The overlooked race dimension | 242 comments (242 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

lol
I confess myself defeated now. In fact, have you ever seen more sexist a sentence! How could I. And blow up everything I built until now, all those arguments.
:)

(your statement is a good example though - well it was mine actually, but never mind
my point stands: why not impose penalties on all mechanic shops for discrimination? or a quota)

(yes I do have statistics, there was one right next to the one about nurses - the Australian one, I think; if you're honestly unconvinced, I'll look for it again)

(are you saying judges' work conditions are bad? worse than tram drivers, maybe - but then by this criteria we're all a nation of victims ! :) )

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Statistics (4.00 / 2)

For France, 2006, this pdf from the Ordre des médecins says that 39% of doctors in France were women, while more than 60% of medical students were female.

A profession that is feminising.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Statistics (none / 0)

Personally I find man dentists quite brutal and insensitive. Vive les femmes médecin ! :)
(really!)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Statistics (none / 0)

Feminisation is already there:

"Women are indeed accounting for a larger proportion of medical graduates. All through the 1960s women accounted for about 25% of those entering medical school. By 1975 the proportion was 35%, rising to 46% by 1985. In the early 1990s the proportion was around 50% but has since increased each year and is now 61%.5"
(The British Medical Journal

(numbers vary for hospital consultants, and by specialty)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More statistics! (none / 1)

"It's that study after study has found women doctors tend to work 20% to 25% fewer hours than their male counterparts."

"They also see about 10% fewer patients and tend to take more time off early in their careers. "It's pretty much an even bet that within a year or two of entering practice they will go on maternity leave," says Phillip Miller, a vice-president of the medical recruiting firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates. "Then they are going to want more flexible hours."

Such demands tend to irritate older doctors. "The young women in our practice are always looking to get out of being on-call," says a male internist at a large New York-area medical group who asked not to be named. "The rest of us have to pick up the slack. That really stirs up a lot of resentment."

On the plus side, women are willing to take on lower-paying specialties that male doctors are moving away from, such as primary care, pediatrics, and obstetrics. Since 1996 there has been a 40% jump in the number of women choosing primary care, offsetting the 16% decline in men entering the field.

Business Week

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

Just to point out (in case no one noticed :) ), that this shows women doctors don't have the same priorities as the men. They don't seem to seek advancement so much, or bigger salaries, aren't as dedicated to work, do seem to show a preference for person caring specialties.

Can I make the supposition that that holds true for other categories of woman employees (without being called names by the Keepers of Truth, that is) ?

Oh well. "There is a huge body of research", right... very nicely looking too. For the record.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (4.00 / 5)

And where does the difference in preferences come from ? Only from personal tastes ? Or maybe because they want children as much as their male counterparts, yet, unlike them, can't count on a partner socially prepared to do most of childcare ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

I for one don't try to point out culpables at any cost, nor to frame one as victim or other as oppressor. I note that when I say we can't use plain numbers, because they would show men are discriminated as nurses or models, you ignore my point and say these cases actually show women as discriminated against;
when later I present a study showing women sometimes choose "subservient" AND lower-pay positions, because they have different criteria and priorities than men, you find yet another discriminatory cause in that. Even if we put the whole thing to vote, you'll say women vote wrongly because society formatted them the wrong way, they don't "know" to be free. Well luckily there are people like you who deign to explain these poor beings what they want, what they are and what they should do.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 08:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (4.00 / 4)

Of course, I'm sorry, everything is right in our society, and choices people make are entirely their own, and are absolutely independent of the social model.

Reality is not that fairy tale land you describe. People make choices indeed, but those choices are constrained ; the medical profession puts pressure on people to work too much, and, indeed the different criteria of women compared to men do not come out of nothing.

Read Bourdieu's La Distinction about how taste and behaviors are strongly socially determined.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 09:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

I don't think everything is fine, but you force me to exaggerate with your bubbling activism.
Between being conditioned and being completely free there is a world of difference, that's why I said the whole time that policies should be carefully crafted before assumming something is conditioning or discrimination.

InWales moderated her discourse now, which is all very good, but her original comment to which I replied, was in the line: we monitor job applications and appointments according to group membership (example: women). If there are problems of diverseness, the companies need to address the causes.

So to that I said and I repeat: no, since we would assume that these causes are due to company discriminatory behaviour alone. This is not always true. See nurses, or fashion, or teaching: women proportion is no proof of men discrimination. You can't draw sweeping conclusions based on superficial correlation.

I note that InWales now says they do look for the root causes, which is just fine.

(btw I see you mention a book, while you choose to ignore the article I quoted: urban, emancipated, highly educated women doctors choose low paid caretaking specialties)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 07:29:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

I didn't ignore it. Are you actually reading my comments ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 07:37:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

Very carefully, and I fail to see anything enlightening, frankly.

