I was really tempted to downvote comments for falsehood here, but I think responding to those falsehoods may end up being more valuable. Also because @NetRunner shouldn't have to be the only one arguing in favor of equality.

>> ^Trancecoach:

And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

This is demonstrably false -- In fact, they address it in the clip. Using the most complex models with as many variables as possible, there is still a massive gap in pay that cannot be accounted for by economic class, lifestyle choice, occupation, or any other variable. These studies don't just look at aggregate figures, even though the data is almost always presented that way. When you have two people of opposite gender in the same position, the woman will almost always make considerably less than the man.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


Your comment that you can draw different conclusions from the same statistics is meaningless unless you actually do it -- That is, produce your own analysis based on the data or find someone who has. Otherwise it's akin to saying "You can use statistics to prove anything, so we should disregard any conclusions people have drawn from them." You can dismiss any conclusion or evidence in this fashion, and it has no place in a rational discussion.

I haven't read Farrell's work, so I'm going to have to infer his arguments based on what you've written about him. It sounds like what he's presenting is a guide to how women end up making less based on lifestyle choices -- Choosing to stay with a child instead of going to work, choosing not to take a better paying job elsewhere to stay near family, choosing (involuntarily) not to fight as hard for a raise as her male coworkers, etc. This information can be used successfully to avoid making those choices or to mitigate them, and avoid falling into the "lower pay" traps.

This is certainly useful information, but it is not a valid basis for justifying a pay gap. The fallacy with that argument is that it necessarily presupposes that your pay for a particular job should depend on how you got that job. Let's say we have a man from a somewhat wealthy family that traveled a lot after college and so entered the workforce late, received adequate performance reviews, changed companies a couple of times, and now is in his mid-30s as a middle manager in a financial firm. Let's also take a woman from a lower-middle class family who worked hard to get a Masters degree and started at a financial services firm but had to take time off to care for an ailing family member and put her career on hold for a few years to have children, and now in her mid-30s has found herself in the same middle manager position at the same firm.

Given that premise, statistics tell us that the man will almost certainly be making more than the woman -- Possibly even 25% more. You could argue that the man likely has more pull at the company because of his family's wealth and that the woman made poor choices (earnings wise) by putting her career on hold for so long, but the fact is that they are both in the same position doing the same thing. The law doesn't care how your career went and how you ended up in your job; it clearly states that for the same work men and women should be paid equally, and the woman in this scenario is the target of discrimination.

"A founding member of Driving Force Club, an elite New York City group of luxury sports car enthusiasts, bragged on Facebook about a "very fun" run last month with NFL running back Brandon Jacobs, who is wearing a New Jersey State Police vest.

The photo was posted March 30, the same day two State Police troopers allegedly escorted a caravan of luxury sports cars at speeds in excess of 100 mph down the Garden State Parkway to Atlantic City. The occupants included former Giants running back and sports car enthusiast Jacobs, according to a source with knowledge of the trip.

In the complaints, obtained by The Star-Ledger, witnesses said that in the early afternoon, they saw two State Police patrol cars with their emergency lights flashing driving in front of and behind the southbound caravan, which included dozens of Porsches, Lamborghinis, Ferraris and other vehicles, all with their license plates covered with tape."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/former_giants_star_brandon_jac.html

You get it.

The only disagreement I have is that darker skinned europeans and latinos are still a rung above black people, with some white skin privilege.>> ^legacy0100:

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.
1. If Zimmerman is comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.
2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and east Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.
Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class society we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.
I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist out of empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.

1. If Zimmerman comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.

2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and East Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.

Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class bias we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.

I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist as an empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

I wonder, how many of the kids in those freeze-frames might have been orphaned or otherwise had a family member killed during the occupation?

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.

You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.

Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)

In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?

In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.

So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?

And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

Yes, and that's Lars being "pitched" by the business man.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The play in the background is Lars' sequel to Dogville, "Manderlay". Both films are done like a filmed play.

Thanks so much man!

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
*quality
*doublepromote

Oh yeah a basic knowledge of geography is so boring! one country, two countries, two countries and a made up region, whatever. The north of Ireland is donegal although who says 'the north of ireland'??? Derry is in northern ireland.

Agree with the general sentiment about Irish women, they are all kinds of awesome. Theyll eat you up but youll love it.

>> ^papple:

>> ^Quboid:
Not to get political, but she (and I) are actually from Londonderry, not Derry, and it's in Northern Ireland, not the north of Ireland. If you mean Ireland in the geographical sense, as in the island of Ireland this is correct but this typically refers to the country, the Republic of Ireland.
It's a touchy subject and this topic has a little bit if history; where Graham Norton was brought up the city would have been referred to as Derry and places in Northern Ireland as being "in the north" without acknowledging the whole "terrorism" "one of the longest armed conflicts in recent history" "British occupation" can of worms.

If she says she's from Derry, she's from Derry. Also, I can't say that I've ever heard anyone use the phrase "North of Ireland" referring to the northern area of the Republic. The North/Northern Ireland/North of Ireland. I was typing out "she's from the North", as that would suffice locally, but this is the internet, so I just added the "of Ireland", thinking that nobody would be anal enough to correct me!