News Could the Women's March Trigger a Global Movement for Rights?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Women’s Marches: Millions of protesters around the country vow to resist Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4def62-dfdf-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html

I must say I am really surprised (in a good way) to see such massive numbers in the Women's March in DC and all over the world (100k in just my small state capitol). There are marches in what must be thousands of sister cities and all the photos I've seen show impressive numbers. Could this start a "Women's Spring"?

My goal for this thread is to discuss what might come from the start of the movement for Women's rights (and marginalized groups) in general. Also how Trump will deal with this pressure.

ps. the election is over, so let's cut the heat out of our words and try to be analytical.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I must say I am really surprised (in a good way) to see such massive numbers in the Women's March in DC and all over the world.

Me too. I knew there was going to be a DC event, but the sympathetic events everywhere else surprised and gratified me.

I don't know where it might go from here. I hope it continues and gathers strength.

I assume Trump will react by hypocritically claiming he respects women, as he's already done.

 

[Astronuc]

movement for Women's rights

As far as I can remember, there has been a movement for women's rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Falls_Convention (July 19–20, 1848)

In parallel with the general rights movement is women's suffrage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/

 

[john101]

Given that there are far more radical*, and interantional in outlook, womens groups than women in the US it would not surprise me if there will be significant linkups. If so it will likely radicalise the womens groups in the US (and other relatively comfortable nations.) Should be an interesting International Womens Day this year.

eg the Kurds, Cubans.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

As far as I can remember, there has been a movement for women's rights.

I am young, but in my life I haven't seen numbers like this.

 

[russ_watters]

Could this start a "Women's Spring"?

My goal for this thread is to discuss what might come from the start of the movement for Women's rights (and marginalized groups) in general. Also how Trump will deal with this pressure.

What are the goals of those who organized the marches? And I don't mean to get people to show up to the marches, I mean what "women's rights" issues are they protesting for/against and what "pressure" are they trying to put on Trump?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What are the goals of those who organized the marches? And I don't mean to get people to show up to the marches, I mean what "women's rights" issues are they protesting for/against and what "pressure" are they trying to put on Trump?

I think in general it was a march of solidarity, but here are the beliefs of the organization
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/587ffb31d2b857e5d49dcd4f/1484782386354/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pdf

 

[Evo]

I couldn't attend but I signed the petition. I received a "Thank you" mass e-mail from several senators.

Of course a huge part for the US is the defunding of Planned Parenthood which helps low income women get their gynecological exams, including breast exams, and helps sponsor events for free mammograms, family planning, etc...

Also a part is

• accessible health care and make sure women don't lose the protections offered by the Affordable Care Act.
  
• a woman's right to choose.
  
• pay equality for women and for policies like paid family leave that help working families thrive.
  
• bold action against climate change, from expanding renewable energy to keeping our air and water clean.
  

And then there is childcare, there are many issues, many of which also benefit men.

 

[russ_watters]

I think in general it was a march of solidarity, but here are the beliefs of the organization
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/587ffb31d2b857e5d49dcd4f/1484782386354/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pdf

Thanks. Though it has a bit of a women's spin on it, it mostly reads like a generic liberal political platform, touching on most of the hot topics of today for Democrats (immigrants, the environment, the Dakota Access Pipeline, BLM, etc). So I'm not sure I see a "Women's Spring" potential there; just maybe a potential for the Democratic party to start to recover and stop its losses...which, given that a Republican (sorta) is now President, one would expect the pendulum has swung as far to the right as it is going to go and will start swinging back in the next election.

So I guess we'll have to see if this is the start of something or just a generic "we don't like Trump" march with a better than average (if overly broadly) written platform.

 

[russ_watters]

Though my last post was intended to convey that I don't think generic/vague protest movements are very useful, I do see this as a key issue:

Of course a huge part for the US is the defunding of Planned Parenthood which helps low income women get their gynecological exams, including breast exams, and helps sponsor events for free mammograms, family planning, etc...

This is an issue I agree with, but in either case I think that a coherent hammering of it might have an impact and if they want to get something accomplished rather than just cast a wide net and hope they get something, this is the issue to go after.