You say choices are constraint and that medical profession puts a lot of pressure. Do you have any proof that those choices are constraint by the society? The medical profession puts a lot of pressure on everyone, not just on women. That is no reason for women to choose caretaking specialties. Let alone that we're speaking about highly educated, emancipated women.
Those are their own, personal choices. You don't seem to have much respect for those free choices and your rhetorics lead to moulding the society according to your extreme views.
It is not for me to tell you what are the reasons behind women MDs' choices. It is for you to prove that those choices are a direct consequence of sexism or discrimination.
I'll take as proof any serious study or logical line of thought (your own included) - but I'd rather be spared more extremist sloganeering.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

As I said, start by reading Bourdieu.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 07:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (4.00 / 3)

And I don't need any proof that "choices are constrained by society". All choices are, in a way or another, under some constraint by society. Society puts different constraints on men and women, if only that of pregnancy. I don't say these constraints are absolute ; but finding statistics that show women doing most of the housework, and various form of discourse encouraging women to do so, much more than men, is extremely easy to do. These pressures mean that women are more willing to work in more flexible ways than men - because they are supposed to spend more time working at home. Since the medical professions values people willing to dedicate all their time to their profession, women end up with slower careers ; ultimately, because of social pressures to do more at home. More discriminating, employers, because of social expectations that women will have to be less committed to their career, are more reluctant to promote women.

What is the part of this reasoning you can't follow ? What part is "illogical" ?

As for "serious" studies, an interesting statistic : all other things equal, married men are paid more than single men, and married women are paid less than single women. Unequal shares in housework (and perceptions and expectations, by employers, of these unequal roles, which means that even "emancipated" women will face those discriminations) explain this...

As for your name calling about "extremist sloganeering" - I could point you to actual extremists. The views I'm expressing here are barely to the left of the French political spectrum.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 08:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

Knowing Bourdieu, I would definitely not put him forward as a reference. He represents precisely the kind of approach to society and philosophic stance that I deeply feel in disagreement with. Bourdieu, in what concerns me, is the Marx of the sociology, one of the apostles of social engineering as a science, no better in that respect than the structuralists he criticized, and I do believe this way of thinking belongs to the same category as those responsible for the advent of nazism and especially communism in Europe.
The idea that individual's life is largely predetermined by the economical and social environment, the simplist manner, indeed the reductionism -- I warmly recommend you the excellent book of Professor Jeffrey Alexander as a very good way to understand the numerous flaws in Bourdieu's theory.

We are all under the influence of what surrounds us, be it family, friends, local and national culture (weather, for some, and I won't even mention moon and stars, for this will most certainly stir your ire! :) ). But the free, educated adult individual will always dispose of something called Reason, critical thinking, ability to make his own opinion and decisions.
You see people's similar attitudes and choices as a proof of conditioning. I see it as a proof that we're all related in the end, we don't differ that much. What you see as imposed, describe in terms of classes, categories, and stereotypes, I see as proof of the essential brotherhood of all humans, ancient wisdom, product of centuries of evolution. What you plan to deconstruct by activist laws, to me seems an absurd and dangerous attempt at moulding the society according to superficial views of proud minds, as if it was a small animal that we stretch and extend to fit our little wooden box.
Mark my words: many philosophers and savants believed to have penetrated the misteries of life. Society is far too complicated for a limited mind, no matter how brilliant that is. Be careful about people that pretend to explain life in a book, as tempting and appealing as it may be.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 03:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More statistics! (none / 0)

You point me to a statistical study, and you don't even seem to have read it well.

Here's what it says, in conclusion:

To conclude, the earnings of married men and married women are determined in distinctive ways, with married men obtaining a net advantage in terms of the coefficients on the independent variables, even ignoring the intercept term.
This means that not only is there a large, unexplained, discriminatory element in the wage differential for married men and women but that the relevant variables affect earnings in different ways for each group.
The difference in the intercept term could represent discrimination, an unmeasured link between marital status and productivity, or differences in preferences or opportunity costs between sexes.

This is exactly what I meant all along in this discussion, and I am glad that in the end it is a statistical study that shows I was right all along. Thank you for this link.
I really have nothing more to add on this.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 04:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (4.00 / 3)

Yes, judges' working conditions are bad. Germany, with a roughly similar justice system as France, a population half greater, and if anything more disciplined than France's, has three to four time the number of judges. Let's say their hours are very, very long.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

Yet more simplistic statistics, more crying on a category's shoulder for the dire hardships of life. Oh well. Is there anything moderate or tolerant in your reflexion, in general, or you think a new revolution is needed to turn the society from the path of the evil? Sigh...

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Enough: those are personal attacks on linca, not on his arguments.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 02:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

I reject this. I'm speaking about his opinions, as he expressed them here. They are, in my view, exaggerated, even extremist, and intolerant.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

your arguments are intelligent, but they end in one place...that these programs should be carefully examined, not used willy nilly.

who's denying that?

what's the fuss about? linca is not sloganeering, he's stating his opinions, very civilly considering, fwiw...

you say you're a moderate, but you sure use a lot of talking points from the right, seems to me.

if all you want is these programs to be administered less liberally, why not just say so? i don't think you've convinced anyone for all the effort, of anything they didn't already know and even agree with.

is it a straw man of your own imagination you are burning? all those damn government give-aways, maybe?

if that's the case, maybe we should think about cutting the military pork before we slash more programs that try to help the disadvantaged... most moderates would agree with that, i think, and if you were railing against that rather than what you are, you'd probably be finding an audience more in tune with your fondly held opinions, which lack originality, not that that's a blog crime, lol.

just sayin', your tone has gone 'off'...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 05:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

You should have realized that common sense is the important part, not intelligence - or others' opinions on the degree of intelligence, and even less to impress you or others on that level.
If you were to be objective, you would have noted that it is not myself who made the fuss.

