an observation of mine...

[homegrown terror]

i've worked many, many jobs (mostly in retail, food service, logistics and manufacturing fields) and i've noticed something. the women i worked with all made pretty much the no more or no less money than i did (except where merit or experience dictated.) nor were there any hiring biases or promotion biases (quite the opposite, most of the jobs i've worked had at least a 60-40% ratio of women to men, and almost all of my immediate superiors have been female.) i know this is only one man's experience, but i've asked observed it in many other workplaces as well. and yet so many women's advocacy groups still seem to put workplace issues first and foremost on their agenda. the conclusion that i'm starting to reach is that mainstream women's movement doesn't care so much about issues that affect women across all spectrae, but only about those that affect women with high-paying jobs that want even more high paying jobs, and it seems pretty clear to me that the reason is because those are the women who can afford to make massive donations to them in the hopes of "furthering their gender."

NOTE: i am speaking specifically and ONLY about the major big-name organisations, not about individual, independent and grass-roots feminists and their groups.

[Fawkes]

Regardless of your own personal experiences, there's no denying that gender discrimination in the workplace definitely exists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States )


the conclusion that i'm starting to reach is that mainstream women's movement doesn't care so much about issues that affect women across all spectrae
That's because there are no issues that affect women equally across all spectrums. The biggest failing of so many social movements targeting various modes of oppression (from sexism to racism to homophobia to "classism") lies in a failure to recognize that these things are not independent of one another. They all intersect to create a web of oppression based not on individuals' various identities, but how those identities relate to power. The issues faced by an unemployed, black, single mother are very different from those faced by a wealthy, white, heterosexual woman.


but only about those that affect women with high-paying jobs that want even more high paying jobs
Income disparity is by no means restricted to high-paying jobs.

[Valdyr]

Regardless of your own personal experiences, there's no denying that gender discrimination in the workplace definitely exists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States)


That's because there are no issues that affect women equally across all spectrums. The biggest failing of so many social movements targeting various modes of oppression (from sexism to racism to homophobia to "classism") lies in a failure to recognize that these things are not independent of one another. They all intersect to create a web of oppression based not on individuals' various identities, but how those identities relate to power. The issues faced by an unemployed, black, single mother are very different from those faced by a wealthy, white, heterosexual woman.

i.e., the failure of identity politics (in the postmodern sense). At least they got somewhat on the right track by identifying intersectionality.

[Parvati]

As a marxist, yes I really care about work. Just remembering that the capitalist exploitation is based on how work is organized.

Where the labor movement and the bourgeois feminist organizations are wrong is when they focus on the cases where for equal work, there is no equal pay. Which is obviously a bad thing, but remains rare in the advanced capitalist countries and particularly where there is a union. I sometimes hear guys talk about the fact that at their jobs (restaurant, shop, bar), the girls make the same money, sometimes more (with tips).

But the real question, the real problem is that for women of the proletariat (independently of everything else, children, race, sexual orientation, region, etc..), the majority of available jobs are paid less than jobs predominantly accessible to men. Young men are actually doing some bad jobs for a certain period, but women are usually doing this all their lives.

Most women are cashiers, maids, nannies, waitresses, telephone operators, secretaries, care attendants, babysitters, etc.. They are jobs that require little or no qualifications in the field of health, education, household and food, all extensions of the private reproduction of labor power.Even the more educated women are mainly in jobs paid less than their male counterparts: for example nurses or teachers.

The men meanwhile can work in industry (heavy industry, automotive, aerospace, industrial maintenance, ports, railway stations, etc..) Or in construction. Jobs directly related to the extortion of surplus value, which can therefore be better to pay. They are also truck drivers, bus or taxi, municipal workers, fire fighters, factors. These jobs are much better paid. This is not the exception, or the strict equality issue that is important, but the method of organization of the work as a whole.

[Tukhachevsky]

Funny, I have the same impression as OP.
I had a boss who tried to seduce me.
I had coworkers trying to pave their way to the top by flirting with men and some of them were pretty successful in this.
Hell, I even had classes in university 90% composed of girls (not that this is a problem) and many of them flirted unashamed with the teacher in front of the whole class and were approved in the discipline without the minimum effort, to not mention cases when they actually got laid with the teacher.


[...] the majority of available jobs are paid less than jobs predominantly accessible to men [...] Most women are cashiers, maids, nannies, waitresses, telephone operators, secretaries, care attendants, babysitters, etc..

Oh boy, such a stereotypical and cliche view of things. Maybe hum... You live in Qatar? Because women earn the same here and a man (if sensible) can work in babysitting alright.

[Sea]

Oh boy, such a stereotypical and cliche view of things. Maybe hum... You live in Qatar? Because women earn the same here and a man (if sensible) can work in babysitting alright.
I think that Parvati's point was that there's not just the issue of women being confined to less pay for the same job, but also to lower-paying jobs in general. The jobs he listed like babysitter etc. are (at least around here) predominated by females and construction engineering etc. by males. That's a statistic, not a stereotype. It'd be stereotypical to claim that women are meant for certain jobs and not others, not to point out the effects of society's leading them to believe so.

Yes, there are male maids but it's nowhere near 50-50. The same can be said for female mechanics. In fact, male nurse characters often get mocked on TV doctor shows, and female construction workers are often portrayed with a butch lesbian stereotype. To point that out is to point out oppression, not to justify it or assume it as the "natural order of things".

[Prometeo liberado]

Ask these women how many times they have been asked in the interview process if they have "baby sitting" or "family obligation" concerns or if they are planning on having children in the next 6 months. At the lower pay scales you don't see the sexual discrimination as clearly as you do when the greater option as far as pay and benefits come into play. Why is it that minorities and women are asked if they have reliable transportation? Discrimination is often not as visible to those whom it affects only peripherally or indirectly.