US Presidential Election 2016 on RWL

[Shadow]

Depending on how you cut the data you can get almost anything out of the pay gap story. Unmarried women have a very small gap (95%) compared to the average, which, when controlled for things like motherhood may well fall into that 95% line. On the other hand, it's a fact that on average, women earn about 80% of what men do for the same job, regardless of the reasoning for it. If that reason is that women are working differently or going part time that's interesting, but it doesn't change the gap, it just explains it. The whole unconscious gender bias discussion enters into things when you look at why it is the women that are affected by the family issues more than men. I don't think comparing unmarried women to all men, or comparing [insert women's stats adjusted for effect X] to all men, is comparing apples to apples.

A more telling comparison might be between one-income families where the man is the breadwinner vs when the women is. I'll poke around and see if such a thing exists.

[Firetooth]

It can go the other way as well Firefight... 
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said young women had a duty to vote for Clinton -- "And just remember there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

True, but young women don't control the media. Also: see the earlier study Briar posted. But I agree that arguing you have to vote for x candidate in anything because they are of x group is irritating. To return again to Yvette Cooper, in the labour leadership the only similarity she chose to raise when asked what *quality* she shared with Nicola Sturgeon was what she was a woman, and that Labour is overdue a female leader. Which is true and all, but your gender isn't really a quality of character.

I don't think the average person today has a problem with strong female leads in media. 
Superman is a product of the 30's, if they're keeping to canon Lois Lane is a damsel in distress.  That just sorta is what it is, a product of history.  You can argue that they shouldn't make anymore Superman movies, or change canon, but that's something different. 
Also BvS got awful reviews. 
Star Wars The Force Awakens got great reviews from critics and the audience.  The Hunger Games series did too. There's actually quite a few movies with strong female roles and audiences appear to have no problem with them. 

MoS and BvS took Lois backwards as a character compared to the earlier films, where she enjoyed more agency and narrative purpose. TFA was always going to hit big at the box office - it was new Star Wars! That said, whilst it did get good reviews, you can hardly discuss it today without somebody calling Rey a Mary Sue (she isn't). Again, when was the last time you saw a strong, badass male character dismissed as a Gary Stu?

Plus, there's the furore about (horror of horrors) ANOTHER female lead in Rogue One, and how this reveals Disney's true feminazi agenda (even though Jyn Erso and Mon Mothma are likely the only two major female characters in that film). I agree that these things don't have much impact on the film revenues, but they do crop up again and again in commentary and critique.

As for the Hunger Games, again, not denying that female-led films can and do succeed. I think film is finally beginning to move in the right direction - but let's not get complacent. There is still a huge gulf in representation (not just of gender), and just because there are a few successful representative films doesn't mean that there isn't any problem. For one, lots of CEOs of production companies are still caught up in old values, whilst marketing teams still see female-led pieces of media (not just films - the case of Remember Me's troubled production is an excellent example) are less likely to return a profit.

The gender pay gap is a bit of a myth btw. 
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
"ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER: If you take women who don't have caregiving obligations, they're almost equal with men. It's somewhere in the 95 percent range. But when women then have children, or again are caring for their own parents or other sick family members who need care, then they need to work differently. They need to work flexibly, and often go part-time. They often get less-good assignments because their bosses think that they're not going to want work that allows them to travel, or they're not going to be able to stay up all night, or whatever it is. And so then you start — if you're working part-time, you don't get the same raises. And if you're working flexibly your boss very typically thinks that you're not that committed to your career, so you don't get promoted."

See: Shadow's post

I'm not saying there aren't issues.  There are. 
It's just how much of an issue. 
In this case, how much of an issue to women who want to participate in politics in the US. 

Are you going to tell me people disliked Carly Fiorina because she's a women?  Or is it something else?  Like maybe dealing the finishing blow to one of the largest tech powerhouses in US history.. 
Nah. 
How about Sarah Palin? 

In Clinton's case I think it's safe to say the vast majority of people aren't looking at her gender as much as her career accomplishments (good and bad). 

Let me just reply to that with this:

So no, the majority of people don't hate Hilary because they hate women, but it definitely does serve to amplify their existing grievances.

Plus, of course, everything me, Gen and Shael have posted on unconscious bias. The reason people dislike female politicians like Clinton is rarely because they're women, but is frequently exacerbated by it - especially if these women don't strike the perfect balance between the levels of agency expected of leaders, and the levels of communality excepted of women.

