Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kelmon80 t1_j0fn3ek wrote

> but XX people to this day get paid less for same jobs as their peers

Except they're not. The wage gap as it is commonly understood ("women in the same position make 76 cent to a man's dollar") is a complete falsehod.

Men and women with the same qualifications in the same job get paid pretty much (*) exactly the same - the wage gap compares the average salaries of ALL men with that of ALL women. And, guess what - there's more stay-at-home women than stay-at-home men, and there's more men working in more lucrative (and, on average, more demanding and/or dangerous) fields and positions than women.

And while that last part is still in need of fixing (More female CEOs AND more female garbage collectors/construction workers/tradespeople/soldiers) - any individual woman does not get paid less than her male counterpart.

(* The actual difference is between 1 and 2% in my country (government figures), half of which is attributed to men just being more successful in salary negotiations, the other half to actual plain old discrimination)


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0fqsrl wrote

The other thing I need to add though, regardless of whether or not to debate this point, is that people who menstruate are still expected to perform through what can be debilitating pain on a month to month basis, and to do it without mention or fuss. It’s not something that can be opted in or out of, and the precedent is to NEVER mention it, which I can’t help but suspect is yet another leftover from a not-too-distant time where women were barred from jobs deemed to be ‘for men.’ It isn’t that XX people can’t perform these jobs or should be considered incapable, it is more that it would be humane and equitable to make accommodation for a common issue that will likely resolve within 24-48 hours for the worker every few weeks or even months.


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0g1rse wrote

I see you've edited this comment rather than responding, so I don't mind responding again. :)

I note you put that this percentage discrepancy is in your country. That's wonderful, but unfortunately, nowhere near universal. It also does not account for your other adjustment, that many XX people are not able to as easily ascend through rankings in clerical settings to become CEOs, or that many people are effectively shunned from trade work due to sexism within those trades. Should an XX person decide that they want to improve their chances by changing country, or to restart in these trades, they still face the massive financial, emotional and situation hurdles that any human does when going through a significant move.

The thing is, many types of work that XX people go into ARE dangerous, they are simply not dangerous in a way that people speak of in polite company. It can be extremely dangerous to be in trades that will not rock the boat for someone who has faced physical or verbal harassment, and it can be difficult to quit a job if it is ensuring financial survival. I have found it is much more common to hear from women/XX people that they have faced sexual discrimination or assault in their workplaces, but were unable to quit. It is a type of danger, and that is aside from the demands of the actual job. And, if that person does decide to quit, they very well may end up losing money in the process of finding a workplace that is not constantly threatening. My source here is myself.

edit: In any case, this is somewhat aside from the original post, but it is meant to support my point that allowing one or two days for common bodily functions under these conditions is equity rather than an unfair exception based on biological traits. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to find themselves with a massive hike in income solely because they are given the space to occasionally take a day to deal with intense physical symptoms that are both normal but deeply incompatible with the capitalist structures we all suffer under.


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0fpynq wrote

Let me Google that for you:

And your analogy of more stay-at-home women is support to my statement that by and large there is still a societal expectation that the XX partner will be the primary caregiver to any children they may have with their XY partner. It’s rooted in no reason and archaic, not to mention pretty cruel to both parents.

The reason XY folks are often in those lucrative positions, might I add, is exactly what I was saying regarding hiring bias. Plenty of people across the gender spectrum get educated or are eligible for a variety of jobs, but this still persists.