The Minnesota trip was fun - I got to meet Christine's family and friends, take some fun pictures in the snow (to be posted after Christine's mom works her magic with photoshop), watch some great live comedy acts (by the longest-running comedy group in America) and see the Harry Potter movie. (It wasn't amazing, but I was impressed that they could fit the contents of a book that weighs almost as much as I do into a two and a half hour movie. It would've been more like summarizing than film-making... not too unusual for movies, but this is definitely an extreme case.) Christine and I found a strange Chess set while we were looking through her old stuff she kept at her mom's place - she was a trekkie way back (like me, but probably more so), and she had one of those weird 3-D chess sets from Star Trek Next Generation. Of course, the freaky-looking multi-level chess board was pretty much just a prop for the show, and as far as I know it wasn't meant to be played as a real game. As a result, the rules are pretty lame. I'm in the process of inventing my own, despite the fact that I probably won't get a chance to play it. (Even if I do, it will most likely be with Christine, who is a wonderful person who I love very much... but she spends hours deliberating every tiny little move from every game she plays! Grrrr...)
Some other stuff probably happened between now and... November 6? Damn. I haven't been very faithful with Xanga lately. Whatever.
So this is interesting - a week or so back, some ladies at U-Village (the yuppie outdoor shopping mall down the hill; Christine works there) handed me a flyer, and gave me a free pay-day bar. Sweet deal - I suppose I shouldn't complain when pretty girls feed me. But I did find it humorous that they were passing out a flyer on the wage gap between men and women at a shopping mall where most shoppers are pampered housewives.
Here's the thing - I'm not going to deny that there is a wage gap, or claim that it's inconsequential, but as always the statistics can be misleading. They indicate that the average woman makes less money in a given profession than the average man, and this is typically true. However, they (in the flyer) place the blame on an unjust, unfair society (hey, what society isn't?) and lack of government intervention, when other factors are just as important. For example, from a perspective of evolutionary biology, females are much more concerned with the amount of resources their potential mate controls. Put simply, men have to be more than just pretty to attract a long-term mate - especially the shallow type whose behavior is dictated more by genes and instinct. Today, as in the past, men who control more resources can choose from a larger selection of potential mates; for women, prosperity doesn't matter nearly as much in this regard. This doesn't mean that men SHOULD make more, but it means men have more motivation to make money (money they don't always need) than women. Here's another factor: women take maternity leaves, men don't. While many companies could use better maternity leave policies, the fact remains that most women prefer to take some time off for their child during late pregnancy and the child's early infancy - and this is perfectly reasonable. Even at a company that allows the woman to pick up her career where she left off (most companies have a policy like this), and even if the time off is minimal, it is still a statistically significant setback. A third factor that contributes to the wage gap is a delay between society and workforce. Even if all bias between men and woman was instantly eliminated, along with all other factors (such as maternity leave and extra incentives for men to get rich) it will take at least a generation for the wage gap to disappear, simply because men are already at an advantage in the workforce. (For instance, a man wouldn't say to a female co-worker "gee, I got promoted five years ago and you didn't - you might have deserved it more, so I think I'll give you my position now.) Thus, a large percentage of the current wage gap is a result of the bias of past generations, which I would argue is more extreme than bias seen in the workplace today.
There are probably a lot of other factors too, including culture - which is thankfully not so oppressively specific about the roles of men and women as it was a generation ago, but still manages to convince men that they need to be providers. While the pressures on women to stay in the home have decreased significantly in recent times (in Western cultures) the pressures on men to make money and be providers have not, at least not to the same extent. "Provider" is not necessarily a role that men must play - but it is one most men think they should play, for whatever reason. (Their success at it, of course, isn't perfectly proportional to the role they envision for themselves - but the idealization is further motivation, at least.)
Anyway, just a random rant inspired by misleading statistics. Feminism is definitely a logical ideal, which makes me wonder why some of the feminists I meet are so illogical.
Mwaha - I get another holiday in three weeks, and it's even longer! And there will be even more food! Mmm... food.
Time to jog to Christine's place.
Recent Comments