things I used to love are turning feminist

[MigL]

And you don't seem to understand that, whether the price is normal or not, giving an 'unfair' advantage to one group by having them pay a 'sub-normal' price is still discriminatory; Even for a trivial cupcake. That would be equivalent to saying that women are paid a 'normal' wage but men are paid higher for some reason. Still discrimination !

You also fail to see that the exercise was meant to showcase discrimination in women's pay by itself being DISCRIMINATORY. I.E. this is what discrimination feels like. So I merely used it as an example. I don't have a problem with it ( for reasons previously explained ), but do have a problem with the online responses and even death/rape threats.

 

And you can make absurd claims about my social ( and political ) views, but I suggest they are more likely a reflection of your mindset and penchant for generalization. I have only ever suggested treating all equally, whether man and woman ( or Liberals and Conservatives ).

 

Do you suggest differently ?

Edited April 11, 2016 by MigL

[Strange]

And you don't seem to understand that, whether the price is normal or not, giving an 'unfair' advantage to one group by having them pay a 'sub-normal' price is still discriminatory; Even for a trivial cupcake.

 

But if the price is reduced pro-rata it is not giving them an advantage, it is simply levelling the playing field.

 

 

You also fail to see that the exercise was meant to showcase discrimination in women's pay by itself being DISCRIMINATORY. I.E. this is what discrimination feels like.

 

I don't think that was the point at all. It was using relative price differences to highlight relative income differences.

[Sirona]

And you don't seem to understand that, whether the price is normal or not, giving an 'unfair' advantage to one group by having them pay a 'sub-normal' price is still discriminatory; Even for a trivial cupcake. That would be equivalent to saying that women are paid a 'normal' wage but men are paid higher for some reason. Still discrimination !

You also fail to see that the exercise was meant to showcase discrimination in women's pay by itself being DISCRIMINATORY.

It's not an unfair advantage; one dollar for a cupcake would be close to cost price. The cost is irrelevant, and the discriminatory price was to make a bold statement about wage disparity and obviously succeeded in its intended purpose. Women are not only paid less but they also face price discrimination on many goods which are specifically marketed towards women. When it comes to personal hygiene products for example, women are most subject to price segmentation; they're charged more for the same products which are just packaged, labeled and marketed specifically for them. I would personally call this discrimination too.

[Phi for All]

And you don't seem to understand that, whether the price is normal or not, giving an 'unfair' advantage to one group by having them pay a 'sub-normal' price is still discriminatory; Even for a trivial cupcake. That would be equivalent to saying that women are paid a 'normal' wage but men are paid higher for some reason. Still discrimination !

You also fail to see that the exercise was meant to showcase discrimination in women's pay by itself being DISCRIMINATORY. I.E. this is what discrimination feels like. So I merely used it as an example. I don't have a problem with it ( for reasons previously explained ), but do have a problem with the online responses and even death/rape threats.

 

And you can make absurd claims about my social ( and political ) views, but I suggest they are more likely a reflection of your mindset and penchant for generalization. I have only ever suggested treating all equally, whether man and woman ( or Liberals and Conservatives ).

 

Do you suggest differently ?

 

I certainly do. Insisting on treating all equally, at this point in this movement, ignores the fact that something extraordinary needs to happen to correct the CURRENT inequality. The problem with your centrist stance in this case is that NOTHING will be done about the problem, since you're advocating that both genders need equality, instead of women needing some extra attention on their plight because the scales are already tipped against them. Your stance insures that people will do nothing about the problem women are having, because they'll see it as a men and women problem that cancels each other out.

 

Of course the end result should be treating all equally. But you can't seem to see that bringing awareness to unequal pay that abuses women is what is needed to change the situation. You see it as unfair to men, and that frankly baffles me. You'll do nothing to help women stand up for themselves because you think that would be unfair to men.

 

Huh.

 

[CharonY]

I think we are in agreement that the cupcake sale was just a provocative and somewhat clever means to highlight wage gaps.

Price segmentation is obviously used not as a means of discrimination, but to allow for the highest sales at the best possible price within an non-uniform market. Rather obvious examples are rebates for students and pensioners, where few would call that a discrimination against everyone else. The reason in this case is that students pensioners tend to have less disposable income and would otherwise not buy the product.

 

Now, obviously there are other parameters to take into account, which is why especially in personal care products there is a price discrimination against women (since they are willing to pay more). The cupcake pricing is simply using a model that reflects and highlights difference in income, i.e. where white males have the highest bracket compared to everyone else. Ignoring all other parameters it just normalizes the buying power among the consumers.

Edited April 12, 2016 by CharonY

[MigL]

So, just to be clear, Phi, you are openly advocating discrimination against one group to right the wrongs that discrimination has brought to another group.

You are advocating wronging two groups to supposedly put things right.

A classic example of the end justifies the means.

 

And if that doesn't work, lets discriminate against a third group, maybe that will make things right.

And if it still doesn't work, there's always a fourth, fifth, sixth...

 

This really makes sense in your mind ?

[Delta1212]

So, just to be clear, Phi, you are openly advocating discrimination against one group to right the wrongs that discrimination has brought to another group.

You are advocating wronging two groups to supposedly put things right.

A classic example of the end justifies the means.

 

And if that doesn't work, lets discriminate against a third group, maybe that will make things right.

And if it still doesn't work, there's always a fourth, fifth, sixth...

 

This really makes sense in your mind ?

 

 

Here's a question: Do handicapped parking spaces discriminate against able-bodied persons?

[zapatos]

Here's a question: Do handicapped parking spaces discriminate against able-bodied persons?

Well, by definition I suppose they do. They are showing a non-neutral bias toward one group over another. The thing is, society finds some discrimination fair and some discrimination unfair. Since 'fair' is in the eye of the beholder, I don't see anything wrong with people disagreeing on the fairness of handicap parking, higher taxes for the wealthy, Affirmative Action, or 'over correcting' to get a ship back on course.

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's worth noting that the bake sale was very much a minor event amongst a number of lectures, debates, etc., that were held during feminist week at UQ, and it got blown way out of proportion. The concerning take away from it all was not the event itself, but the ironic and vitriolic reaction to it.

[MigL]

Handicapped parking spaces don't take away my right to visit a public place.

( whereas lack of such would take away handicapped people's right to do so )

So I don't see that as discriminating against one group to 'make up' for discrimination against another.

Which is what Phi seems to be advocating.

 

Thank you Hypervalent for bringing sanity back to the discussion.

That is exactly the message I took away from your link regarding the bake sale.

The puerile and even vicious response and behaviour of the young, internet using males to this social demonstration of discrimination, where you are treated not as equals, but according to your lot in life.

 

And even though I sometimes disagree with Phi ( and others ), I would never think of exhibiting behaviour such as calling him names or threatening him.

As a matter of fact, I rather think he likes me. He always addresses my posts and engages in discussion with me.

[Strange]

I think we are in agreement that the cupcake sale was just a provocative and somewhat clever means to highlight wage gaps.

 

As the rest of your post makes clear, there is no reason to think it was intended to be provocative. The fact that some people were offended by it is purely a reflection on them, not the pricing strategy.

[swansont]

Handicapped parking spaces don't take away my right to visit a public place.

( whereas lack of such would take away handicapped people's right to do so )

So I don't see that as discriminating against one group to 'make up' for discrimination against another.

Which is what Phi seems to be advocating.

 

Where has Phi advocated a specific descrimination tactic that fits this description? I missed it.

 

Charging according to a sliding scale for a cupcake fits under your description above - it's not removing a right to obtain a cupcake.

[Phi for All]

Since 'fair' is in the eye of the beholder, I don't see anything wrong with people disagreeing on the fairness of handicap parking, higher taxes for the wealthy, Affirmative Action, or 'over correcting' to get a ship back on course.

 

And I agree with this. I simply dislike having the stance behind the event misrepresented.

 

And in this instance, the view that it's a problem caused by both men and women is not only wrong, it's flat out harmful. I think it encourages men to do nothing about the problem unless they see equal effort from women. This just isn't a case where helping women is a detriment to men, and it's frustrating to see it portrayed that way.

[MigL]

Post #54 for one, Swansont, where Phi states...

"I certainly do. Insisting on treating all equally, at this point in this movement, ignores the fact that something extraordinary needs to happen to correct the CURRENT inequality."

That's plain as day.

And if you are being charged for an item depending on what you earn, or whether wealthy or poor, or black or white, and even male or female, Swansont - That's discrimination !

Even for a silly item like a cupcake

( I'm starting to think no-one will ever sell cupcakes again. too many hassles. )

 

Lets treat one group unequally to correct ( ?) the unequal treatment of another group.

What ever happened to the old adage 'Your rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others' ?

 

And note that this is NOT about women's rights.

I've clearly stated that they are still disadvantaged in today's society; And that needs to change !

I just don't see how treating another group ( men in this case ) unequally corrects the situation.

It just makes the situation twice as wrong !

Edited April 12, 2016 by MigL

[swansont]

Post #54 for one, Swansont, where he states...

"I certainly do. Insisting on treating all equally, at this point in this movement, ignores the fact that something extraordinary needs to happen to correct the CURRENT inequality."

 

That's plain as day.

Lets treat one group unequally to correct ( ?) the unequal treatment of another group.

What ever happened to the old adage 'Your rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others' ?

 

And note that this is NOT about women's rights.

I've clearly stated that they are still disadvantaged in today's society; And that needs to change !

I just don't see how treating another group ( men in this case ) unequally corrects the situation.

It just makes the situation twice as wrong !

That was Phi in 54, and you haven't presented any example. You just know it's wrong.

 

But I have an example. Women are discriminated against. If one were to prioritize going after the offenders, instead of passing the buck (e.g. Online harassment) that would be a positive asymmetric effect that is not discriminatory. You would be going after people who are breaking the rules. No rights are being diminished.

[CharonY]

 

As the rest of your post makes clear, there is no reason to think it was intended to be provocative. The fact that some people were offended by it is purely a reflection on them, not the pricing strategy.

 

Actually, given the context of the sale I think the idea was to provoke thought.

 

 

And if you are being charged for an item depending on what you earn, or whether wealthy or poor, or black or white, and even male or female, Swansont - That's discrimination !

Even for a silly item like a cupcake

 

It is discrimination in the sense of the word (i.e. distinguishing between customers), however you use it with an absolute negative connotation (which I think makes things a bit tricky as the context can be slightly different). I am therefore wondering, do you think that rebates for students, pensioners etc. should not be made? If so, why? After all, the market optimizes for income all the time (think credit checks, for example).

Technically you are treating them equal, but adjusted for (disposable) income (or buying power) and a few other factors. What the bake sale has done is to use gender and ethnicity as proxy for income.

 

 

One could probably make a similar case for disability as not all of them require close proximity to be able to shop. Yet in all cases, including non-disabled ones it increases convenience.

Edited April 12, 2016 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

I just don't see how treating another group ( men in this case ) unequally corrects the situation.

 

Do you see how treating another group (men in this case) unequally is what caused this problem in the first place? If you aren't willing to help correct the pay disparity, aren't you tacitly approving it?

 

Please offer your idea on how to correct gender pay disparity in a way that satisfies your desire to have your cake and deny it to women too.

[Strange]

Actually, given the context of the sale I think the idea was to provoke thought.

 

Good point, I accept that. (That wasn't the positive shade of meaning of "provocative" that I had in mind.)

[CharonY]

Yes, I think the discussion here has to be a bit more fine-grained as the use of the words such as provocative (my bad) and discrimination can be used accurately but have different connotations depending on context.

[MigL]

Very simply, Phi.

Pay women the equivalent of men doing the same work.

That is not compounding the discrimination.

What would be compounding the discrimination is leaving the wage disparity as is, but increasing taxation on men, or giving 'special' priviliges to women such as reduced taxation, housing costs, or even the cost of a cupcake.

 

And I don't mean to go on about this cupcake business, because I realize it was meant to be a demonstration, nor do I have a problem with senior or student discounts, since we are all students or seniors at one time or another. I had, and will have those rights also. Plus the government should have a limited role in social engineering. They offer a child benefit as a means of promoting families with children, don't they ?

 

I've also stated, Swansont, that those idiots who responded with the vile threats should be arrested, but that has nothing to do with equality, it is just plain wrong.

It could be a whole separate thread.

[CharonY]

 

And I don't mean to go on about this cupcake business, because I realize it was meant to be a demonstration, nor do I have a problem with senior or student discounts, since we are all students or seniors at one time or another. I had, and will have those rights also. Plus the government should have a limited role in social engineering. They offer a child benefit as a means of promoting families with children, don't they ?

 

So you are saying that you are only OK with price segmentation if at on point or another everyone can become eligible? So highschool student discounts are ok, but not college? And mortgages and credits should be the same for everyone? Also what about tax rates?

[Phi for All]

 

And mortgages and credits should be the same for everyone?

 

Why should people who buy their homes get benefits and tax credits, when people who rent their homes get no such benefit? To achieve equality, every step you take has to be completely equal in intent as well, according to some. Otherwise it's discriminatory.

 

I guess I look at this more like the scales of justice, I suppose. If the scales aren't in balance (the way they are now), then how can I balance them without giving more to one side and not the other? How to explain to people who think it's discrimination that adding to the women's side of the scale doesn't mean taking it from the men's side?

 

I think there will be a lot of people with this mindset that will oppose free college if Bernie Sanders has his way, merely because it's a benefit they have no interest in taking advantage of. It will seem to discriminate against the ignorant who are happy being that way. It will seem to discriminate against all those people who thought college was out of their grasp and gave up on the possibility. And rather than see this as an opportunity to change that, many of them will continue to think it's beyond them. And many of those will oppose measures to make college free just because of that, no matter the downstream benefits. I had a neighbor who supported increasing mill levies to help the local school system while he had kids in it, yet loudly proclaimed he was done voting for extra taxation now that his kids were all in college. He saw only personal familial benefit from educating smart kids to be effective adults.

 

Opportunities and pay for the same work should be equal. If they aren't, trying to fix it equally isn't possible. You need someone to make up the disparity. It shouldn't be men, it should be employers in this case. They've been the ones benefiting from paying women less than men.

 

And to get back to the OP, what's really "feminist" about all this? Why even identify it like that? Do you refer to Martin Luther King as an African Americanist because he talked about freedom from oppression for African Americans? And why the negative use of the term? Things that you used to love are turning feminist ?! OMG, that must mean rap music is turning the radio listening I love African Americanist!

[swansont]

Very simply, Phi.

Pay women the equivalent of men doing the same work.

That is not compounding the discrimination.

What would be compounding the discrimination is leaving the wage disparity as is, but increasing taxation on men, or giving 'special' priviliges to women such as reduced taxation, housing costs, or even the cost of a cupcake.

 

if someone is systematically underpaid for years, how do you rectify that? Just raising their pay? What about the back pay to which they were entitled? is paying that discrimination?

[MigL]

Of course they should be entitled to back pay, Swansont.

But only if it is obtained fro the person or company that discriminated against them.

 

And I hate to widen the issue because it really opens up a can of worms, but consider slavery in the US.

There's no question black Americans were discriminated against ( and treated sub-humanly )..

And there's no question their descendants ( and even current black Americans who are disadvantaged ) deserve some sort of compensation.

The problem is, do you extract this compensation from rich Southerners who benefitted from slavery, or do you also extract it from Northerners as well, who gave their lives to free the slaves in a bloody civil war ? Do you extract it from new immigrants ( who have their own problems ) that had no part in the discrimination against black Americans ?

 

I don't pretend to have the answers.

I do know the status quo is unacceptable.

And maybe I'm naïve, but it seems to me that 'pushing down' the higher side of the scales of justice rather than 'pushing up' the lower side is compounding the wrong ( I don't know, its Phi's analogy ).

[Phi for All]

I guess I look at this more like the scales of justice, I suppose. If the scales aren't in balance (the way they are now), then how can I balance them without giving more to one side and not the other? How to explain to people who think it's discrimination that adding to the women's side of the scale doesn't mean taking it from the men's side?

And maybe I'm naïve, but it seems to me that 'pushing down' the higher side of the scales of justice rather than 'pushing up' the lower side is compounding the wrong ( I don't know, its Phi's analogy ).

Isn't pushing up on the heavier side an example of the discrimination you're accusing me of fostering? You're suggesting it compounds the wrong to give women more pay to bring them up to a man's level, but taking pay from men to compensate doesn't?

 

Or is this just another misunderfustication of someone else's POV?