......also, many fathers are more protective of their daughters because the world is a more dangerous place for young women than it is for young men? 

Equally possible. You knew what I meant, though - it's just one example of where a sexist attitude clearly isn't leading to the hatred of women. Don't get caught up too much in extrapolating.

[Shadow]

A study on the wage gap by the Joint Economic Comittee Deomcratic Staff that might be of interest ITT: http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0779dc2f-4a4e-4386-b847-9ae919735acc/gender-pay-inequality----us-congress-joint-economic-committee.pdf

[The Lady Shael]

I'm like 8 posts behind but oh well.

do you have a link to the actual study?

It was an experiment that the professor (Frank Flynn) performed in his business classes, here is a link to where he talks more about the "Heidi Roizen case":
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gsb-experience/news-history/gender-related-material-new-core-curriculum

I think he first performed it in 2003, and it's been performed many times since then, with more favorable results. But it's one of the most famous examples people mention when gender bias comes up.

But if you want to read some research papers on gender bias in leadership, here's a few:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597806000677

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0012-7

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984303000584

There's a difference between overt sexism and unconscious gender bias. It's something you can't control, it's a subconscious reaction, but it can be trained by being more aware of your judgments. The problem is when you use that subconscious reaction as the basis for a judgment that you wouldn't have made for the opposite gender.

I agree with windy that it's less of an issue than a lot of people make it out to be. But you can't dismiss it as a myth or something that doesn't exist. I work in a mostly male-dominated field, and I've been fortunate to not have seen much gender bias in the workplace. I even get paid significantly a lot more than my husband (who is also an engineer).
But occasionally I'll see glimpses of subtle gender bias. Example: "Every woman [program manager] in this organization, you really don't want to piss her off." This was at a table full of male engineers (plus me) and they all agreed. Really? But it's okay to piss off the men? It's not a particularly demeaning comment, but this comment just interested me because it not only shows how people perceive women leaders, but possibly the personality traits required for a woman to gain leadership positions.

Anyways. A lot of issues raised on gender discrimination are blown out of proportion. But there is a tiny bit of truth at the heart of it and these issues should not be dismissed as not real.

[Firetooth]

A write-up of a US variation on the study I was talking about earlier in relation to subconscious racial bias, as well as the actual paper, linked below:

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

[Neobaron]

Ok. We have gotten off the original message here, so I will say a couple things to clear this up and restart. I forget that you're not 10 or whatever anymore so being sloppy isn't going to work like it used to. My argument remains unchanged, but perhaps a rephrasing will clear things up.

Nobody disputes that ~sexism~ in whatever form it may take still exists in the western world. My grandmother is refusing to vote for Hillary despite being a lifelong solid south democrat because "thats not a job for a woman." Likewise there are probably some men (and women) who are wary of Hillary being in that position as a woman and refusing to vote for her. But there is a much, much larger number of people who have come to the perfectly valid conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt and manipulative tool of the elite. I am one of those people. To suggest that anyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is a potential sexist even at a very low level is an affront not only to those people, but also those who are still fighting legitimate battles against inequality in the western world. Using their weapon to push Hillary bastardizes the original aim of the feminists which sought not to see women be free of critique, but rather to be in a position where they could be critiqued with the same qualifiers as their male counterparts.

Further, without knowing the particular circumstances of a person's background and lifestyle, it can only serve to do harm to your position to suggest that they are - inadvertently or otherwise - guilty of harboring sexist prejudices. So to throw the entirety of anti-Hillary voters into the mix as possible sexists is beyond extreme and greatly mitigates the power of their legitimate criticisms of a presidential candidate of the United States. You are effectively shaping the conversation to be about something that does not, and should not, even matter in this scenario.

As a motivator and topic for discussion in choosing a president, sex/race/religion/etc. do not have a place. Society is changing and it has become more egalitarian than ever. Our current president is walking proof of that. I do not want a president that was chosen because society at large was bullied into supporting her, just like I do not want a president that was chosen because his opponent had a vagina.

Obama was famously quiet about being black in both 2008 and 2012. Even though to a pragmatist that would appear to be his most devastating weapon, he did not use it. He didn't have to. His positions and record spoke for themselves. Hillary's campaign shouting to every corner of the country that she is, in fact, a woman, is offensive and childish and utterly epitomizes the concept of pandering. Go and watch the democratic debates. At one point she literally answers a question about how she would be different from Obama by saying "because I am a woman." Why does that even matter? Almost nobody under the age of 30 today will get the benefit of social security and even fewer will ever retire but you're the best choice for president because of your lot in the genetic lottery?

