/rights for women, i'm saying we've had many changes to our society, some of them with negative consequences, and we should have managed them better.

[Godstud]

Women are paid 83% of what men are paid. If feminists did not speak up about this, then men would not even touch the subject. Men in power just want to keep things the way they are, business as usual. If I could afford to be an activist, I would be active in fighting for equal pay for women and minorities in the US.

The wage gap is a myth... at least in the way that Feminists try to sell it. You're smart. Don't buy the lie.

The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.
https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/


It is absolutely illegal to pay a woman less than a man.

If women could be paid 80 cents on the dollar, legally, then everyone would hire them instead of men.

Get in there and ask for a raise, @MistyTiger. Most women do no do so, and sometimes get paid less because of their agreeableness. Men won't put up with what a woman will.

[Verv]

I know what you're saying, and i'm not a neoliberal nor economically conservative, but I don't think it only comes down to one variable (economics). And I'm not only blaming feminism. More people just don't want kids, you have to acknowledge this. I know many people like this personally. They don't want to be tied down with the responsibility, they would rather spend their time and money on themselves.

From a great thread on Twitter that was dealing with this phenomenon:



Do read the linked Spengler quotes if you have the time - pretty wonderful shtuff.

What is so unique about our postmodernity, though, is that this suicide of an individual civilization has become largely globalzied since there is such a strong monoculture in the West, and the feeling has been transmitted so thoroughly through to everybody else.

Plus it's just as the Tweet says - the urbanization + money overtime results in the decline and fertility crisis.

We should not think of having kids as a choice, but as a life stage that is necessary for everyone who is not living by some religious call to celibacy. Becuse, if we do not do this, we will never become rounded as individuals, nor will we please our families and contributes back to society.

To not do this is not some 'choice...' It's selfish and suicidal.

Yeah it's expensive to raise kids, it always has been. My parents had several brothers and sisters and they grew up without much money in houses much smaller than today but they still managed. No big master bedrooms with on-suite bathrooms, 1 car for the family, out of town vacations were rare and they never took commercial flights for vacations to the Caribbean every year, maybe they had a trip like driving to Disneyworld once every 5 years. Some people have certain lifestyles they wish to maintain, and the medical technology & abortion rights now exist now to limit children to whatever people want. So a lot of it is what priorities people have. Saying "they materially can't have kids" is nonsense. What they can't do is have more kids while maintaining a certain standard of living/lifestyle. And i'm sorry but many women want to have careers while also raising families, most weren't forced into the workplace. You can't blame everything on capitalism as if people are simply victims, people have also made certain choices.

I hate to be that guy but form a purely historical perspective, it is extremely cheap to have kids now in most societies since it is highly unlikely you will face starvation or a threat to your material well-being...

I think that, particularly in Europe, you could probably pop out a ton of kids and depend on government handouts. You'd still have your smartphone and TV... Of course, you and your 8 kids won't be going on vacation to <beautiful resort town> every year. But you will have a lot of kids, and a legacy.

Now, having said that... People just don't really have the time for rearing children much anymore. Even with just two kids, it is often the case that the kids end up being reared by the daycare workers and the state-sponsored school teachers from the age of 3 months.

It's a rough setup.

[Politics_Observer]

A lot of people don't want kids because the economy must first offer wages high enough for average working people to be able to afford to pay for kids and still have some money left over for things like retirement and going on vacation and being able to own a car and a house. If the economy can't provide those kinds of jobs to average working people then people won't have kids.

Economy doesn't pay enough money to have kids and still be able to have a future. The first thing anybody should ask before having kids is where is enough money and where is the stability both emotionally and financially in the long term? If it isn't there then you shouldn't have kids and that's why many people don't have kids. It isn't there. So, there is no sense in having kids.

Republicans recognize people are doing this and so they try to force people to have kids they don't want by getting rid of abortion and they do this so the rich business owners they represent will have a steady supply of cheap labor they can pay with shitty wages and little to no benefits. It's about power, money, and control when it comes to anti-abortion and not about any sort of notion of "pro life."

[Fasces]

We should not think of having kids as a choice, but as a life stage that is necessary for everyone who is not living by some religious call to celibacy.

