Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

What does (or should) gender equality mean in terms of closing the pay and income?

76 replies

Gentlemanjohn · 08/09/2017 14:01

What is the goal?

  1. Communism: all men and women earning a broadly similar wage.

  2. Capitalist economic inequality plus gender equality: An equal representation of women and men amongst low earners, middle earners and high earners. In other words, roughly the same number of men and women working in care homes for the same minimum wage; and roughly the same amount of men and women working for investment banks for the same 6 figure salary.

OP posts:
Gentlemanjohn · 08/09/2017 14:02

Closing the pay gap

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 08/09/2017 14:07

Either would achieve an aim of closing a pay gap. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/09/2017 14:09

Which would you prefer?

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 08/09/2017 14:13

Well, that would depend on personal politics which is not going to be something that everyone on here would agree on.

Me, I lean towards socialism which would be somewhere between the two options you have put forward; a capitalist economy with a strong state to ensure equal opportunities for all.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/09/2017 15:06

Me, I lean towards socialism which would be somewhere between the two options you have put forward; a capitalist economy with a strong state to ensure equal opportunities for all.

Fair enough, and I'd more or less agree. Most people on here seem to favour an equal opportunity capitalism.

OP posts:
DJBaggySmalls · 08/09/2017 15:08

I'd prefer a citizens wage, and a system of soft socialism for social issues, along with soft capitalism for business issues.

VestalVirgin · 08/09/2017 15:09

With capitalism and "free market", it is always possible to pay all the professions in which mainly women work worse because they just so happen to be "worth less".

Full-on communism hasn't worked out so perfectly, but for starters, something like negative income tax, where incomes under a certain amount GET money from the government, instead of paying tax, seems like something that could work.

So, employers can still be sexist in whom they pay how much, but it would be evened out in the end.

EBearhug · 08/09/2017 16:25

Doesn't that mean taxpayers will cover the costs of low wages, rather than the employers?

makeourfuture · 08/09/2017 17:27

I'd prefer a citizens wage, and a system of soft socialism for social issues, along with soft capitalism for business issues

Much could be done along these lines. Absolutely.

QuentinSummers · 08/09/2017 17:31

For me the wage gap is a symptom of persistent gender inequality in society. When men and women are equal, tge gap will go. I'm less concerned about political ways to fix the symptom, i eant to treat tge illness

Gentlemanjohn · 09/09/2017 11:29

Quentin, how do you make men and women equal without state intervention?

OP posts:
QuentinSummers · 09/09/2017 14:20

State intervention to move barriers to equality is fine, I just think focussing on the wage gap alone is to narrow

Xenophile · 09/09/2017 15:42

Doesn't that mean taxpayers will cover the costs of low wages, rather than the employers?

That's the situation right now. And it's shite Sad

EBearhug · 09/09/2017 16:00

Well, that's what I thought, and I don't really see how it evens things out. Just lets employers off the hook. And I don't see why they should be.

Xenophile · 09/09/2017 16:09

No, nor do I. However, as more and more low/medium skilled jobs disappear due to automation and outsourcing, I think we're going to have to revisit a universal basic income model/idea.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/09/2017 07:24

The fundamental question is what kind of economic system would gender equality be realisable in. I don't think merely encouraging more women into elite industries will on it's own lead to a post-patriarchal society. I don't think the few women who do attain power within that system will be any less predisposed to exploiting the mass of women at the bottom than the men. A classic example is Marisa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo, who upon taking up her position abolished the flex-time system which most benefited employees with children.

There is a kind of superficial liberation within the system, for a few privileged women, but the system remains intact and possibilities of radical freedom outside of it remain unexplored.

Even left-wing feminists commonly equate freedom with having a career and making lots of money - as though this is the only kind of freedom possible.

OP posts:
QuentinSummers · 10/09/2017 07:52

The fundamental question is what kind of economic system would gender equality be realisable in. I don't think merely encouraging more women into elite industries will on it's own lead to a post-patriarchal society

If women and men were treated as equals, it wouldn't matter what economic system we had. There is a reason why more men have high paying powerful careers and more women have low paying, low power jobs. And it's not because penises give you superior employment ability.
I agree with the second part of your statement which is why I don't think encouraging women into elite industries is the answer (despite the way you expressed it having an air of gatekeeping).

I think we need to radically alter the working week so it's easier for both parents to work and care for children. I think we need men to be given a substantial period of use it or lose it paid paternity leave so men being at home with their children is seen as normal.
I think we need a proper insurance system for elderly and social care.
I think companies should have to publish salary figures at all levels so the equal pay act can be properly enforced.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/09/2017 08:35

If women and men were treated as equals, it wouldn't matter what economic system we had.

But is that not in effect saying that it would not matter that lots of men and women are treated badly at the bottom just so long as they are treated badly in equal numbers? Because equality can mean equally bad just as much as equally good.

