Women vs Capitalism - The biology argument

Goosefoot, thank you for your reply. Regarding the points you made:

On expansion, I would say that's a feature of any system that seeks to provide a resource or product to the population, the difference is in how production and provision (and, by extension, expansion) is managed and by who.

On slavery, it seems to me that slavery is something of a red herring because it's not the trading of slaves that certain societies find objectionable but rather the fact of an individual existing in a state of enslavement. For example, I don't see how the average modern Western society would be any measurably more tolerant of slaves being used to produce free meals for the homeless than they would toiling on a for-profit plantation.

On resources, a key factor in the production and/or extraction of resources for a large, global market is significant investment. I believe this justifies ownership of the resource (with appropriate taxation) since, under capitalism, the labour performed by those involved is appropriately compensated and recipients can reap the benefits of economies of scale. Similarly, for patents and, to a lesser extent copyrights, these mechanisms permit the initial research investment while also offering immediate compensation to those involved in the endeavour because of the potential for a future window of control over the production. In some cases, I would say that the problems cited are the result of too much government control, rather than not enough (creating oligopolies).

Selling and buying products as people have done for thousands of years is not capitalism, really. Capitalism is about these mechanisms that begin to concentrate capital and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

I think this is the key source of disagreement between individuals as to whether there is even a problem and, if so, what the solution is. At its heart, capitalism is simply private individuals owning production and I believe that the issues described in this thread wouldn't be solved by its replacement. To me, the beauty of capitalism is that a worker is immediately rewarded for their labour while owners are challenged to anticipate the market and their production capabilities, meaning that the average worker is able to earn a living while retaining the freedom to change their employment. An example of this would be the amount of labour directly required or required to be exchanged to produce 1k lumen-hours of light (the article is called 'Why the falling cost of light matters').

I believe that certain alternative systems, very broadly, supplant privately owned corporations with government ones and the primary drawback of this is that the closeness between government and business (at the expense of input from workers) is closed even more.
The idea of the same individuals who write the laws I have to live by also having direct, exclusive control over everything I need to live is not a notion I find comforting, no matter how benevolently intentioned, well educated or morally sound those individuals claim to be.

@Gronky "I'd find it challenging to refuse free money with no strings attached"

Why? Men do it all the time.

I agree that mobility is a factor. It's quite common where I live for women to stay with family while men work away from home. Most recently in the oil patch but it used to be on fishing boats, or to lumber camps, or mines, or with the military.

My own family has followed that pattern at times, my father went to sea for three month on/one month off rotations, my grandfathers were in the navy, my husband worked for years at a remote station for half the year.

I suppose the problem is that often, someone needs to stay behind to deal with the day to day realities of being part of a family or community. No one is taking children or seniors to a fishing boat or a lumber camp, and to be totally frank while there are women that do some of that work, it's very heavy work that is simply not going to be suitable for many women and certainly not for those who are pregnant or have small kids. It's not difficult to see how that pattern developed.

I wonder today in a very mobile employment market if young women are more likely to stay closer to family than young men? I'd have said older women are, but I am not so sure about younger ones, they also often seem to move away. I know many young women though who have kids and want to move closer to family.

All that being said, the push to a highly mobile workforce is another element of capitalism that is meant to benefit capitalists rather than workers. It would actually be much more humane if the expectation was that families would have one main breadwinner and the other partner would be more flexible, dedicated to dealing with living apart from extended family. Instead there is increased emphasis on both partners being in full-time work.

Wages v social value:

Actions that have social value only rarely coincide with actions that are monetarily compensated...

Even where this is the case, it is the private marginal product for which they are rewarded, not the social marginal product. The two differ because of externalities. A worker whose job generates huge carbon emissions or other pollution will have a wage greater than their social value.

There are other forms of pollution. There’s also risk pollution. In the run-up to the financial crisis, bankers were paid more than their social value because the risks generated by their activities would fall upon others; they were externalities. I suspect this is still the case.

And then there’s intellectual pollution. “Writers” such as Giles Coren or Toby Young have a highish marginal product for their employers, but their gibberings coarsen the public sphere. One baleful effect of Twitter is that this is brought to wider attention than previously and thus imposes a greater negative externality.

stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/01/wages-vs-social-value.html

As ever, I'm wondering where care and its invisible contribution to GDP falls on this. I'm intrigued by the "pollution" discussion. It's easy to see for some jobs/tasks. I'm more conflicted when it comes to others because you can end up with some very utilitarian notional calculations in which is reduces pollution to not act in a humane manner.