Why make this distinction or allowance?

What is so unique about our postmodernity, though, is that this suicide of an individual civilization has become largely globalzied since there is such a strong monoculture in the West, and the feeling has been transmitted so thoroughly through to everybody else.

Global population is growing, so it isn't globalized.

To not do this is not some 'choice...' It's selfish and suicidal.

If we're going to start by quoting Spengler, we should follow his logic the whole way. It isn't selfish, and isn't suicidal. Men and women lose fertility at an alarming rate starting with their middle age (in the case of women, all at once), but they still fulfill a strong biological role in their societies. Their lack of children is not useless or selfish or suicidal and they still fulfill a vital social role.

Societies mature, again, according to Spengler, in a roughly similar way. Starting with the Heroic Age of Youth, when they are young and fertile and abundant and growing... but eventually, and inevitably, having to die and make room for new civilizations to grow. The role of the aging civilizations isn't to remain endlessly young and growing - such a thing, on a planetary scale, is unsustainable. It is also undesirable. If Rome had never died, there wouldn't be a France or a Spain or an England. For Spengler, this cycle isn't a bad thing, but something necessary and inevitable. Civilizations are born. They grow. They mature. They die. New civilizations emerge.

If we continue the analogy, the role of these developed societies that are less fertile, much like the role of the grandparents and others, is to help foster the development of those civilizations which are still young, to organize a society better than the one they themselves were born into.

Is Western society fulfilling this role, or is it one of those Madonna/Trump types, delusionally trying to be young and sexy into their 80s?

The world isn't ending just because Europe and East Asia reproduce at below replacement rates. Civilization won't end with them.

[Verv]

Why make this distinction or allowance?

Because, through prayer and meditation, miracles are worked. Society needs monastics to pray for our souls and to provide us with wisdom and guidance. We need Priests and other clergy who achieve complete detachment from the material and worldly, and can treat us all as their children, with total equality.

It is also only in this state that some people can escape their own suffering, or even a shelter can be created for other broken people. For instance, the work of monastics in healing the victims of sexual crime and drug culture is vital.

You cannot truly achieve detachment if you are married.

Global population is growing, so it isn't globalized.

You know why your statement is misleading...

In 2017, the global total fertility rate (TFR) was at 2.4, and it is expected to go below replacement level soemtime around 2050, and even hit 1.5 by 2100.



There are 23 countries whose population is expected to be halved by 2100. Of course, this does not mean that they will not have the domestic population replaced via replacement migration (now a taboo word ), but it certainly means that these cultures will become extinct in some cases.

What is also remarkable about all of this is that one of the countries with the sharpest drops in population is going to be Thailand - not exactly a paradise. (BBC)

We see places like Brazil, Colombia, and Bangladesh are below repalcement level..! It's literally the case that societies that still struggle with development and extreme poverty are no longer producing enough people to sustain themselves. Some parts of India are also now below the replacement level of 2.1...

You see where this is going.

If we're going to start by quoting Spengler, we should follow his logic the whole way. It isn't selfish, and isn't suicidal. Men and women lose fertility at an alarming rate starting with their middle age (in the case of women, all at once), but they still fulfill a strong biological role in their societies. Their lack of children is not useless or selfish or suicidal and they still fulfill a vital social role.

Yes, of course, everyone is a miracle and has value. That is why creating more people is so great.

Nobody becomes useless or a terrible human being when they don't have kids... But they are doing something that is wrong in most circumstances.

Do not be too sensitive about this - nobody is perfect.

I've only achieved one kid - I am below the TFR! Even if I squeeze out another, I still have not really done my part.

Societies mature, again, according to Spengler, in a roughly similar way. Starting with the Heroic Age of Youth, when they are young and fertile and abundant and growing... but eventually, and inevitably, having to die and make room for new civilizations to grow. The role of the aging civilizations isn't to remain endlessly young and growing - such a thing, on a planetary scale, is unsustainable. It is also undesirable. If Rome had never died, there wouldn't be a France or a Spain or an England. For Spengler, this cycle isn't a bad thing, but something necessary and inevitable. Civilizations are born. They grow. They mature. They die. New civilizations emerge.

