That article made some interesting points, but I think a lot of the comparisons between 1950 and 2000 did not account for changes in the importance of the job itself. For instance, ticket sales is largely handled online, so I don't think it's fair to attribute the drop in pay to gender.

I think my point still holds that an engineer will make more than a teacher, regardless of gender. A female engineer may make less than a male engineer, and that issue should be addressed, but the fact remains, I think, that many of the highest paying jobs don't attract women (again, an issue that should be addressed).

@Hauta

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0

the study from 1950 to 2000, DID look at a time zone with sexism, but pay took a big drop at 1970 due to economic problems, and another in 72, 74 and 79. These all caused lower pay.

around the same time, women's rights made massive strides forward, whereas before most labor from women had been confined to a few set doctrines.

look at the overall trends in STILL women prescient jobs: pay decreases. conveniently committed dimension of a study that is looking for sexism. does that mean there was NO sexism in the 70s? of course not! there still is today:

but when you're upper bound is the year 2000: that's nearly 2 decades back. that data is nearly obsolete for modern analysis

Hauta makes an excellent point..about this assertion that "political correctness is a worse form of totalitarianism" ..Than What other forms of totalitarianism ?
Ogion is correct, imho, "politically correct oppressor" is an oxymoron... Just because there is a superficial facade, that is not the true reality
"Political correctness" is a generic term, what is actually meant by the term has countless specific meanings, dependent on the user, and whatever a user of the term specifically implies, unless they make it clear what they mean, a wide variety of inferences will be made.
The counter proposition might be put, do those who fight "political correctness" seek to impose a totalitarianism of boorish crudities on society ?
Trey Parker's South Park.. It's supposedly satirical, but if so, does it educate, change the offensive behaviours it parodies ?
Or does it normalise them, trivialise them, make them even more acceptable ? I think that's it's biggest failing, it doesn't achieve that much in making what it satarises socially unnaceptable.
South Park is a bit of a "one trick pony".. it's novelty, newness has long passed, so it's becoming almost an endorsement of what it supposedly satarises.
As to opposition to oppression "having to be offensive to be successful" then Ghandi's example proves that assertion invalid. He led what, 400 million Indians out of political oppression in a peaceful dignified method & manner.
This Zisek chap appears to me to be an attention seeking, frivolous dilletante when compared to Ghandi.

gotta go to bed. @MM, please hold the left flank!

@Hauta

"@Yanik, not sure what "pay per hours" means. If it means "payrate per hour" when adjusted for experience (on a field by field basis), then it should be the ONLY thing that they account for, right?"

if you only look at one aspect, then you won't have a complete picture

if you want to see if there is REAL discrimination, you have to determine:

do women,
working the same number of hours (or proportionally) in the exact same field, at the same company (size of company matters for wages), with the exact same experience, and on-job, with the exact same level of risk for switching jobs, with the exact same education in the field, with the exact same amount of time worked, who have negotiated as much for pay raises...

make more or less.

if you can answer that, then let me know. plus, i know for a fact that is not every factor, i'm just tired and have German homework.

"This Zisek chap appears to me to be an attention seeking"

that's the pot calling the kettle black

@Hauta

i know there are a LOT of factors... but that's what people take into account when determining wages.

ask anyone who has run a large scale business: they get the best of the best of the best, and they do it by extensive searches for qualifications. even some actuaries from insurance companies have been hired to produce basic models for the "optimal employee" (some of which can even favor women, who in general have higher education)

also to clarify on something: i believe there is a worrying amount of discrimination against women in jobs across the United States.

I'm just worried that how we measured it is less to discover, reveal, and fix issues, and more as a political tool

Oh, great, Chairman MAjOr is going after my cartoons now.

#BanMajorMitchell

Are you still upset about the mods locking your thread about Zimbabweans?

Well Sweetypie James, this Zisek chap seems to have confused priorities, attacking an ill defined "political correctness" ahead of the actual oppression he purports to be most concerned about.
Call me a sceptical blighter, but when a chap says he has to attack "political correctness" (whatever he actually means by that) as a means of fighting oppression, it sounds false to me, why does he obsess about an irrelevancy ? Why not get straight into the "main game", fighting oppression ?
It makes as much sense as saying he wants to eradicate hunger, but first he has to ensure everyone had equal rights to serviettes and napkins, and rather than give the starving food, he'll give them napkins & cutlery.
I think it far more likely that the silly blighter wants to be provocative, engage in self promotion, and pander to the boorish mob by attaching himself to a fashionable cause celebre of the Conservative extremists; and that he has no genuine interest in "fighting oppression"..rather that's a flimsy self justification he's using.

"Call me a sceptical blighter, but when a chap says he has to attack "political correctness" (whatever he actually means by that) as a means of fighting oppression, it sounds false to me, why does he obsess about an irrelevancy ?"
Because it solidifies oppression and therefore isn't actually an irrelevancy to him.

It's a means of oppressors solidifying their power over the oppressed. It's like you didn't even listen to Žižek.

It's akin to a notion of Marx, which he called "bourgeois socialism," wherein the bourgeoisie made slight concessions in order to pacify the proletariat while retaining their power and oppression of the proletariat.

@MM - did you watch the video? What did you take of his story about Yugoslavia becoming more PC in the years before the civil war? And how that caused tensions, or was at least symptomatic of tensions, rather than decrease them?

I feel like there aren't enough qualifiers in this thread.

Also, Žižek is far too anti-capitalism to be liked by conservatives. He has some pretty strong Marxist roots.

How is it physically possible to be this absolutely awful at basic English phonemes? I can't listen to this shit.

@"Ogion (4407 D)
New 04:05 AM
+1
Actually, much of it is "just for being women" and there's a lot of research to back that up. That's just the reality. If you submit identical resumes with a "black sounding" name, you'll get half as many interviews than you do with the same resume with a traditional "white" name. Pay disparities for women abound and are systematic. Of course, you can try to deny that, begging the question of why you resist this basic fact?"

The point is, it is much harder to call out a company or systemic pay inequality like this, if the people in charge are being all PC abou it. That it is a useful tool for those in power to avoid changing how they treat people by being 'nice' on a superfiisl level.

That and his other example of masking problems with Political Correctness, rather than addressing the underlying issues, is the main thrust of his arguement.

@ND i know you believe in the BS idea of 'cultural marxism', well here is an actual marxist philosopher criticising Political Correctness, and you haven't even bothered looking at the link.

@Clownie, i concur, he can be difficult to listen to. That said, you are demonstrating some huge amount of Anglophonic privilege.

I can have Anglophonic privilege while not being an Anglophone?

For what it's worth, I agree with most of what Žižek appears to be saying, but I only read the transcript because I cannot stand thick accents. I'm learning my fourth language, and it is very goddamn important to me that I speak it clearly; it's downright offensive (and tragically) when people learn a language and somehow speak with their native phonemes instead.

Political correctness exists to strangle honest debate. If your populace is thinking correctly, there isn't any need for debate, because anyone who doesn't think correctly will be Othered and demonised to the point of barely being considered human anymore. It's a common theme on this forum, really.

(and tragically common)* curse my inattentiveness to mid-post editting

How can anyone take a Marxist in the 21st century seriously ? The belief in a Marxist Utopia is silly as believing the nonsense of those crazy US Baptist extremists or Scientology.
I think this "great threat posed by political correctness" is way overblown, it's a too easy to use cop out for intellectually lazy people.

"The belief in a Marxist Utopia is silly as believing the nonsense of those crazy US Baptist extremists or Scientology."

Yeah, even Marx didn't believe in a Marxist Utopia. Neither does Žižek. He's more true to form than other "Marxists."

I'm curious. For those of you who haven't read Das Kapital (by Marx), what is your view of what Marxism really is? Remember, here in the capitalistic west, our information about Marxism is colored by our struggle against the Soviet Union. Please don't let that cause you to reject true Marxism out of hand. There might be nuggets in there that you agree with. Who knows, something might even change the way you think (sorry!) !!

@Clownie, then i apologise for my mistake. I believe it is fricking hard to learn a new language and get the phonemes wrong; but then that's because i haven't. (well apart from Irish, but i was pretty much raised with it...)

And also, what TrPrado said about utopia. He just got there before me.

For the lazy among you (including me), here's a link to a good youtube video on what marxism is. It begins by describing the flaws in capitalism:

1. modern work is alienating. It is not fulfilling to have such job specialization.
2. our jobs are insecure. we are replaceable.
3. profit is theft (i.e., profit is derived by underpaying workers)
4. capitalism is unstable. Panics/crises result from overcapacity to produce.
5. financial fears force people to put economics at the center of lives. (You can't marry someone you love who has a boatload of debt).

Marx proposed:
1. no private property or inherited wealth
2. steep progressive income tax
3. centralization of banking, communications, transportation, free public education
4. people could develop different interests - They could alternate which productive thing they wanted to do.

So, is there ANYTHING in there that you can get behind? (btw, even I have problems with a few items)

*oh yeah, the link...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc&t=3s

I think Zizek is kind of weird on this issue. He's clearly very pro having norms dictating what is and is not acceptable political discourse, but I find he has a lot of trouble elucidating exactly what the distinction between political correctness and norms dictating political discourse is. I love the guy but he tends to hand wave a lot.

I think the problem with Marxism and even socialism is not so much with their theoretical basis, it's with us, our greed and selfishness.. We a tend to place self-interest way ahead of community interest.