That said, I think enough people feel strongly enough about Planned Parenthood that it might just survive getting its funding cut. Google tells me it costs $500 million a year, which is a lot, but I could see private citizens showering it with money if it gets defunded. The Ice Bucket Challenge yielded $115 million in two weeks.

 

[Bystander]

Could this start a "Women's Spring"?

Vis a vis "The Arab Spring?" See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
for a discussion of some of the drawbacks.

 

[john101]

Interesting. I see generic/vague protest movements as revolutionary.

If they come from a general unformulated discontent shared by many people there will be many who will try to come up with a common generic focus. There will be a few that many will identify as common and rally around that. So, out of large scale generic/vague protests come very strong movements for change. Naturally there will be reactionary forces at play that try to take control of the direction of protest but revolutionary participants learn from that which contributes to future revolutionary actions.

 

[Evo]

Though my last post was intended to convey that I don't think generic/vague protest movements are very useful, I do see this as a key issue:

This is an issue I agree with, but in either case I think that a coherent hammering of it might have an impact and if they want to get something accomplished rather than just cast a wide net and hope they get something, this is the issue to go after.

That said, I think enough people feel strongly enough about Planned Parenthood that it might just survive getting its funding cut. Google tells me it costs $500 million a year, which is a lot, but I could see private citizens showering it with money if that happens. The Ice Bucket Challenge yielded $115 million in two weeks.

I agree a key focus needs to be on Planned Parenthood and the good it does and dispel the crazy lies about it.

That's MY main concern, I have been campaigning for Planned Parenthood since the 70's. I've seen how much good it has done.

I also have been the victim of being a single female parent with 2 kids being number one in my job and finding out that I was making $15k a year less than a mediocre male employee with one kid and a working wife. I went to my "male" manager and was told, well, he has a family to support.

 

[Vanadium 50]

it mostly reads like a generic liberal political platform, touching on most of the hot topics of today for Democrats (immigrants, the environment, the Dakota Access Pipeline, BLM, etc)

If you read the right-wing commentary, you will see a number of women writers pointing this out. Some organizations have been "disinvited" as sponsors for this. I personally think demanding ideological purity is a mistake. If you tell people who support, e.g. the Dakota Access Pipeline that they are unwelcome, how exactly does that help Planned Parenthood?

Women's Spring

Holy Lysistrata, Batman!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If you read the right-wing commentary, you will see a number of women writers pointing this out.

I am speculating, but I think it could be to draw as many people out as possible. From what I could tell about the actual marches (my wife went to one) the message was mostly in regards to women's rights and equality with some anti Trump and LGBT stuff thrown in.

 

[zoobyshoe]

San Diego had between 30 and 40 thousand protesters gathered downtown, which amazed me when I read it. I was thinking we could expect between 3 and 4 thousand:

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics...-rights-slam-trump/?google_editors_picks=true

 

[MarneMath]

I went to the one with Atlanta with my wife. John Lewis spoke so that was nice. The Atlanta one was mostly bent towards civil liberties and staying vigilant towards any possible threat protections in place for minorities. Also this nice lady was handing out donuts and I ate 10 :D.

 

[Janus]

My daughter took part in the one we had here in Portland. We couldn't go because my wife's mother is in the hospital, and my wife wanted to be able to get there if needed.

 

[gvlr96]

I have no problem with this but I think as usual the media is trying to distract us. There is a lack of coverage of violent anarchist protesters vandalising buildings and terrorising people. Distract everyone from the chaos.

To get back to the post, I would like to think Trump will see the good in Obamacare and try to improve it without sacrificing the cover it provides. Not just women's specific health issue's but all health issues. Trump is hard to read and has flip flopped on many occasions so who knows.

 

[Mike Bergen]

I understand that there was no ONE idea that unified all these people, but just a general insecurity that comes from an unknown entity i.e. "the Donald"
Let's be honest, it is not Equal Rights that Groups "fight for" It is the Unequal Rights or the Status of a Protected Cl;ass Designation!
Voltaire was concerned about the Tyranny of the Majority. Perhaps we should be just as concerned about the Tyranny of the Minority (even though they outnumber the men) For me, I am still waiting to experience that White Male Privilege thing.
As Technical or Science types, shouldn't we observe how this experiment progresses and then draw our conclusions instead of prejudging the outcome?
In other words, Give the Guy a Chance to make good on his promises?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I am still waiting to experience that White Male Privilege thing.

I grew up in a dominant white middle class suburb. Since then I have traveled to over 65 countries and now live a mere 8 blocks from some tough inner city areas. I have absolutely no question that I benefited from being a white middle class male. That was not something I worked for. I was born into it.

In other words, Give the Guy a Chance to make good on his promises?

His promises are exactly what worry women, minorities and marginalized groups.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yes, I too don't see my 'white male privilege'.

Volunteer at a nearby women's organization. Inner city is best. You can't understand until you are in that world, walk in their shoes and listen to their stories.

 

[Johninch]

I also have been the victim of being a single female parent with 2 kids being number one in my job and finding out that I was making $15k a year less than a mediocre male employee with one kid and a working wife. I went to my "male" manager and was told, well, he has a family to support.

Well you have a family too, so what was his point? Unjustified discrimination can hold a company back and as an investor I am appalled at such a management attitude. Could it be that the other employee is overpaid?

Huge inequalities of pay exist on the topside. In Europe we have massive overpayments of salaries which male employees get because of their age. If we had more payment for the economic value of work done, the released huge sums could be used to attract and motivate the underpaid, such as women and other disadvantaged.

It really is a very big problem and I look forward to more protests demanding more rationality in society. If we paid working people according to their economic output, this would be a very big revolution! A lot of people would lose out of course.[/QUOTE]

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Domestic violence is not limited to violence against women

Yes, but your whole post reminds me of people that say "All Lives Matter". That is to disregard the point of the movement. Women march for their rights. If you want to march to end men to men or women to men violence go ahead, but don't try to disregard what women are marching for.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Study after study show that women on average are already paid equitably.

Please show some studies

"The latest data from the United States Census Bureau shows that women only make 79 cents to every dollar a man earns. Even worse for women of color."
https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/gender-inequality-women-workplace

 

[gvlr96]

Yes, but your whole post reminds me of people that say "All Lives Matter". That is to disregard the point of the movement. Women march for their rights. If you want to march to end men to men or women to men violence go ahead, but don't try to disregard what women are marching for.

BLM is about issues which are systemic uniquely or disproportionately affect the black community. Domestic violence is gender neutral and not systemic. In societies where men are open to talk about being victims, they are about 50% of the victims. Campaigning for only half the victims based on gender is sexist. It would be like raising awareness about the dangers of using your phone while driving because it women can die from it. If an organised government department was specifically targeting women, like some police officers may specifically target minorities, you could compare this to BLM, but this is not the case with domestic violence or rape.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In societies where men are open to talk about being victims, they are about 50% of the victims.

Where do you see these stats?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's an interesting article by a poor white person about white privilege:

http://occupywallstreet.net/story/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person

The problem in seeing white privilege is much like the problem of the fish who can't grasp the concept of water. The author, however, makes a good point that many things called "white privilege" are actually "class privilege."
[Mod note: good article, but language warning]

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The author, however, makes a good point that many things called "white privilege" are actually "class privilege."

For anyone with HBO this documentary is worth watching
http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/class-divide

 

[gvlr96]

Where do you see these stats?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

All your examples use the United States, which is not the most open society and does not want to listen to or help male victims. Below is a study from the UK, which is not perfectly open but much better than the United States.

https://www.kent.ac.uk/tizard/research/seminars/documents/Tizard seminar_161113.pdf

 

[zoobyshoe]

Domestic violence is gender neutral and not systemic. In societies where men are open to talk about being victims, they are about 50% of the victims. Campaigning for only half the victims based on gender is sexist. It would be like raising awareness about the dangers of using your phone while driving because it women can die from it. If an organised government department was specifically targeting women, like some police officers may specifically target minorities, you could compare this to BLM, but this is not the case with domestic violence or rape.

I think this is the relevant part of the march goals here:

Women have the right to live full and healthy lives, free of all forms of violence against our bodies. One in three women have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime; and one in five women have been raped. Further, each year, thousands of women and girls, particularly Black, Indigenous and transgender women and girls, are kidnapped, trafficked, or murdered. We honor the lives of those women who were taken before their time and we affirm that we work for a day when all forms of violence against women are eliminated.

And this is the relevant "government department" specifically targeting women:

"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the kitty. You can do anything."

Trump creates psychological breathing space for that kind of behavior toward women by his example. It almost, and should have, cost him the election. That "hot mike" tape was a massive blow to his campaign. A large part of what this march was about was to remind people of his actual attitude toward women. It has fallen out of the news headlines, but not out of women's memories.

 

[russ_watters]

I grew up in a dominant white middle class suburb. Since then I have traveled to over 65 countries and now live a mere 8 blocks from some tough inner city areas. I have absolutely no question that I benefited from being a white middle class male. That was not something I worked for. I was born into it.

Just to be clear, "white priveledge" is specifically about being white (and sometimes male). So the important distinction to be made is: how much of your "priveledge" came from being a middle class American and how much truly came from being white/male?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Just to be clear, "white priveledge" is specifically about being white (and sometimes male). So the important distinction to be made is: how much of your "priveledge" came from being a middle class American and how much truly came from being white/male?

I acknowledged I benefited from all three privileges. I did not work to pick my parents, skin color or gender. How each contributed specifically to my general success, I can't say, but it's not hard to visualize. If I were a poor black female, the chances PF exists become slim.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You're first paragraph does not address my point. And to be clear, Trump is not a government department.

The part of your post I quoted questions what occasion there could be for a specific protest against men's aggression toward women, and I'm pointing out that such an occasion exists with Trump's behavior toward women. I do think I addressed your point.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey by saying Trump is not a government department. He is the head of the executive branch.

I do my no means approve of him or what he said in the leaked tape, but the question is will this affect his policies - and I think not. I do not predict will do anything either positive or negative when it comes to civil rights. He has even said he will not repeal the legalisation of abortion.

I'm glad to hear you don't approve. What you're missing, it seems to me, is that giving him the keys to the White House after he said those things amounts to saying it's an unimportant issue.

 

[russ_watters]

So it's possible the gap is less, but that doesn't mean equitable.

No, but it is important to have a clear understanding of a "problem" before labeling it a "problem" and proposing action. The commonly cited 79cents (up recently from 78cents) is hammered by activists, the media and some government sources (administration dependent) that a lot of people accept as true something that is basically fake news/a lie. It should be obvious to anyone that pointing out that an engineer makes more money that a teacher (for example) has nothing to do with gender discrimination and everything to do with choices. The point being, since almost all of "the problem" has nothing to do with workplace gender discrimination, the ACTUAL "problem" of women choosing high competition/low pay jobs has an entirely different solution.

 

[jim meyer]

I understand that there was no ONE idea that unified all these people, but just a general insecurity that comes from an unknown entity i.e. "the Donald"
Let's be honest, it is not Equal Rights that Groups "fight for" It is the Unequal Rights or the Status of a Protected Cl;ass Designation!
Voltaire was concerned about the Tyranny of the Majority. Perhaps we should be just as concerned about the Tyranny of the Minority (even though they outnumber the men) For me, I am still waiting to experience that White Male Privilege thing.
As Technical or Science types, shouldn't we observe how this experiment progresses and then draw our conclusions instead of prejudging the outcome?
In other words, Give the Guy a Chance to make good on his promises?

If he(POTUS)is as smart as he claims he will embrace the ERA SASP and urge congress to get it enacted. He likes to stir the pot so maybe he will.

 

[russ_watters]

I acknowledged I benefited from all three privileges. I did not work to pick my parents, skin color or gender. How each contributed specifically to my general success, I can't say, but it's not hard to visualize. If I were a poor black female, the chances PF exists become slim.

Where I disagree is that I think because activists fixate on one particular aspect, we'd better be darn sure they are accurately labeling the problem.

I'm sure there are statistics out there that show your parent's economic situation and education are a much better predictor of yours than their race.

Again: as a general principle applying to everything from homework to societal improvement, we have no hope of correctly answering or fixing a problem if we don't understand it correctly.

 

[256bits]

Trump creates psychological breathing space for that kind of behavior toward women by his example. It almost, and should have, cost him the election. That "hot mike" tape was a massive blow to his campaign. A large part of what this march was about was to remind people of his actual attitude toward women. It has fallen out of the news headlines, but not out of women's memories.

So who's worse ( or better ) - the one who is heard to say something like that, of the one who is silent about such thoughts.
Either can act or not act upon. Most people (men I suppose) take the deliberate decision to not act vulgar, at least I would like to think so.
Being around a vulgar person is mentally fatiguing - I wonder why Trump never learned that - and can be disastrous through guilt by association - ask the Billy guy.
Gutter talk occurs for both sexes, and so does trashy behavior, so as a whole neither sex can claim higher moral ground in that regard.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So who's worse ( or better ) - the one who is heard to say something like that, of the one who is silent about such thoughts.
Either can act or not act upon. Most people (men I suppose) take the deliberate decision to not act vulgar, at least I would like to think so.
Being around a vulgar person is mentally fatiguing - I wonder why Trump never learned that - and can be disastrous through guilt by association - ask the Billy guy.
Gutter talk occurs for both sexes, and so does trashy behavior, so as a whole neither sex can claim higher moral ground in that regard.

If you look at the whole quote from Trump you see he is boasting that he actually acts on his urges, that he goes up to attractive women out of the blue and just starts kissing them and touching them in intimate places. The fact he acts on it is what distinguishes it from anyone, man or woman, merely saying "OOOH That's hot! I'd hit that!," without actually acting on it. Merely saying it is probably considered immoral in most religions, but acting on it, you've actually cross the line over into illegal.

edit to include:

4 Years ago San Diego's mayor was forced to resign due to allegations of ( and a "kind of" confession to) behaviors that Trump boasted about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Filner

(Scroll down to "allegations and resignation")

 

[MarneMath]

No, but it is important to have a clear understanding of a "problem" before labeling it a "problem" and proposing action. The commonly cited 79cents (up recently from 78cents) is hammered by activists, the media and some government sources (administration dependent) that a lot of people accept as true something that is basically fake news/a lie. It should be obvious to anyone that pointing out that an engineer makes more money that a teacher (for example) has nothing to do with gender discrimination and everything to do with choices. The point being, since almost all of "the problem" has nothing to do with workplace gender discrimination, the ACTUAL "problem" of women choosing high competition/low pay jobs has an entirely different solution.

I think that's a false narrative. I've read a myriad of studies that have exam pay between gender within the same field and the gap exist. For example, between surgeons one can expect a female to be paid 71 cents for every dollar a male makes. Dr Goldin offers compelling reasons as to why this exist (link below). Nevertheless, perhaps before calling something fake news, you should verify that it's actually fake. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf

http://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth - light reading

 

[russ_watters]

I think that's a false narrative. I've read a myriad of studies that have exam pay between gender within the same field and the gap exist. For example, between surgeons one can expect a female to be paid 71 cents for every dollar a male makes. Dr Goldin offers compelling reasons as to why this exist (link below). Nevertheless, perhaps before calling something fake news, you should verify that it's actually fake.http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf

http://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth - light reading

That first one is a great study of the issue, but bizarrely, you didn't cite it accurately. It says two key things:

1. The pay gap is much smaller than the overall uncontrolled 77% (at the time) once you control for choices such as field.
2. The pay gap varies with age and is virtually nonexistent for young women/men, controlled for occupation/education.

Both of these are important and in particular the second one indicates that the "problem" has been fixed and the results are still percolating through the population as it ages.

Interestingly, the second report, which has a clear source-with-an-adjenda acknowledges the impact of choice but oddly (or not?) despite all the other stats in the article, doesn't quantify it:

In part, the pay gap reflects women's and men's choices. Women and men choose different college majors and types of jobs after graduation. But women experience pay gaps at every education level and in nearly every line of work. Among the many occupations for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data that allow for valid comparisons, men's earnings are higher than women's in the vast majority.

With all of the other stats in the paper, why not cite the actual stats there? Good reason: if you cite the more relevant/accurate stat, it means you have to stop using the misleading one.