But we should fight death, right..? Especially when it's our society and legacy that is dying.

Yuo may be comfortable with Spain ceasing to exist (at least as the Spain we understand), but I think it's a loss for the world, even if something decent comes after it, because it doesn't have to be that way.

If we continue the analogy, the role of these developed societies that are less fertile, much like the role of the grandparents and others, is to help foster the development of those civilizations which are still young, to organize a society better than the one they themselves were born into.

Right -- but I think that Spengler would see the process as the old, decadent elites of Ruritania dying, and being replaced by a new version of Ruritania, and not Ruritania ceasing to exist.

[Politics_Observer]

@Verv

Where is the money Verv? Where is the good paying jobs for regular working folks? Where is the long term financial and emotional stability that is required before people should be having kids?

[Fasces]

In 2017, the global total fertility rate (TFR) was at 2.4, and it is expected to go below replacement level soemtime around 2050, and even hit 1.5 by 2100.

Fish grow to the size of their bowl. Animals find it hard to breed in obvious captivity.

Humans are hitting the sides of their bowl. The population will plateau at around 10 billion. It must plateau. Humanity cannot grow endlessly and forever in this fishbowl.

But we should fight death, right..?

So in this analogy, you are Madonna, desperately trying to be sexy and fertile into her death.

I don't see the value or dignity in that.

Now, do our societies have some very unhealthy habits that hasten old age and the loss of fertility? Absolutely. Western society is especially guilty of that, largely because Western society has a lot of very bad colonial-era habits and social institutions predicated on the concept of a frontier and unlimited growth - ideas you're channeling in this thread.

Yuo may be comfortable with Spain ceasing to exist (at least as the Spain we understand)

Nations are myths and eternally changing. My Spain is already very different than the Spain of my grandparents or the Spain of my grandchildren.

[Verv]

@Verv

Where is the money Verv? Where is the good paying jobs for regular working folks? Where is the long term financial and emotional stability that is required before people should be having kids?

If yuo are a liberal... You probably believe Sweden & Norway are basically Utopias, right..?

So Sweden has a TFR of 1.7. Norway, 1.53. Are the Utopias doing it wrong? Not enough welfare in the world famous progressive welfare state..? Why do people in like Utah and Nebraska have more kids?

In my area, all the Uzbeks & Russians who come over to work in the factories or low end white collar jobs have 2 kids or more, and many of the Koreans are unmarried, or they are like 50 years old with a single 12 year old daughter (which may be exactly what I become)...

Why is this..?

Why is it the case that poor immigrants with jobs that earn only 70% of what Koreans earn and who have zero policies here facilitating their home ownership are reproducing far more than the Koreans..?

I think there is something about us that simply decides that it's too much sacrifice. The rationalization is that the economy is too bad...

But the economy is only too bad when you expect to be able to take a foreign vacation once every few years and you expect to be able to dine out, have bar night, etc.

[Verv]

Fish grow to the size of their bowl. Animals find it hard to breed in obvious captivity.

Well, venture back to 19th century England and see the absolute state of surplus humanity there and you'll see how this is wrong.

... It is also interesting how European fish won't have baby fish... So they have to import foreign fish.

Humans are hitting the sides of their bowl. The population will plateau at around 10 billion. It must plateau. Humanity cannot grow endlessly and forever in this fishbowl.

If the bowl is having a lifestyle identical to a modern north American, this could be argued, but each day as tech gets greener, or even if we just solve issues concerning structure and transportaiton, we can still have our electronics and enable regular people to live & die as consoomers in their hometowns so everyone can be happy.

So in this analogy, you are Madonna, desperately trying to be sexy and fertile into her death.

I don't see the value or dignity in that.

How about this:

I am trying to be part of the new society - my ethnicity or my wife's ethnicity are irrelevant to me, but I am basically joining the immigrants, although I decidedly want to be part of the new culture that is being born. In this culture, I want to preserve as much of the past as is reasonable.

I am just criticizing the infertile.

Now, do our societies have some very unhealthy habits that hasten old age and the loss of fertility? Absolutely. Western society is especially guilty of that, largely because Western society has a lot of very bad colonial-era habits and social institutions predicated on the concept of a frontier and unlimited growth - ideas you're channeling in this thread.

I'd argue that I am supporting sustainability. I am also isolationist.

Nations are myths and eternally changing. My Spain is already very different than the Spain of my grandparents or the Spain of my grandchildren.

Everything can be deconstructed to the point of being a myth. But there is a constant in Korea, or in Spain, and if this constant is completely wiped out, then it's really quite sad.

The Koreans of the 10th, 15th, and 21st century are all quite different... But there is continuity. If it comes to the point where there is no continuity, that is a tragedy, IMO.

[MistyTiger]

The wage gap is a myth... at least in the way that Feminists try to sell it. You're smart. Don't buy the lie.

The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.
https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/


It is absolutely illegal to pay a woman less than a man.

If women could be paid 80 cents on the dollar, legally, then everyone would hire them instead of men.

Get in there and ask for a raise, @MistyTiger. Most women do no do so, and sometimes get paid less because of their agreeableness. Men won't put up with what a woman will.

It is not a myth.

Despite substantial progress toward pay equity, women in 2022 still earn 17% less than men on average. Many explanations for this gap have been proposed: Women may choose to work in lower-paying occupations; they may have less experience due to having taken time off to have kids or care for elders; they may shy away from negotiation or competition; they may be passed over by managers, perhaps due to conscious or unconscious bias. But what would happen to the earnings gap if we eliminated all of these factors?

To explore this question, we analyzed a setting where none of these explanations are at play, yet women still bring home just $89 for each $100 that men do. We obtained seven years of pay data for bus and train operators employed by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), where union-negotiated contracts leave no room for managerial gender bias or employee negotiation. Instead, objective structures determine pay: Each worker’s hourly rate is set according to their tenure, and seniority dictates who gets to pick their schedule first and who gets offered overtime opportunities. Nevertheless, even among people in exactly the same role at the same seniority level, we found an 11% gender gap in take-home pay.

So, what drove this earnings gap? We found that the more unpredictable, unconventional, or uncontrollable workers’ schedules were, the greater the resulting gender gap, but that the right approach to scheduling can boost both pay equity and productivity.

Much of the earnings gap arose because women are more likely than men to have responsibilities outside of work that necessitate predictable schedules, such as bringing elderly parents to doctors’ appointments or picking children up from school. These inflexible commitments make women less able to take on shifts when scheduling is unpredictable and last-minute, leading to gender disparities in workers’ ability to take on overtime shifts (which are compensated at 1.5 times the regular wage). We found that when overtime shifts were offered on short notice — i.e., day-of or the day before — women accepted the opportunities almost 50% less often than men, but when given the chance to plan ahead and build overtime into their schedule three months in advance, women were only 7% less likely than men to take on the extra hours.

Similarly, commitments outside of work often mean that female employees may need to work more-conventional hours than their male counterparts, making them less able to take on weekend shifts, holiday shifts, or split-shifts. (A split-shift refers to a day’s work that is interrupted by a several-hour, unpaid break.) Indeed, we found that among operators who had first pick when choosing schedules, women avoided these unconventional shifts more than men.

In principle, gender differences in workers’ likelihood of taking unconventional shifts should not create differences in pay, since the MBTA pays the same rates for these shifts as for conventional ones. However, we found that employees often used excused, unpaid leave to avoid working an unconventional shift when it was assigned, and then made up the difference by taking on overtime. But, as noted earlier, men tend to be able to take on more overtime than women. So, when they skipped an undesirable shift, men more than made up for the forgone earnings with overtime, while women often did not work enough overtime hours to make up for earnings lost due to unpaid leave.

Finally, we found that when policies reduced employees’ control over their schedules, women were more likely than men to take unexcused leave — again likely due to commitments outside of work. This made women more likely than men to face penalties, including suspension and discharge. Moreover, although these rigid policies were meant to increase productivity by reducing employee absenteeism, they actually ended up hurting service delivery because it is very hard for managers to plan around unexcused leave. As a result, these policies ultimately resulted in more canceled bus and train trips as well as disgruntled employees.

Of course, the MBTA is far from the only employer with unpredictable, unconventional, and uncontrollable schedules. Retail and service employers often use similar scheduling practices, with some even dynamically changing workers’ schedules based on the weather. Employees such as consultants and lawyers are also often called upon to work late or on off days when a client presentation or legal brief demands it. While such on-call policies are ostensibly gender-neutral, our research suggests that they can contribute to a substantial earnings gap.

Fortunately, our research also points toward strategies that can help employers reduce the adverse effects of scheduling policies that implicitly or explicitly demand constant availability. First, employers should schedule shifts as far in advance as possible, and allow workers to swap shifts when needed. They can also hire “float” employees — that is, workers who are not scheduled for regular work and are only responsible for handling last-minute crises, a practice that hospitals have used for decades to meet unpredictable fluctuations in demand for nursing staff. Finally, firms can encourage employees to work in teams so it is easier to hand off projects when needed, rather than demanding that any individual worker commit to unpredictable or excessively long hours. For example, in pharmacology and anesthesiology, investments into IT solutions and a culture of building client relationships with entire teams rather than with individual employees have contributed to the sector’s smaller gender earnings gap.

As the pandemic has intensified caregiving duties for many, it is more important than ever for employers to acknowledge and support their employees’ obligations outside of work. Predictable, conventional, and controllable schedules can be a win-win: boosting productivity, helping workers balance demands at work and at home, narrowing the gender earnings gap, and creating a better workplace for everyone.

HBR article from July 2022.

https://hbr.org/2022/07/how-unpredictab ... %20average.

[Politics_Observer]

@Verv

Before you start having kids, it's important to have a TON of money AND long term financial stability. Moreover, in addition to that, BOTH the husband and wife need to have their heads screwed on straight and be able to provide EMOTIONAL stability to the kids living under their roof. They BOTH must have their heads screwed on straight. Not just one or the other. BOTH. That means both the husband and wife must be emotionally stable. You can't have one and not the other emotionally stable. BOTH MUST BE emotionally stable.

If they can't provide long term emotional and financial stability to children, and they have children, all they would be doing is most likely bringing more problems rather than solutions into the world. So, some pre-requisites have to be met first before people start popping out kids. I have listed those pre-requisites. If those pre-requisites cannot be met, then people shouldn't be having kids.

@MistyTiger

One of the reasons why women get paid less is because of the motherhood penalty. There is a lack of affordable childcare here in the United States. So, what happens, if women have kids and they are working, they have to miss work more. They might not get as much done as their male counterparts because they have to attend to the needs of the kids. This in turn leads to business making a business decision to pay men more or promote them more often because men typically do not go missing when they have children from work to take care of their kids. Their wives typically do that.

Moreover, it is held against women who have kids at the workplace in that if their bosses see that they have kids (such as a woman who puts up pictures of her family and her kids at her work desk), they see that as a warning sign that she will be missing more often from work than her male counterparts. Whereas, if a guy has a picture of kids at their desk, they are seen as a "good father" or a "good provider" so to speak.

So, this is one of the big reasons why women are paid less in the workplace than men. Women face that motherhood penalty and if they have kids, they might not be as available to help with work in the business or organizations that they work for because they have to take time off to take care of kids when they are sick or to run them to some of their special events.

The guys, on the other hand, even if they have families, are more available and get more things done, because women tend to end up dealing with taking care of the kids, so the businesses promote the men up based on a business decision.

[Godstud]

@MistyTiger The wage gap is not due to them getting paid less in the workplace. That's the myth that they try to sell you. Your own article says as much!!!!!

Women get paid less ON AVERAGE, than men because:
1. They are less likely to ask for raises. Women are, on average, more agreeable. This can work against them as they usually don't ask for raises as often as men do.

2. They choose professions that pay less.

3. They often choose family over career. Men are more willing to make this sacrifice, for obvious biological reasons. Motherhood is NOT a penalty. It's a choice with trade-offs. A man in a high-paying job cannot take 2 months off without the job falling apart.

4. They don't choose dangerous jobs that pay more.

5. They don't choose more physical jobs that pay more.

6. They don't go into STEM fields and engineering, that pay more. Men are more attracted to things in scoeity, whereas women are more attracted to the social aspects.