However, as others have mentioned, sexism as a motivator is a much less important issue than it was in the past and its continued value as a weapon is very often espoused by an extremist vocal minority in order to push their agenda and browbeat people into an apology they do not owe, an action they needn't take, or a position they don't necessarily believe in.

---

Now for why I was initially so mad:

My initial reaction when I read your second post was one of incredulity along the lines of "jesus christ he grew up and went to university and now hes one of those social justice nutcases" so my objectivity wasn't all that strong when I made my first (long) reply.

Third wave feminism is dangerously attractive to young people. It offers an easy excuse for why things suck for our generations, and the ease with which opponents are shut down is even more attractive because while confronting prejudice is the best way to end it, inventing prejudice where none exists is much easier to do and much harder to combat. Any movement which turns minor sleights into 'micro-aggressions' and loudly and vehemently shouts down opposing thought using red herrings and appeals to ignorance while calling for the implementation of voluntary segregation in the form of 'safe spaces' is not a movement worth defending. And those are the less insane ones - others espouse killing all white men or infringing rights to prove some kind of vacuous point. It is a fruitless distraction from the real issues facing everyone in today's world - income inequality, crippling debt at every level, corporate involvement in politics, etc.

Especially when it seems appear in the form of a sweeping generalization about the nature of what will eventually be about half of the US electorate. Burying ones head in the sand is a much different act than consciously ignoring an issue because it does not matter.

Hillary Clinton being a woman does not matter.

Hillary Clinton taking bribes from sovereign states through her foundation, using that private email server, pushing for the arming of what would become ISIS, loudly advocating for wars in the middle east and greater intervention in the Levant and Libya, bullying women who spoke out against Bill's sexual abuses in the white house, actively manipulating her party to ensure her eventual selection... These are things that do matter, and 100% valid criticisms of any political candidate that can be made before even considering who is behind them. I firmly believe that if the presidential race was an anonymous contest without the gaffes and comments, that Trump would be winning with an historic margin of victory predicted. To me, that is the measure of a political candidate.

Can the things they have done hold up to scrutiny when separated from their person?
How do those things inform their present positions?
How often do they change positions?
Have they ever stood for something controversial and stuck with it despite opposition?

[Gen. Volkov]

You can not honestly defend this, Volkov. We're not talking about Christmas movies here, we're talking about the challenges that real women face in professional contexts all over the world. It's called the backlash effect, where women are socially punished for displaying counterstereotypial behaviours. If a woman is not stereotypically "nice" enough, they receive social repercussions and are disliked. If she is feminine and nice (as women should be), she is seen as not competent for leadership roles.

May I also add the example of our own female former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. She faced constant misogyny in the media throughout her leadership, including criticism for being unmarried and childless, while unmarried childless men have ruled many times without being questioned. In fact the marital and parental status of men in leadership hardly comes up at all. And then there was the time Tony Abbott stood in front of signs calling her a [dog] and a witch. Because she was a woman, but not a mother, and had the assertiveness to beat other men to the leadership of the party, she was a [dog] and a witch.

Gender bias and sexism do exist in the real world, that's not what I was saying. I in fact acknowledged that later in my post. My argument was against Firefight's assertion that women in media are portrayed negatively if they do not conform to traditional gender roles. The real heart of my disagreement with Firetooth though is the unconscious gender bias thing, which I just don't think is a scientific idea. There probably are studies that have found evidence of its existence,  but the ongoing replication crisis in psychology has thrown essentially all of psychology into turmoil. There are entire fields of study that may not exist, because the foundational studies can't be replicated. I have rather serious doubts that an objective test for unconscious gender bias has been, or even can be devised. Which, to me, makes it just a way to say someone is sexist, whether they are really being sexist or not.

[Juska]

What?!?! Another US election topic? Is this one set in bizarro world...because here I apparently agree with Volkov.

[Shadow]

It's been kinda derailed from the election

[Juska]

Well in the interest of bringing this back on topic, I have to stay that if Hillary Clinton was attractive I would be slightly more inclined to vote for her.

[Genevieve]

Well in the interest of bringing this back on topic, I have to stay that if Hillary Clinton was attractive I would be slightly more inclined to vote for her.

Would you say your comment is consciously or unconsciously sexist, though?

[Genevieve]

For example, this little doozy from Tony Abbott:

"What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it's going to go up in price, and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up,"

Just wanted to add that this guy then appointed himself Minister for Women...

[Gen. Volkov]

He sounds like Donald Trump, but you know, more eloquent. *Rimshot*

What a colossal butt.

[Firetooth]

Just for the record, I have plenty of problems with third wave feminism, even if I do still consider myself a feminist. Safe spaces, no platform etc. is all indefensible. Equally, though, I do think some of the backlash against third wave feminism is more due to imagined evils and the extremities of view at the forefront of the movement that don't really reflect the rank-and-file - such as this.

However, as others have mentioned, sexism as a motivator is a much less important issue than it was in the past and its continued value as a weapon is very often espoused by an extremist vocal minority in order to push their agenda and browbeat people into an apology they do not owe, an action they needn't take, or a position they don't necessarily believe in.

Less important issue than it was in the past? Perhaps, but these things are all relative - especially when you are talking about the infringement of our basic values of meritocracy and equality. I hate seeing people pretend that sexism isn't still a problem and that the feminists need to just stfu, and whilst I appreciate that's not exactly what you're doing, it is along the same lines. I just don't think we can afford to be dismissive in the developed world because of the progress we have made - that progress is good, but it would be better if it spurred us on to make even further progress, rather than rest on our laurels and congratulate ourselves.

We shouldn't be satisfied that we have eliminated the inequalities that we have so far, we should be ashamed that there are still inequalities left. And I'm sorry, but regardless of your reasoning, and regardless of how much you chide him for it, I don't think you can fully appreciate this point if you are still willing to elect as your head of state a well-known racist, sexist, ableist, and all-round bigot. You are willing to tolerate discrimination under certain grounds, and I just fundamentally disagree with that position.

Again, another problem I've had with third wave feminism is that it has been too focused on white, middle-class women, rather than women of different ethnicities and backgrounds - who tend to have enjoyed far fewer of the benefits second wave feminism work. However, I do think much of third wave feminism has started to shift towards this angle in recent times.

And those are the less insane ones - others espouse killing all white men or infringing rights to prove some kind of vacuous point

Never met an actual person who believes this, even if I know that these people do exist, at any point in my time at uni. The worst I've come across is our SU president first year, who claimed she was a misandrist (I think mostly just to provoke and irritate people), as well as the various NUS gaffes (which are just general regressive leftism rather than specifically messed up feminism). There are those who once more want to make the movement entirely-female, but these are again largely a vocal minority. End of the day, I'd still say this "kill all white men" thing is a bigger red herring than any other alleged red herring (and there have been a lot lo - do you eat lots of Omega-3 because you really like herringsl) in this discussion so far, and I think it's an unfair, blinkered way to dismiss an entire social movement.

I mean, you yourself freely admitted you blasted me with a bunch of strawmans and reductive reasoning simply because you knew I went to uni; you freely admit you lack objectivity here. End of the day, both sides definitely need to just step back and get a little bit more perspective, and stop applying the views of vocal minorities to majorities. We need more of a dialogue between feminism and wider society, imo, with the problem atm that third wave feminism is becoming somewhat more of an inward-looking movement, whereas feminism should be a gender equality movement that does actually benefit men by challenging traditional gender roles (ie. toxic masculinity, the frequent anti-feminist "but divorcing men never get custody" complaint), even if the net benefit is mostly to women.

Hillary Clinton being a woman does not matter.

But it patently does though - to both sides. I agree that it shouldn't influence voting intention, but the positive impact that a female POTUS would have in breaking the glass ceiling is obvious, and can't be dismissed out of hand. The day Hilary Clinton being a woman does not matter to her presidential campaign will be the day that being a woman doesn't matter to your career prospects and place in the world as a whole - and we are a fair way off of that.

He sounds like Donald Trump, but you know, more eloquent. *Rimshot*

What a colossal [crab].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RchE5c-cYnM

EDIT: Accidentally wrote "defensible" rather than "indefensible" when referring to safe spaces and no-platform. Bolded for emphasis - have written multiple times criticising no platforming, in particular - including on this board.

[Juska]

The day Hilary Clinton being a woman does not matter to her presidential campaign will be the day that being a woman doesn't matter to your career prospects and place in the world as a whole - and we are a fair way off of that.

How do we get to that place Firetooth? There are fundamental natural differences between male and female that will always influence a person's role in this world, short of abolishing gender or an absolute power enforcing equality I don't know how society gets there.