If equal numbers of men and women were working in care for the same shitty wage, would that not be equality in your view? Do you not see the problem?

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 10/09/2017 15:45

For me feminism is about ensuring a fair playing field for women whatever political/economic system we are part of.

SpaghettiAndMeatballs · 10/09/2017 16:20

If equal numbers of men and women were working in care for the same shitty wage, would that not be equality in your view? Do you not see the problem?

Well, objectively it would be equality. No, it's not great for anyone. This is where I lean towards socialism more. People should be paid a fair wage for their work, universal healthcare, good infrastructure, affordable rents etc. BUT on the other hand, I also don't think that someone working on a till should be paid the same as someone who's trained for years to do a specialist job (and yes, I have done both, so I'm a bit invested here), so pure socialism isn't right to me either.

Not to mention that if you're paying carers now £15/hour, that means that that care is more expensive, and someone eventually has to pay that bill, including the people being paid £15/hour once they reach that age. I don't have a problem with that coming out of government funds (ultimately the tax payer), but it's a tough spreadsheet to balance (hence also the need for profit-making public services like telephony and public transport)

But the second isn't an issue for feminism - that's the socialist/capitalist split.

EamonnWright · 10/09/2017 16:39

The 'gap' as is presented, is a myth.

A lot of time wasted on something that doesn't have a solution because it isn't a problem in the first instance.

jellyfrizz · 10/09/2017 17:28

Care to explain Eamonn?

ErrolTheDragon · 10/09/2017 17:28

Not a problem for men...

ErrolTheDragon · 10/09/2017 17:46

Are we talking real or ideal worlds?

In an ideal world, it would be good to devise a way to reward each individual according to (a) the value of their work to society at large and (b) how hard they work at it. So people would be motivated to work, and to prioritise activities which benefit society. That would include everything from 'high end' (e.g. designing and building pollution free transport) to 'low end' (e.g. caring for children, elderly and infirm).

But we live in the real world, in a global economy, and most people prioritise their own family above broader society. If country A tries to pay its 'elite' equally but country B pays them a premium... you'll just generate a brain/skills drain. Communism was a failure, and would have failed even sooner if it hadn't locked its citizens in.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/09/2017 18:26

But most of the elite are now not generating anything of worth. There's the odd Elon Musk type, but mostly they're parasites - property barons, financial speculators, Silicon Valley oligarchs - the kind of people who cost western economies billions with the last financial crisis and left the tax payer to foot the bill. So I don't get this 'brain drain' argument. None of this wealth they're generating is coming back to me in any form. They can fuck off.

Liberal capitalism is over, dead. Or at least financial, debt-based capitalism. It's continuing in a zombie state. It may have been great in it's nineteenth and twentieth century hey day day, but it has been pushed to an impossible limit. The state capitalism of the Keynesian era worked because western economies manufactured lots of tangible stuff, and all the stuff was made by factories full of unionised labourers who could bargain for a fair cut of the pie, and then all the stuff was bought by people who paid tax, and so on. Now all the factories have gone, and we're left with a system of purely extractive capitalism represented by big data, property investment, and financial speculation. All of these operations create little to no real economy wealth, chiefly enfranchising an asset rich elite. Everything - even our personal data - is being securitised into asset return for oligarchic leeches, while less and less exchangeable commodities are being produced and bought. People won't have enough money to buy all the products; intellectual property will become redundant as the internet goes out of control; The result is a tinder box of low wage, casualised, poorly paid work; sky rocketing rents; global deflation; asset bubbles; and declining productivity - all of which have created a lot of that rage and fear that has empowered this new demagogic politics represented by Trump.

This is an important question for feminism, because the collapse of capitalism could result in some very female-unfriendly possible worlds. In fact, this is happening already. There is either:

  1. An authoritarian, patriarchal, ethno-nationalism (Trump, Putin, Modi, Duterte, Islamo-fascism) - and you ain't going to want that.

  2. Tech feudalism. A tiny elite controlling financial systems and global internet hubs - interfacing with organised crime syndicates - and a shit load of pauperized people all scrabbling around in a gig economy. Inevitably, this will include increasing numbers of women supplementing whatever measly income they get with prostitution, webcam and porn work etc.

  3. (most likely) A combination of both.

I think it's time to start thinking about a new kind of society, and one in which men and women can co-exist more equitably and harmoniously. Because I can tell you this: a feminist revolution simply will not happen in these economic conditions. Market capitalism is a system of violence, and it will either insist you (women) become violent too (the hardened career women) or it will turn you into meat.

I don't know what the alternative is. It may be socialism; it may be a new form of more enlightened, socialised capitalism. But to say the issue of economic culture doesn't matter is crass and naive.

OP posts: