 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: Abbott's Misogyny & Sexism for all to see |  |
|
Abbott's Misogyny & Sexism for all to see
Now that I've got your attention 
Flying under the radar this week after yet again another f*ckup by the opposition sorry the Government (hard to understandI know judging by post election behaviour) is the Mad Misogynist Miners Monks party's actions & language:
1. Removing pay rises to one of the the lowest paid groups in our community that is child care workers. In one fell swoop these workers who finally were to get the dues & recognition they deserve have had this taken away by MMMM. The workers are overwhelmingly exploited women.
2. His front bench with how many women? Let me see how many fingers & toes can I use to count, no wait I'll need my calculator, perhaps the feral abacus could assist? a solitary woman.
3. Th reduction of wages in aged care. Go figure. Who are the main workers in this exploited workforce? Is it men, no wait it's low paid women.
Let's see how the Mad Misogynist Monk will proceed with his extremely expensive paid parental scheme. I like the idea but how will this pan out? This clearly is antithetical to the economic rationalism shown in the motor-vehicle industry. However, he might not be able to lie again & be shown again to found wanting.
Women's work is not valued by the Mad Misogynist Miners monk & his party.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yet many Women voted for Big Ears because Julia had a big *rse and no dress sense.  |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Women's work is not valued by the Mad Misogynist Miners monk & his party. |
I find the idea of 'women's industries' to be an interesting conceptperhaps, in some ways, antithetical to the long-term interests of feminism. Surely, rather than denoting some lines of work as predominantly 'female' and some as 'male' and trying to pay them equally, we should instead be cutting down gender barriers in all lines of work and all areas of promotion.
While raising wages for 'women's work' may seem a good short-term method of decreasing the pay gap, two things make it potentially counterproductive:
1) Some female-dominated jobs may not actually be as skilled or valuable as male-dominated jobs. We do, after all, live in an unequal society in whichif we agree on the basic premises of gender socialisation, as I expect we domen are socialised to seek out more 'ambitious' jobs like, say, politics over more nurturing jobs. Now, I don't want to get into a debate over whether a politician contributes more to society than an aged care worker; the fact is that one is paid more than the other and most people are OK with that. My point here is that the long-term goal should be to have equal gender representation in politics and aged-care work as opposed to denoting one as 'male' work, the other as 'female' work and paying them equally.
2) If you accept the above premise, equalising wages in 'female' industries and 'male' industries may actually entrench the gender divides in those industries, which may mean in the long run we have less female politicians, less female CEOs and more women working in menial jobs. Is that really what we want?
Ironically, the counter to my argument would be the 'essentialist' view; that men and women are inherently suited to different kinds of work and thus, if we want to make society more equal, those lines of work should be valued equally. I say 'ironically', because essentialism is actually more or less what Abbott subscribes to and what the vast majority of feminists are trying to fight against.
Of course, I doubt Tone is thinking about any of this stuff. He's just looking for more low income wages to cull so he can fund upper-middle class tax breaks. I doubt there's actually a sexist agenda here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Women's work is not valued by the Mad Misogynist Miners monk & his party. |
I find the idea of 'women's industries' to be an interesting conceptperhaps, in some ways, antithetical to the long-term interests of feminism. Surely, rather than denoting some lines of work as predominantly 'female' and some as 'male' and trying to pay them equally, we should instead be cutting down gender barriers in all lines of work and all areas of promotion.
While raising wages for 'women's work' may seem a good short-term method of decreasing the pay gap, two things make it potentially counterproductive:
1) Some female-dominated jobs may not actually be as skilled or valuable as male-dominated jobs. We do, after all, live in an unequal society in whichif we agree on the basic premises of gender socialisation, as I expect we domen are socialised to seek out more 'ambitious' jobs like, say, politics over more nurturing jobs. Now, I don't want to get into a debate over whether a politician contributes more to society than an aged care worker; the fact is that one is paid more than the other and most people are OK with that. My point here is that the long-term goal should be to have equal gender representation in politics and aged-care work as opposed to denoting one as 'male' work, the other as 'female' work and paying them equally.
2) If you accept the above premise, equalising wages in 'female' industries and 'male' industries may actually entrench the gender divides in those industries, which may mean in the long run we have less female politicians, less female CEOs and more women working in menial jobs. Is that really what we want?
Ironically, the counter to my argument would be the 'essentialist' view; that men and women are inherently suited to different kinds of work and thus, if we want to make society more equal, those lines of work should be valued equally. I say 'ironically', because essentialism is actually more or less what Abbott subscribes to and what the vast majority of feminists are trying to fight against.
Of course, I doubt Tone is thinking about any of this stuff. He's just looking for more low income wages to cull so he can fund upper-middle class tax breaks. I doubt there's actually a sexist agenda here. |
Wrong ballpark.
Have you noticed the neoliberals love to cast all oppression as a single phenomenon in order to make the problem so big nothing can be done about it? Or they claim that actively combating oppression only makes it worse? You're just falling into their tactical zero-sum trap of making it seem like a group helping itself is really to its own disadvantage, much the same as people argue that helping one group is a slap in the face to another.
You'll find this argument used to scoff at wage rises every single day on Bloomberg, just as you've heard it used before with vilification, the welfare of Aboriginal people, affirmative action, and in the past things like Mabo and the Apology. By helping people we're only admitting there's an issue, making it bigger, and funding its entrenchment, so the line goes.
But the historical oppression of women is way beyond tinkering with micro-economic incentives to say move women to other industries; that's what you do with dying industries, not with massively historically entrenched and persistent phenomena that have been there forever and a day. Unseating that takes something far more proactive and collective.
The error here is to view major social issues as superficial perception problems, not as the enormous dynamic sociological process they really are. Have you heard people tell, say, psychologically aggrieved people to "get themselves together" or to "stop being so negative"? When you hear that you're hearing the same error: Problems exist because we think they exist, so therefore we can simply think their existence away. What is or came before is reduced to mere triviality, adding insult to injury.
This tactic places the onus of the problem on the individual rather than the group, appeasing the conscience of the other party and enabling them to dismiss it outright, meanwhile keeping the individual isolated and powerless.
Now, I know of course that's not your intention; but you're strangely co-opting an approach which is not only technically wrong in almost all cases (i.e., in most cases, people can't think themselves out of entrenched social oppression anymore than they can think themselves out of chronic depressionwithout help).
And when we look at the history of activism, that's what we see whether it be voting rights, universal education and healthcare, civil rights, and so on. On what basis would any such great reform have been achieved should the approach you're toying with have been taken seriously? That is, the fact people are oppressed already means they are subject to greater forces, and you're asking the victims to do nothing, meanwhile politely asking the perpetrators to change their minds.
The fact is, most Gandhi's actually get killed and bulldozed into mass graves.
The prime tactic of union busting is blame, guilt and feartargeting individuals. Power hates collective action not because collective action is thuggish or annoying or unfair sport; it hates collective action because it works. And this is because power is also collective action imposed by a cadre of highly resources whackos who benefit from keeping people oppressed and divided.
It matters not one jot how cringeworthy demonstrations often are, or how annoying or misplaced a lot of activism can be; it's still the only sure fire way of making an impact. The alternative is to passively sit around imaging something better, much like a whacky apocalyptic community in the hills. Sometimes change is swift, but mostly sociological change is very slow on the scale of an individual's lifetime. If I were a women I wouldn't be waiting about; I'd go for Abbott's dirty neck on this. He's slapped low-income women in the face and if he doesn't feel the consequences he'll simply do it again; and that's the deeply-entrenched real and serious pattern of behaviour that needs modifying.
The collective assertive actions of one group do not impinge on any other group aside from showing them how it's done and that scares the crap out of the power holders. The neoliberal fantasya zero sum worlddoes not accord with fact that societies and economies are dynamic and can change. But it has always taken collective counter-force, not vague passivity or micro-economic tinkering, to do that. Wage wins for women are not a case of macro-economic tinkering, though all gains at low income make a difference, they're a case of overt public self-determined political victory, and that's what's needed to counter oppressive forces in a sustainable way.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Women's work is not valued by the Mad Misogynist Miners monk & his party. |
I find the idea of 'women's industries' to be an interesting conceptperhaps, in some ways, antithetical to the long-term interests of feminism. Surely, rather than denoting some lines of work as predominantly 'female' and some as 'male' and trying to pay them equally, we should instead be cutting down gender barriers in all lines of work and all areas of promotion.
While raising wages for 'women's work' may seem a good short-term method of decreasing the pay gap, two things make it potentially counterproductive:
1) Some female-dominated jobs may not actually be as skilled or valuable as male-dominated jobs. We do, after all, live in an unequal society in whichif we agree on the basic premises of gender socialisation, as I expect we domen are socialised to seek out more 'ambitious' jobs like, say, politics over more nurturing jobs. Now, I don't want to get into a debate over whether a politician contributes more to society than an aged care worker; the fact is that one is paid more than the other and most people are OK with that. My point here is that the long-term goal should be to have equal gender representation in politics and aged-care work as opposed to denoting one as 'male' work, the other as 'female' work and paying them equally.
2) If you accept the above premise, equalising wages in 'female' industries and 'male' industries may actually entrench the gender divides in those industries, which may mean in the long run we have less female politicians, less female CEOs and more women working in menial jobs. Is that really what we want?
Ironically, the counter to my argument would be the 'essentialist' view; that men and women are inherently suited to different kinds of work and thus, if we want to make society more equal, those lines of work should be valued equally. I say 'ironically', because essentialism is actually more or less what Abbott subscribes to and what the vast majority of feminists are trying to fight against.
Of course, I doubt Tone is thinking about any of this stuff. He's just looking for more low income wages to cull so he can fund upper-middle class tax breaks. I doubt there's actually a sexist agenda here. |
Sometimes analysis can be paralysis
As old uncle Ziggy used to say: sometimes a zucchini is just a zucchini
This is purely an attack on women who are dominant gender in the identified employment areas.
This is not a discussion about womens access to higher paid jobs / professions. Indeed nurses are one of the most highly credentialled employees amongst the professions - just ask Morrigu.
The Mad Misogynist Miners Monk has shown what he thinks about access to higher paid jobs. Exhibit 1: The cabinet. My OP used the language of actions & behaviour by MMMM.
The reality is that women have been denied by this scum of an government the pay rises they have earned, along with the way we value their work in these female dominated industries.
As you noted, this will be done to provide welfare for Gina & her mates.
Sheesh David, some agenda's are overt & conscious & some aren't. I'm very surprised you can't see the woods for the trees here. Of course no one is sitting there plotting & asking how can we exploit women more  Not everything has to be that explicit, surely. This is a pay rise given to women (ostensibly) that has now been taken away.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But I'm not advocating 'doing nothing'. I'm all for people in low-paid industries fighting for fairer wages and for reforming industries so as to grant women equal opportunities in professions that they've been traditionally frozen out of. I don't see any conflict between those two positions. The paradox for me lies in trying to eradicate (potentially justified) average wage differences between 'women's industries' and 'men's industries' while simultaneously trying to combat (clearly unjustified) gender dominance in certain fields. Some may argue that you can do both at the same time and work towards some utopia where you've got something approaching 50/50 on two axes, but I think there's valid reason to think that one might actually frustrate progress in the other.
This isn't some clever trick designed to impede progress; I'm actually arguing that long-term progress (that is, equal access for women to the skilled labour market and ability to reach high positions) could potentially be impeded by focusing on pulling up groups of industries (that is, essentially equating less-skilled work with more-skilled work) as a shorter-term solution. And I don't think that it hurts for us on a forum like this to be thinking about long-term goals, even if we still give cautious support to positive short-term battles.
To reiterate: I'm not saying nobody should do anything. The people who work in the affected industriesmany of whom are men, needless to sayare the ones who need to be fighting against their loss of wages, along with all of those who support their cause. Whether this ought to be seen as a specific cause celebre for women per se, though, is another matter. That is the angle that this thread has been pitched at, and what I'm trying to critically discuss.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^But no one thinks it's a cause celebre, just more of the same old fight. You're over-parsing something that's as simple as an arm-wrestle. The only way to put the wind up politicians is to have political wins. A few more and they'll start thinking twice about who they're picking on. Should that shift to some other group, well, then the fight shifts with it.
The assumption that the market is rational in its hiring is simply wrong, and often grossly so. Very often the market is no less a child of irrational inherited ideas than any other aspect of society. (See the Libertarian fantasy land yet again).
On a related note:
| Bloomberg Businessweek wrote: | Before Germanys Social Democratic Party (SDP) reached a coalition agreement with Angela Merkels Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in November, it set 10 conditions. One of them, die Frauenquote, or the womens quota, has many of the countrys corporate executives ber annoyed. The idea is to force companies listed on Germanys DAX index to fill at least 30 percent of their supervisory board seats with women by 2016. (German public companies have a supervisory board, equivalent to a board of directors, and a management board that runs the company.)
Prior to the September election, the proposal had only the tepid support of a few leading Christian Democrats. But Merkel embraced much of the SDP platform, including the quota, to strike a coalition deal. Once a government is sworn inprobably on Dec. 17gender quotas will be at the top of the agenda, along with a national minimum wage and a lower retirement age. The measure will also set quotas for women on management boards.
Of 191 executives on the management boards of Germanys 30 biggest companies, only 12 are women, a 20 percent decrease from last year, according to Bloomberg data. Women account for 21.9 percent of the seats on supervisory boards. Our biggest companies still have almost no women in their leadership, says German Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Ursula von der Leyen, one of a handful of quota supporters in the CDU. With that sort of calling card, Germany cant survive much longer internationally. (Among the companies in the Standard & Poors 500-stock index, women hold 17 percent of board seats.)
European Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding said in an interview with Germanys Die Welt that she was deeply disappointed by the slow pace of change at DAX-listed companies. She pointed to Frances success: A year after legislation was implemented in 2011 requiring board quotas, the proportion of women on French boards jumped from 12 percent to 22 percent.
...
Siemens (SI) Chief Executive Officer Joe Kaeser is the rare executive who has voiced support for legislative quotas: At a recent womens networking event in Munich, he reversed his companys long-held objection. If businesses cant manage it on their own, then we need to start thinking about whether it needs to be legislated.
|
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-12/germanys-ruling-coalition-to-require-more-women-in-boardrooms
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | ......
To reiterate: I'm not saying nobody should do anything. The people who work in the affected industriesmany of whom are men, needless to sayare the ones who need to be fighting against their loss of wages, along with all of those who support their cause. Whether this ought to be seen as a specific cause celebre for women per se, though, is another matter. That is the angle that this thread has been pitched at, and what I'm trying to critically discuss. |
Nyet, nope, niente.
The angle this thread was posted at is 180%.
It is simply to demonstrate the inherent sexism & misogyny of our glorious well your glorious leader as exemplified through his actions or the party for which he is the leader) as described.
This is not a cause celebre for women that you're making it & is not the angle I am coming from that you're attributing to me.
Remember sometimes a continental cucumber is just a continental cucumber Dr Freud.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Firstly on male and female careers, it's been shown that indeed men and women choose different careers even in the absence (or at least minimization) of traditional gender stereotyping. For instance in Norway which is one of the more 'gender neutral' countries on the planet nursing is 90% female and engineering 90% male. Even when programs try and adjust this balance, there is a small spike in other gender participation then a return to the average. For whatever reason you'd like men and women choose different paths. Sure there's a pay gap between these occupations, but men also make up 95% of workplace fatalities. There is a pay gap because women choose less risky occupations and occupations requiring less training and study (healthcare the exception), two people in the same occupation working the same hours for the same employer will have the same pay regardless of gender, the 'pay gap' comes from occupational choices.
Aged care and child care are valuable professions, but they're not exactly hard to get into, and with the economy slowing there isn't going to be a lack of people willing to do this work. If demand goes up and supply of workers drops they'll see a pay rise. It's simple supply and demand. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Some occupations tend to appeal more to one gender than the other. That's just how it works. Remuneration for different jobs (taking collective barigaining out of the equation for a second) is usually based on 2 factors.
1. Relative Work value,
@. Availability of labour.
Relative work value can be objectively assessed using a number of different tools. The Hay job evaluation system is one I'm familiar with and works well to determine relative value based on a number of factors including skill, experience, education required, autonomy, decision making etc.
Then comes availability of labour. 2 jobs could have the same work value but because there is a shortage of suitable labour for one, employers need to pay more to attract workers. A common example of that is when new IT technologies appear, people who have skills can earn a shitpile until the number of people with those skills equals or exceeds the number of jobs.
In relation to equal pay for women, no argument from me, however much of the data used to demonstrate the inequity gap is based on a false premise and doesn't compare apples with apples.
eg, if two people are in the same job, receiving the same hourly rate as prescribed by their EBA, and one works part time to fit with child care responsibilities and the other is full time, the current way of presenting the data is that the part timer earns less therefore their is an inequity. That's wrong IMO because they both get the same hourly rate.
On the issue presented about the childcare workers, haven't looked into the detail so no comment.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Aged care and child care are valuable professions, but they're not exactly hard to get into, and with the economy slowing there isn't going to be a lack of people willing to do this work. If demand goes up and supply of workers drops they'll see a pay rise. It's simple supply and demand. |
Then why with such a shortage of qualified people(manly females) to work in this field why is the Government cutting their pay?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/no-pay-rise-for-aged-care-workers-after-coalition-scraps-labor-/5153192
| Quote: | Thousands of aged care workers will miss out on an expected pay rise after the Federal Government dumped a $1.2 billion fund set up by Labor.
The Workforce Compact would have given workers a 1 per cent pay rise on top of award increases.
The Government halted the scheme in September and this morning used its numbers in Parliament to dump the fund altogether.
The move comes just days after the Coalition scrapped a $300 million fund to give pay rises to childcare workers, describing the Labor scheme as a "union slush fund".
Assistant Minister for Employment Luke Hartsuyker says the aged care scheme was "unionism by stealth".
"Less than 1 per cent of aged care providers had applied for the supplement as at 26 September 2013, as the majority of aged care providers were not willing to apply for the supplement," he said.
"It was never going to reach the majority of aged care workers."
While the Government was expected to scrap the scheme, today's parliamentary tactics took many by surprise.
The Government interrupted the parliamentary schedule to move the motion to disallow the Workforce Compact, giving the Opposition little notice before the motion was debated.
Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke was furious, saying standing orders should only be suspended if the matter is genuinely urgent.
"It's an urgency the Government has discovered within the last 24 hours, it's an urgency that the Government has discovered without consultation with the aged care sector, without consultation with the people to be impacted by this," he said.
"As I understand it, we're talking about a sector that has something like a 40 per cent turnover in its staffing."
The Opposition's spokesman on ageing, Shane Neumann, says it is a shameful act.
"There are 350,000 workers in the aged care sector who will discover that they will not get the pay rises, the better working conditions they deserve and need," he said.
"This is a very retrograde, tragic and shameful act by the Abbott Coalition Government, which was supposed to be a government of no surprises.
"Well, it's going to be a surprise to a lot of aged care workers and stakeholders."
Mr Neumann says the pay rise would have helped the rapidly growing aged care sector attract and retain workers.
The Government says it will work with the sector in coming months to work out how to use the money in a more targeted way. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd need to look further into it. Looks like the government doesn't like how the funding was being distributed and want to set things up their own way. I'm not on top of this particular issue.
Turnover doesn't mean there's a shortage, I worked for Optus and there was a huge attrition rate but always 2-3 people waiting to take every role. |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Some occupations tend to appeal more to one gender than the other. |
But history suggests that pay differential reflects the gender doing the job.
Some examples - In the nineteenth century, the position of secretary was usually filled by men and had a similar status to clerks. After the development of typewriters it became a predominantly female position and dropped in status and relative pay. Bank teller was a prestigious position even after World War 2 and was predominantly a "male" job. Then as the technology changed it became mostly female and its status (and remuneration) dropped.
Until about thirty years ago, doctors were mostly male in Australia and medicine was a high prestige and lucrative career. In the Soviet Union women predominated in medicine from quite early in the twentieth century and medicine was a much lower status career.
One of the reasons I ended up leaving librarianship and going back to Uni in middle age and becoming an academic was that I looked at my salary compared to other Arts graduates and noticed how poorly librarians were paid. Librarianship is a predominantly female career.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