7.They are not often willing to work the long hours that men are. Men are more willing to sacrifice time with the family than women are. This is not about it being "held against them". It's simply a truth that is recognized. If the kids are sick at home, the woman is the nurturer(correct me if I am wrong), and deals with it. This will usually happen because a woman has already made the choice to raise children in lieu of a career. Doing both requires trade-offs and sacrifices, often at the expense of one or the other.

8. Many careers require masculine traits to be successful.

9. Biology. Men cannot get pregnant. I know. It's an annoying fact. That it plays into how Capitalists choose workers is annoying, but this normally only happens when women are of an age when they can have children.

As you can see, the reasons for the wage gap go beyond a simple claim of "SEXISM!", as is the hue and cry of Feminists. There are real psychological and biological reasons for it.


Sexism in the workplace exists, but women, overall, are treated as well as men in the workplace, and are NOT paid less at the same jobs. There are laws against it.

In fact:
Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/tech ... y-gap.html

[Unthinking Majority]

From a great thread on Twitter that was dealing with this phenomenon:

Since we can choose the # kids we want now, most people typically want just 2 kids. A boy and a girl. But if most couples want 2 kids, and some adults & couples don't have any kids, this has resulted in a sub-replacement reproduction rate, therefore the civilization is indeed doomed due to demographic trends.

And what if this reproductive technology and these values spread to the rest of the world? It will help the climate in the short-term, but the human race is headed to extinction over the longterm. So it's either extinction, a handmaid's tale, or a change in our values and priorities.

[Fasces]

Why would it head to extinction? This assumes that the rate is constant over time. As the people who don't want to have kids... don't... naturally the replacement rate will increase as those communities who do want to make up a bigger and bigger share of the remaining people.

[pugsville]

The wage gap is a myth... at least in the way that Feminists try to sell it. You're smart. Don't buy the lie.

The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.
https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/


It is absolutely illegal to pay a woman less than a man.

If women could be paid 80 cents on the dollar, legally, then everyone would hire them instead of men.

Get in there and ask for a raise, @MistyTiger. Most women do no do so, and sometimes get paid less because of their agreeableness. Men won't put up with what a woman will.

Absolutely untrue, making things illegal often has little effect.

[Rich]

Because, through prayer and meditation, miracles are worked. Society needs monastics to pray for our souls and to provide us with wisdom and guidance. We need Priests and other clergy who achieve complete detachment from the material and worldly, and can treat us all as their children, with total equality.

It is also only in this state that some people can escape their own suffering, or even a shelter can be created for other broken people. For instance, the work of monastics in healing the victims of sexual crime and drug culture is vital.

You cannot truly achieve detachment if you are married.

Interesting idea! That monastics and priests should be given special time off for prayer, meditation and raping children. I particularly like your suggestion that they should help heal the victims of sexual crime, well I guess a lot of them do have specialist knowledge in this area. Celibate priesthoods and monasticism have always been a magnet for homosexuals, pederasts and paedophiles. Men who have no interest in adult women.

No its not true for all, the Catholic Church pays out considerable sums of money to support the families of its priests, demonstrating that the Catholic Church doesn't really give a toss about sex outside of marriage. Its just interested in preserving its misogynistic hate filled ideology and institution.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

How many children do you have?

—————

The wage gap is due to the fact that women take time off from their careers in order to have kids and raise them for a few years.

If men did this, the wage gap would vanish.

But men do not do this. Because of many reasons, including sexism.

[Godstud]

The wage gap is due to the fact that women take time off from their careers in order to have kids and raise them for a few years.

That is but ONE factor. It's a reality that women have to choose between a career and a family.

If men did this, the wage gap would vanish

That is factually a lie. You must not have read the previous posts in this thread where this has been proven to be a MYTH.

But men do not do this. Because of many reasons, including sexism.

That is also false. Men cannot get pregnant. That's a biological reality. Blaming it on sexism is delusional.

That is not to say there is not sexism in the workplace, but it's a very tiny percentage. Often this very sexism women complain of, works on their behalf, too. Google was over-paying their female employees. Jobs have some quotas for women, while jobs heavy in women do not have the same for men.