And I'm not seeing your stat for surgeons in either link, but based on the number being lower than the overall uncorrected average, it must be cherry-picked and therefore inaccurate as a measure of the entire issue.

Again, the bottom line is this: a woman graduating from college today can, in nearly all cases, expect to receive the same pay as a comparable male throughout their career. But it is unreasonable for women to continue to demand "equal" pay for less work at lower skill and lower demand jobs.

 

[MarneMath]

A few of points:

1. I didn't cite anything inaccurately. I merely stated that the pay gap exist, which the first article supports. That's dramatically differently than claiming that pay gap exist due to job variance.
2. Smaller than the cited claim wasn't my point. My point is that it exist. Regardless if it's 71% or 80% or 90%, there still a pay gap that exist due to gender.
3. My quoting of the surgeon statistic was merely to illustrated that even among common career that pay gaps do exist, not to emphasis as to what degree they exist.

Nevertheless, I think my comment is enough to discredit your implied claim that the majority of pay gap exist to women having low paying jobs vs men. That's the false narrative I was complaining about.

While I'm citing sources, feel free to do the same. Right now you're simply making unsustained claims.

 

[russ_watters]

A few of points:

1. I didn't cite anything inaccurately. I merely stated that the pay gap exist, which the first article supports. That's dramatically differently than claiming that pay gap exist due to job variance.
2. Smaller than the cited claim wasn't my point. My point is that it exist. Regardless if it's 71% or 80% or 90%, there still a pay gap that exist due to gender.
3. My quoting of the surgeon statistic was merely to illustrated that even among common career that pay gaps do exist, not to emphasis as to what degree they exist.

Nevertheless, I think my comment is enough to discredit your implied claim that the majority of pay gap exist to women having low paying jobs vs men. That's the false narrative I was complaining about.

While I'm citing sources, feel free to do the same. Right now you're simply making unsustained claims.

Your first source is just fine for this discussion, and here is my point, which you apparently do agree with, despite arguing vehemently around it: the 77%-79% pay gap is a very misleading statistic because it does not control for life choices. Right?

I mean, I do agree that once all lifestyle choices are factored-in, there is still a non-zero gap, but if that gap isn't 77-79%, then the claimed "problem" is much different (smaller and/or has a different cause) than what is typically implied. And again, I think it is important to deal with the real numbers, not intentionally misleading ones.

And again, if the goal here is trying to solve the real problem, these two problems have different solutions, right?
1. A gender-pay gap of 77-79% exists primarily because women are discriminated against.
2. A gender-pay gap of 77-79% exists primarily because women choose lower paying fields than men.

Indeed, only one of these problems can be motivation for a protest: the other is a problem women largely have to fix themselves. One of these implies government intervention is needed (the ERA?) and the other not. Right?

And just so we're clear, the word "primarily" means "more than half".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm sure there are statistics out there that show your parent's economic situation and education are a much better predictor of yours than their race.

Yes agreed, but it all comes back to race and gender in the end. There are reasons the black community are poorer and less educated. It began with slavery and morphed over time. Women being in a similar situation but to a less degree which is why women of color are in a tough spot.

 

[MarneMath]

1. I'll go back to my main point. I haven't argued nor stated anything in respect of the statistics claimed by other groups or whatever. I'm merely commenting that you implied a false narrative that the pay gap exist mostly due difference in jobs. My main and only point is that the pay gap exist within occupations. I'm not really arguing anything else besides that. I don't particularly care if it's 70 80 or 90, the fact of the matter it exist.

2. I haven't argued one way or another if it's a problem that hasn't been solved or should be solved. While I agree those are two different problems, that doesn't imply the solution cannot be the same. My grass keeps dying and my tree might crash into my house. Turns out if I remove the tree, I remove the threat and now my grass has more access to light. I imagine the same effect may be true here.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes agreed, but it all comes back to race and gender in the end. There are reasons the black community are poorer and less educated. It began with slavery and morphed over time. Women being in a similar situation but to a less degree which is why women of color are in a tough spot.

50 years ago, we wouldn't have needed a history lesson to find "white priveledge" (and we would have just called it "black discrimination"). 50 years ago, people were actually discriminated against based on the color of their skin, as a matter of law. It didn't matter if you were a doctor or lawyer or you just immigrated and had no slaves in your lineage, if you were black; you sat in the back of the bus and your kids went to a different school because of the color of their skin. That's a difference that matters in terms of what "white priveledge" means and what should be done about the problem of poor economic outlooks for blacks. Focusing on past discrimination (assuming I believed that was the typical definition of the term, which I don't) doesn't provide a basis for a solution moving forward. In fact, it steers us in the wrong direction by focusing on the wrong problem.*

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own successes and failures based on their own choices.

*For example, if the main problem is race, then prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race is a solution. If the problem is the economic status of your parents, then the solution might instead be need-based college financial aid.

 

[russ_watters]

1. I'll go back to my main point. I haven't argued nor stated anything in respect of the statistics claimed by other groups or whatever. I'm merely commenting that you implied a false narrative that the pay gap exist mostly due difference in jobs.

Well, then we do disagree. Because the "pay gap" *is* mostly due to differences in jobs and other life choices (and even more to the point moving forward, to age). And your own source indicates that.

Further, whatever the number is, I am very against false/misleading facts in general. 78% is trotted out because it is a big enough gap to get people to think it matters and is due to discrimination. Even if the narrative wasn't false, it would still be wrong to use an intentionally misleading number to suport a narrative.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

50 years ago, people were actually discriminated against based on the color of their skin, as a matter of law. It didn't matter if you were a doctor or lawyer or you just immigrated and had no slaves in your lineage, if you were black; you sat in the back of the bus and your kids went to a different school because of the color of their skin. That's a difference that matters in terms of what "white priveledge" means and what should be done about the problem of poor economic outlooks for blacks.

Racism did not end with slavery, did not end with the 60s movement and hasn't ended now. The laws just become more clever and sophisticated.

Focusing on past discrimination (assuming I believed that was the typical definition of the term, which I don't) doesn't provide a basis for a solution moving forward.

Yes it does because you must understand how the black community got to where it is. The black community is not genetically more prone to commit crimes, live in public housing and join gangs.

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own successes and failures based on their own choices.

Yes and you will say this till the day you die and nothing will improve. No one is saying people should not be held accountable, but we must understand how the media, policies and private industries have had and continue to have a big role in how black communities evolve.

I am certainly no social science expert, but through my experience volunteering in these communities for years, reading books like "The New Jim Crow" and watching documentaries like "13th" (free on netflix), my eyes are opening.

 

[gvlr96]

The part of your post I quoted questions what occasion there could be for a specific protest against men's aggression toward women, and I'm pointing out that such an occasion exists with Trump's behavior toward women. I do think I addressed your point.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey by saying Trump is not a government department. He is the head of the executive branch.

I'm glad to hear you don't approve. What you're missing, it seems to me, is that giving him the keys to the White House after he said those things amounts to saying it's an unimportant issue.

The fact that he said it is irrelevant. The fact that he did it is concerning, but nobody is going to see an orange man child as an inspiration and want to follow suit because of him. It's an issue if his attitude affects his policies. There is no evidence that it will.

 

[russ_watters]

Racism did not end with slavery, did not end with the 60s movement and hasn't ended now. The laws just become more clever and sophisticated.

Racist laws? I guess that's where we'll have to break the discussion and agree to disagree, because from where I sit, the pendulum has swung in the other direction and the racist laws on the books lean pro minority/anti-white (affirmative action).

Yes it does because you must understand how the black community got to where it is. The black community is not genetically more prone to commit crimes, live in public housing and join gangs.

Same answer as above: if racist laws are causing those things, fine - agree to disagree that such an animal exists. But a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and crime is a self-contained issue even if it started with a push from history. I guess what I would want to know here is: what solution does the history lead you to propose for this problem?

Yes and you will say this till the day you die and nothing will improve.

The difference here - and it is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - is that *I'm* not the one who needs to be saying that: if an inner-city black single mom says it, her kids' situation will improve, and that is what matters most in a free/democratic society.

And the other side of the coin is just as valid: no amount of blaming society "until the day they die" for problems that are in their power to fix is going to fix the problem.