What form would this withdrawal take and what would replace it? I'm particularly interested in how its replacement would govern private property and the production/distribution of products.

Well I am not sure entirely. But it is a feature of capitalism that it is constantly increasing it's reach. We decide as a society what is part of the market and what isn't. We do not allow the sale of slaves, for example.

But should we treat land and natural resources as things can be owned outright? There are reasons to think we shouldn't since we don't create them and they are absolutely necessary for future generations. What about things like futures markets, or making money through currency trading, or how do we think about interest? What about laws that allow for the existence of corporations where individuals are shielded from the consequences of decisions that can be very negative for many other individuals? What about patents and copyright, these are constructs that were intended originally to increase technological progress and support artists and innovators, but one of their effects has been to put control of vast resources into the hands of a few wealthy people and create middle men who exist largely as parasites.

Selling and buying products as people have done for thousands of years is not capitalism, really. Capitalism is about these mechanisms that begin to concentrate capital and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The myth that "the market" is a natural thing, that everything, including childcare or senior care or housework, the most intimate of activities in some ways, needs to be represented on this market - it makes all these things more available to those at the top to earn from. If I do work in the home that has no money value attached to it, o if I trade veg I have grown to my neighbour in exchange for help with something, that's a very straightforward exchange. The benefit is there but there is no cut going to an employer or owner or banker. So I always wonder, whose interest is it really in to capitalise those things.

I agree about expectations of being geographically mobile being a stumbling block for a lot of women.

The number of senior job ads that say post holder must be flexible about working over their hours including occasionally at short notice and post holder must be able to travel within the UK and including some international travel. How does any of that work if you have caring responsibilities that you can’t delegate to someone else?

They are missing out on (women’s in particular) experience and expertise by insisting on gearing these jobs to (men in particular) who are without kids, or who can factor their kids out of their career decisions because there’s always someone else who will look after them.

I'm not so sure I agree with Pryce's economist's assertion that the problem is women taking time out of the workplace.

I've known a number of men who spent their 20s and 30s messing about, doing bugger all, only to then jump into jobs and find themselves earning six figures in their late 40s. The key for them seems to have been an ability to be geographically mobile.

So I suspect the issue is far more nuanced than just "these women opted out of the workplace". I reckon it probably has more to do with time and location flexibility once they try to re-enter the world of work.

But, of course, I maybe wrong.

I can't see a system that values women most when they technologically suppress their biology as ultimately pro-woman

Totally agree.....and aligned to that is the pressing need for humanity to re-prioritise for the sake of the planet, humanity and the other living creatures with which we share the earth. We need to be closer to nature; more aligned with natural rhythms...not further away or far removed via technology.

More localism, more self sufficiency where possible.....Globalisation has come at a great cost and that certainly includes the globalisation of capital too.

So biology is real after all? Who knew?!

I don't think this economist is saying anything new.

It's not so much biology itself that stops women progressing as the socio-economic patriarchal setup that's grown up around it. It's quite easy to conceive of a system whereby this inequality is levelled out in various ways. Achieving it is another matter entirely.

I think I have traded pay and a promotion for flexibility. I know I could have earnt more, increased my skills, and be promoted in the next couple of years if I hadn't had a baby so in a way I have been penalised BUT in my current role I can have time off at short notice and work the hours I want so for me there has been give and take with my employer.
So I guess my point is sometimes there is a quid pro quo in the workplace and not everything can be inferred from statistics

UBI could help. But pay it out only to women for the first two or three generations

While I'd find it challenging to refuse free money with no strings attached, I'd also find it hard to honestly claim I deserved it simply because of my chromosomes (I've never had children). If it were made contingent on having children, we already have that in the form of tax credits and, for those who need it, welfare and, better still, these are based upon who actually provides support for a child at the time (encouraging men to take part in the raising of their child).

withdrawal of capitalism, and a control and limiting of it, from more areas of life

What form would this withdrawal take and what would replace it? I'm particularly interested in how its replacement would govern private property and the production/distribution of products.

Ultimately I think that the solution has to be to begin a sort of withdrawal of capitalism, and a control and limiting of it, from more areas of life. Not just for this but for all kinds of reasons - the capitalisation of information (people's personal data, or genetic information) would be another area I think this needs to happen.

UBI seems to me more like a capitulation, and that worries me a little.

Contrast the attitude to women taking time out to produce the next generation, which definitely benefits society, to the attitude to men taking time out to fight in wars or just do training for it, which benefits society if you live in a world of gangster-nations without planetary rule of law.

Men: heroes, get paid, get points in employment, etc etc etc.

Women: all they want to do is have kids and "not work."

Pregnancy and childbirth: physically very demanding, significant frequency of long term injury or consequences, fatalities happen.

Training for war: physically somewhat demanding. Minute chances of injury or fatality. Actual war: physically very demanding, significant frequency of long term injury or consequences, fatalities happen.

So here's my suggestion to even out the situation: UBI could help. But pay it out only to women for the first two or three generations, until people get it through their thick skulls that what women do is extraordinarily valuable.

I'd like to know why Vicky Pryce - a very bright and well connected woman ended up taking the points for her Husband's speeding.

I seem to remember that she argued coercion in court - though not necessarily in those words and I'm not looking to blame her. I am just stuck that she yielded to her Husband on that occasion, and didn't appear to have power. I suspect it's all part of the same syndrome.

Great posts, Nonny and Goosefoot. The value of unpaid work doesn't get factored into that be-all and end-all, GDP, with depressing consequences. Not least because GDP is a rubbish metric.

Arran - that's shocking - I hadn't heard that before - but somehow not totally surprising. People don't let go of their privilege lightly, and that doesn't just apply to men.

I've been trying to read up on Universal Basic Income vs Job Guarantee and I can see the arguments of both sides. I think a combination of both types as part of economic policies will help lots of people currently marginalised in a capitalist society, including women.

Elizabeth Warren is making some interesting noises about this.

There's an interesting US-based UBI account on Twitter.

One of the most privileged things I hear is "who will clean the toilets?" in response to the prospect of UBI giving us the power to refuse to do work we don't want to do. People don't exist to save you from shit. It's your shit. You clean it. Or pay more. Or automate that shit."

50 years after slavery became illegal in the US, some white people decided they didn't like how black women with monthly stipends weren't cooking & cleaning for white people, so they decided refusing employment should be illegal. 100 years later not much has changed. Here's a bit of history for you. Black soldiers' wives in 1918 received monthly stipends. They had the freedom to decide for themselves what work they'd do. White people didn't like that, so they wanted a law that would jail refusers to clean their shit.

twitter.com/scottsantens/status/1077244162083381249

The newspaper item about the proposed enforcement of employment for black women in 1918 is here:

twitter.com/BaelockHolmes/status/1077006002392834053

the woman's natural choice to give birth and then, raise children which ultimately takes them out of the workplace for significant periods of time.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if enough women suddenly decided that childbirth wasn't a 'natural choice', they would be forcefully persuaded otherwise.

They lose vital workplace skills, don't make the important connections that their male counterparts are making and thus miss out on promotion opportunities/chances to work on big projects that showcase their ability.

I don't think many women lose vital skills by taking a few months off, but it's enough to change their role from equal earner to secondary earner. As others have said on his thread, most well paid jobs still assume that somebody is at home taking care of domestic duties.

I think what we have to realise with questions like the CV one above, is that patterns we perceive in the group overall will always have an impact on our judgements about what is going to happen in the future. And we have powerful pattern-seeking brains that pick up on even weaker patterns.
If someone has over the years seen that more women will tend to fit their careers around kids compared to men, that will affect how you assess the general chances of a general male candidate vs a female one. Obviously with a specific man or woman they know other factors come into it.
Individuals can recognise that bias and choose not to act on it for reasons of fairness or legal requirements, but I think it's futile to try and stop people from recognising those patterns as long as they exist. If women are more likely to take a career break, telling people that it's not true will just make them think you have an agenda, or are stupid. It might even make them more likely to ignore laws as they believe they were made on a false basis.

And everything Goosefoot said, also! The essential work of caring that has traditionally been done by women for millennia has been totally undervalued, and it needs to be recognised as the huge contribution to society that it is.

Surveys carried out in my profession a couple of years ago indicated there was still simple bias. The same CVs with different names M v F were shown to employers. The difference in wages offered was between £1000 and £3000 in favour of men. Additionally, those employers rated the men as more likely candidates for promotion. So it’s not just the direct effect of women’s choices and the impact of childbearing/care. It kicks in before that with the assumptions about those things.

The fact that things have improved somewhat over the years is because of positive steps being taken to make things more equal, Tom; it doesn’t mean that the original reasons for the gender pay gap have nothing to do with women’s biological ability to bear children, and the assumptions that society makes because of this biological ‘role’. One of the big problems is that the modern workplace is still designed to suit the single earner who has a partner at home taking care of all things domestic, even though this isn’t the reality for most couples nowadays.

I don't really have any doubts that a significant element of women's issues around work have their origins in reproductive status. This has mitigated mainly because we have more control over reproduction, if we didn't, we'd see a much more significant pay and work gap.

I suppose the real question to me is what does this mean? One feminist approach has been to try and "free" women from their biology. In several ways, through access to biological control of reproduction; artificial feeding of infants; through encouraging women to put children in childcare and turn more childcare over to fathers; through policies around discriminating against women in work and also maternity leaves and such.

I'm personally not comfortable with all of these. As far as control of reproduction, it's fine as far as it goes but it seems very contingent to me, dependent upon a certain state of and access to technology. I would prefer a social model that will work and vale women and their bodies even if there is no access to that kind of technology - I can't see a system that values women most when they technologically suppress their biology as ultimately pro-woman.

While I think it's great to have fathers more involved and I would also say stable communities and extended families that can mitigate childcare burdens, I am not so keen on the idea that of course women will (and perhaps should) want to go back to work for pay rather than care for their infants and young children. I don't really think it's for society to tell women they should not want to do that because it's not very valued work, it's not somehow letting down society if a lot of mothers choose to do that. On the contrary I think society is letting down mothers when that isn't possible.
I also have concerns that what is good for children gets swept aside for what is good for capitalists.
I have some interest in the idea of somehow paying mothers, in fact I think that we need to consider that those who are working in the economy without pay now provide considerable social work that is important. I am on the other hand not sure how much I want to extend the cold hand of capitalism to infect more and more elements of human life.

I do wonder whether earnings are the absolute best/exclusive standard to evaluate the success of one's life. For example, I work with several people who could earn significantly more but have instead chosen to work less hours (which also reduces their ability to advance their career). They're perfectly happy with that and I don't consider them to have been less successful.

I've been trying to read up on Universal Basic Income vs Job Guarantee and I can see the arguments of both sides. I think a combination of both types as part of economic policies will help lots of people currently marginalised in a capitalist society, including women.

Capitalism is useful to a certain extent but is wholly inadequate and inappropriate in terms of addressing bigger socio-economic issues.

The paradigm of 'work' needs to change. There are a lot of socially useful tasks and roles that go unrecognised by capitalism because they aren't directly correlated with profit - such as childrearing or even regularly visiting elderly relatives. But these things contribute to a healthier, stable society in the long-term, that's why you can't put a price tag on them as they are invaluable.

Good health and social care, decent housing, affordable utilities, access to education and training and so on will go a long way to a happy, healthy populace. This should be the priority of any government in any country - to invest in its citizens, its most valuable resource.
Capitalism will then be forced to raise its game because it cannot easily exploit a desperate workforce. Better salaries, better work-life balance, better employment rights - people can demand for improvements when they aren't scrabbling around for the basics.

Society needs to stop being led by the nose by capitalism. It's a tool / structure like any other human invention and needs to be used for our benefit, including recognising when it is inadequate and choosing other tools and structures that are better alternatives.

Blindspot82, I feel that while people born with ovaries are not exactly the same as people born with testicles, the variations have been greatly exaggerated, especially when used to justify different treatments, so I’m very skeptical about claims that different treatments are largely because of biology. Women have been clearly and overtly discriminated in prior to the 1960s when in some countries, laws were passed to forbid that, although there are counties where that sill happens. In many cases this discrimination was based on supposedly differences in biology. But the biggest argument against this biology justification is that things change. If this discrimination was biological there would be no change. In regard to the wage gap, women made 60.7% of what men made in 1960. This actually decreased to 57.6% in 1966, but then shortly after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 it started to increase until it reached 81.6% in 2018, see here: www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html. Then the Women’s Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate increased from 32.0% in January of 1948 to 57.6% in September of 2019. This figure reached 60.2% in March of 2001 At the same time the Men’s Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate decreased from 86.7% in January of 1948 to 69.3% in November of 2019. The Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate is the percentage of adults in the civilian population who are employed or actively seeking employment. See here fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002, and here fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001. These figures are for the US, but most likely are similar for the UK. If the difference in women’s experiences were solely or primarily due to biological factors there would not be the large changes we see. See the topic “Women in history and an examination of gender norms” here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminist_theory/3736953-Women-in-history-and-an-examination-of-gender-norms for more information on this and kindly comment there.

Tom,