In what concerns me, I replied to a rather simplistic statement of InWales, statement which she explained and nuanced in what followed.
No one realized (or indeed appreciated) that this has in the end followed my own reasoning.
Everybody got interested in the tiny "activist" points - nurses are subservient, railway workers and judges have bad work conditions, christianism is a delusion and so on. I do regret mentioning them, I didn't think they will pollute the debate to such extent.

It would have been nice if you reacted when linca called me a mysoginist, an ignorant, asked me if I heard about anthropology, without proof or with sloppy arguments (subservient etc). This is less a civil, and more an extreme manner of debating, similar to those employed by the old feminists. The fact that there is extremism far more extreme, is no excuse.

As to you speaking for a group, frankly it fails to impress me. First, I wonder if 5-6 people represent the readership. Second, I never write for an audience, I've nothing to gain, or to lose. I just reacted on an idea that sounded simplistic. Third, my arguments were often not replied, but rejected (you're a mysoginist; you're an ignorant about history too!), I spent a good part of my time correcting the numerous misreadings (I never mentioned the pay of the railway workers; the point about nurses was that the proportion of women is no proof of men being discriminated against; a Saudian society is so concerning the relations state-church and oppression of people by the church, not about treatment of other faiths etc etc.).

Finally, it's not even about dealing with social programs "less liberally". I don't even know what that means. I'm much of a classical liberal myself, and I find the term liberal as used to-day as quite far from its original meaning. I would like those programs implemented more rationally, so that they don't make collateral victims (I even gave an example, I wonder if anyone noticed it). You might have heard all this before, I assure you a newcomer won't notice it.

As to the tone, oh well. You are yourself making yet another baseless assumption (like the one where I was echoing UMP propaganda, whilst I reflected mainstream independent media). I've no straw man to burn and nothing to regret about my tone.

Eppur si muove!

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

ValentinD:

In what concerns me, I replied to a rather simplistic statement of InWales, statement which she explained and nuanced in what followed.
No one realized (or indeed appreciated) that this has in the end followed my own reasoning.

No, not exactly. I was trying to demonstrate, by peeling back layer after layer that your view of our hideous left wing rhetoric was ill informed or at least your perception of what it all amounts to wasn't accurate. I didn't change my discourse until it agreed with you, I tried to show you that the statements you were making about my view on equalities weren't accurate.

There are still plenty of things we've not reached any agreement on - in my view mainly your belief that there are not socially constructed gender stereotypes and therefore no such thing is influencing the choices people make with their lives. You also still don't seem to take on board that I have never once suggested that people should be made to do things they don't want to do.

I want to break down the stereotypes that cause institutional and structural discrimination in society - which does exist. I believe that legislation is an important part of that, and education alone doesn't work - I speak form experience there.

Besides, we don't even agree on what we should be educating people about because the gender stereotypes that I think are socially constructed and need tackling, you think amounts to 'old wisdom'.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

A, a a ! You peeled back what you thought was my view. In what concerns me, I replied to your phrase about monitoring companies and if there are gender discrepancies, they need to address the causes. I replied because the causes are not always within the reach of companies' scope of action.
Further you said these programs are indeed implemented rationally and you do look for the root cause. Had you said that from the beginning, we wouldn't have had this wonderful talk and so maybe never gotten to know each other! Fate can be mischievous :)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Btw if you read back the phrase you quote, I did not say you changed, but that you nuanced your discourse. That you explained it.

I did not say there are no socieally constructed roles. I say they're not all and always mistaken, and hence not all should be deconstructed, and not in all cases.
Nuance. Tolerance. Going about it rationally, not based on theories like Bourdieu's... (I speak in general here, not criticizing you - you managed to maintain a remarkably balanced tone all through this).

Ok. Some mistaken stereotypes do exist. Do you have an example for which there is clear proof that it is not a matter of women free choice?
You mentioned the bin collecting vs cleaning, I replied that it's the physical force that made the difference in role - and in pay.
We must tackle clearly proven mistaken stereotypes. I don't think motherhood is one, and I do call both examples common sense, or old wisdom.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

I have just posted a long reply somewhere else in the thread which probably answers some of these.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Me too. But since I'm through with text searching 200+ posts, here's the short stuff:

To conclude, the earnings of married men and married women are determined in distinctive ways, with married men obtaining a net advantage in terms of the coefficients on the independent variables, even ignoring the intercept term.
This means that not only is there a large, unexplained, discriminatory element in the wage differential for married men and women but that the relevant variables affect earnings in different ways for each group.
The difference in the intercept term could represent discrimination, an unmeasured link between marital status and productivity, or differences in preferences or opportunity costs between sexes.

(from a statistical study published by Oxford and graciously linked in by linca)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

I was referring to this comment of mine

btw to me this
ValentinD: