Female traffic lights

[HighTide]

I'm just gonna weigh in here and possibly gonna digress later on.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes. Whilst I'm all for equality, I think it's important to recognize that there are some radical 'feminists'. In saying that, I feel like this situation is one of them. While I've always thought of the sign as a person, I've never actually cared too much to distinguish male or female. There are countless signs that may picture a man or a woman specifically, but in any case, they are merely just representing people, and no one takes actual notice of it when they are crossing. Its just something that is there. I feel that the proposal of such an idea is a bit extreme, as it is not meant to symbolise anything in particular, yet people are taking it to mean something. If we were to change these things, there would be many different and unnecessary changes that need to be made. While equality is essential, I feel that focusing on too trivial aspects of a larger picture is useless.

In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.

I'm just presenting an idea here. While I'm all for the idea of equality, I am against the radical views proposed by some. Hope I didn't repeat someone else's argument because I haven't like read much :s

[heids]

I suspect the only point of the actual act of changing these traffic lights was to create discussion, rather than in and of itself to fight inequality.  And it's worked.

[peterpiper]

I'm just gonna weigh in here and possibly gonna digress later on.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes. Whilst I'm all for equality, I think it's important to recognize that there are some radical 'feminists'. In saying that, I feel like this situation is one of them. While I've always thought of the sign as a person, I've never actually cared too much to distinguish male or female. There are countless signs that may picture a man or a woman specifically, but in any case, they are merely just representing people, and no one takes actual notice of it when they are crossing. Its just something that is there. I feel that the proposal of such an idea is a bit extreme, as it is not meant to symbolise anything in particular, yet people are taking it to mean something. If we were to change these things, there would be many different and unnecessary changes that need to be made. While equality is essential, I feel that focusing on too trivial aspects of a larger picture is useless.

In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.

I'm just presenting an idea here. While I'm all for the idea of equality, I am against the radical views proposed by some. Hope I didn't repeat someone else's argument because I haven't like read much :s

Just to preface this: don't be afraid of voicing out an opinion! I wasn't even completely sure of my opinion before I started typing it out. It helps with consolidating I guess and weighing which makes sense and which doesn't. But yeah -- it's great that you could be involved in this discussion! Truly, and I mean it with as much sincerity I could possibly muster

I'm a bit conservative when I define feminism; I define it along the lines of how it was formed and what it meant during the time when it arose. And because of this, I don't believe -- in the truest sense of my belief -- that the more radical feminists do any justice to my belief of it as the next person who claims that it's illogical to be "feminist if you believe in equal rights". Just as you hear about islamists saying they don't believe in what ISIS does, it's quite complex, as the idea has converged and created almost opposing sides of what feminism entails.

I understand that ideas as time goes by changes; some get picked up and some become 'old-fashioned'. And I think that's really up to the individual whether they want to value it or renounce it. We had slavery, and it's probably a good estimate that a majority (hopefully) don't agree with slavery in Australia today, for example.

But when I hear people say that feminism is just hypocrisy, to me, it denies a sense of history, the struggle that was expended so that we could enjoy the freedoms we have today. I guess if it were up to me, I'd say it is important, because it draws a focus on where we are today in comparison to the past when women as well as minorities were oppressed. It starts a conversation, a deep point to think about: and I think that is a most important feature of what I consider an idea worth investing in. If I were to say that I consider myself egalitarian but certainly not a feminist, to me, it seems contradictory, it seems self-justifying and it doesn't encompass as much a variety of ways of thinking into issues of inequality, as when I say I'm a feminist.

They're all very small nuances. But, as with all ideas, it's really up to you to decide what you believe in, and how you believe it, not a radical 'feminist' out in the street calling you a lunatic. Everyone has a different set of beliefs and ideas of how one belief fits into it. So of course you wouldn't have one idea with only one perspective of it.

Hope this clears something for you.

[Sine]

I'm just gonna weigh in here and possibly gonna digress later on.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes. Whilst I'm all for equality, I think it's important to recognize that there are some radical 'feminists'. In saying that, I feel like this situation is one of them. While I've always thought of the sign as a person, I've never actually cared too much to distinguish male or female. There are countless signs that may picture a man or a woman specifically, but in any case, they are merely just representing people, and no one takes actual notice of it when they are crossing. Its just something that is there. I feel that the proposal of such an idea is a bit extreme, as it is not meant to symbolise anything in particular, yet people are taking it to mean something. If we were to change these things, there would be many different and unnecessary changes that need to be made. While equality is essential, I feel that focusing on too trivial aspects of a larger picture is useless.

In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.

I'm just presenting an idea here. While I'm all for the idea of equality, I am against the radical views proposed by some. Hope I didn't repeat someone else's argument because I haven't like read much :s

Aus open 2017 prize money was equal for mens and women.(pretty sure this is the case for all grand slams and maybe all ATP events). Yes, this is the case despite men playing best of 5 and women best of 3. Not even taking into account which gender generates more revenue.

[stephjones]

In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.

I think we need to question, though, why male sports stars generally generate more revenue - because you're right, they do. But our female soccer team does relatively better than our male sports team, in that they rank higher than their male counterparts right now (the Matildas are currently ranked 6th in the FIFA World Rankings, the Socceroos are ranked 55th), and they made it to the Rio Olympics, however they don't appear to generate nearly as much media attention or commercial coverage. Is it a question of what people want to see? Do people prefer to watch males play sports? I don't necessarily think so, I would absolutely watch women's sports more if I was given access to it, but it's definitely not advertised or made available as much as male sporting events are (then again, maybe I'm watching the wrong TV).

(here's the comparison of earnings of the socceroos and the matildas though :))

That said, they've recently been advertising Women's AFL, and I'm pretty sure the ratings and attendance-rates have been pretty good since they started that late last year?

[jamonwindeyer]

That said, they've recently been advertising Women's AFL, and I'm pretty sure the ratings and attendance-rates have been pretty good since they started that late last year?

It exceeded all expectations from what I've heard I think it is great evidence of the fact that, if given the same amount of promotion and marketing as the male equivalent, then there is no reason the viewership will be significantly different. It's just about star power. Ronda Rousey did fantastic things for UFC as a sport, she and McGregor were arguably some of the biggest stars of the sport ever (in terms of who became household names). Serena Williams is a huge draw for Tennis. It's just about investing the money in marketing/promoting the sports to the same level I think

[Syndicate]

 
Hey, I'm really interested in this part. You are saying that the wage gap doesn't really matter in highly-paid jobs, right? Where are the statistics?
(I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, just interested in knowing how you concluded this.)

It was more sort of what I believed (couldn't find any evidence to this). I am not saying that I am definitely correct in any way. It's just that I think that one's wage is related to one's performance/ talent, not what they look like (in highly-paid jobs). Which why I think that such thinking is slowly narrowing down such a wage gap that exists today. Again, I have no statistics, but I do think our history is an evidence to this, as females were paid so less compared to males, in let's say 1800's compared to 2017. 

Also to any of those who thinks I am against such female traffic lights, I just want to say I am not. I am happy for the fact that people are slowly understanding the importance of gender equality in 21st century, as it definitely goes against my own personal morals to treat anyone (from a different gender, race etc...) with injustice. I am not an activist or something, but I do support it though.

[HighTide]

I suspect the only point of the actual act of changing these traffic lights was to create discussion, rather than in and of itself to fight inequality.  And it's worked.

Definitely. 100% agree.

Aus open 2017 prize money was equal for mens and women.(pretty sure this is the case for all grand slams and maybe all ATP events). Yes, this is the case despite men playing best of 5 and women best of 3. Not even taking into account which gender generates more revenue.

Yeah no idea about this year's but I recall that this was a contentious problem a few years back.

I think we need to question, though, why male sports stars generally generate more revenue - because you're right, they do. But our female soccer team does relatively better than our male sports team, in that they rank higher than their male counterparts right now (the Matildas are currently ranked 6th in the FIFA World Rankings, the Socceroos are ranked 55th), and they made it to the Rio Olympics, however they don't appear to generate nearly as much media attention or commercial coverage. Is it a question of what people want to see? Do people prefer to watch males play sports? I don't necessarily think so, I would absolutely watch women's sports more if I was given access to it, but it's definitely not advertised or made available as much as male sporting events are (then again, maybe I'm watching the wrong TV).

(here's the comparison of earnings of the socceroos and the matildas though :))

That said, they've recently been advertising Women's AFL, and I'm pretty sure the ratings and attendance-rates have been pretty good since they started that late last year?

Yeah I get what you mean, but I feel like there are some things that we can't fix, and I'm pretty sure this would boil down to interest in sport from an early age. Males in male-dominated sports are introduced early and so they play for years -- they have more interest, they improve and they have a higher standard. That's what makes the competition so high. For example: In cricket there are multiple levels, from club, to district, state and national, with huge competition for each. While in females, there isn't as much competition and this seems to be basically because fewer females have an interest from a younger age. It's the competition that makes them better. The more competition, the better the skills, the more people want to view it. For females there would be netball or maybe tennis where the competition is so fierce that it gets people to watch it.
At the moment, in a way, there are men's sports and women's sports. But with changes to encourage the younger generations to also participate in sport from a younger age, this could see better competition for the women in "men's" sports (or vice versa) and  this is what will ultimately lead to change. For example: the wBBL and wAFL will likely encourage girls to play cricket and footy respectively, and this will eventually lead to better competition, more revenue, and a smaller wage gap.

Apologies for starting this conversation about sport and totally straying from the topic, but I think it's necessary to address the idea of equality.

[stephjones]

Yeah I get what you mean, but I feel like there are some things that we can't fix, and I'm pretty sure this would boil down to interest in sport from an early age. Males in male-dominated sports are introduced early and so they play for years -- they have more interest, they improve and they have a higher standard. That's what makes the competition so high. For example: In cricket there are multiple levels, from club, to district, state and national, with huge competition for each. While in females, there isn't as much competition and this seems to be basically because fewer females have an interest from a younger age. It's the competition that makes them better. The more competition, the better the skills, the more people want to view it. For females there would be netball or maybe tennis where the competition is so fierce that it gets people to watch it.
At the moment, in a way, there are men's sports and women's sports. But with changes to encourage the younger generations to also participate in sport from a younger age, this could see better competition for the women in "men's" sports (or vice versa) and  this is what will ultimately lead to change. For example: the wBBL and wAFL will likely encourage girls to play cricket and footy respectively, and this will eventually lead to better competition, more revenue, and a smaller wage gap.

I completely agree - representation is important in encouraging young people to participate in sports, for both males and females. Girls are less likely to get into sports like rugby and cricket because they don't see many women in the sport (let's not even get started on the idea that girls will get muscly and therefore less "aesthetically pleasing" if they participate in sports like rugby), but I don't think that's for a lack of competition or women in the sport, I think it's for a lack of coverage of the sport, because stations don't believe people want to see it (because maybe people don't) so it's really a bit of a catch-22. No representation -> less interest in the women's league -> less coverage of women's league -> no representation.

But we do actually have a really good women's cricket team, who again, are doing relatively better than their male counterparts at the moment (I think the Southern Stars were actually ranked 1st in the world in 2015 or 2016), and the same goes for our women's rugby sevens team, who just won in the Rio Olympics. It's not necessarily a less skilled game (I honestly think that you can't compare the two - it's a different style of game), but there is definitely less representation, which as you said, generates less interest in the sport.

I agree though, I think it's something that needs to be addressed from the bottom, by encouraging female involvement in male-dominated sports (and vice versa), and as Jamon said I think that's all about equal marketing/promotion.

[zhen]

I'm just going to give my opinion on this matter. I feel like changing the traffic lights won't really do anything to change the matter. Also, on the topic of feminism, although I can see where feminists are coming from, I think that some feminists are aproaching equality from the wrong way. The goal of feminism is equality for both genders, but by focusing on females, feminism is ignoring the problems of men, which do exist. For example, men serve a higher jail time for the same crime and there are few men in the childcare industry. Of course women also have problems such as a lack of women in the sciences and the higher domestic violence rate of women (believe it or not men also get subject to domestic violence, but to a lesser extent). However, I feel like currently feminism is ignoring the problems of men and focusing just on women's rights.

Regarding the gender gap problem, I think this is caused by the nature of gender roles in society. If I were an employer and in a theoretical example I had a male and a female competing for the same job with the exact same qualifications, I would choose the male. But, this doesn't mean that I'm sexist. I would do this because females are much more likely to take maternity leave and are likely to work less hours, because women generally care for the children. This would be an inconvenience to companies as they lose some of their workforce. Also, because of this, women are more likely to have worked for less time and have less experience than their male counterparts because they spend more time looking after children. So whilst the men further their careers and get pay rises, women are stuck looking after their children and halting their career for their family. I know that this is unfair, but in a capitalistic society where money is important, this is what I'd do to earn more money. So, basically since women are more likely to look after children, because of the societal stereotypes placed on women, they end up getting a lower wage on average. This is unfair and should be changed, but it's just what happens when society is based around money.

Overall, I think that gender equality is a good cause, but I think that feminism is really ignoring the problems of men and focussing on trivial issues such as traffic lights. I think in order to achieve gender equality we need to remove all gender roles in society, which might be impossible. Honestly, although I think gender equality is a good cause, I think that all this money and effort spent on feminism in 1st world countries would be better spent on causes such as improving the living conditions in developing countries, which are places where women usually are abused and are in dire need of assistance.

[zhenzhenzhen]

Regarding the gender gap problem, I think this is caused by the nature of gender roles in society. If I were an employer and in a theoretical example I had a male and a female competing for the same job with the exact same qualifications, I would choose the male. But, this doesn't mean that I'm sexist. I would do this because females are much more likely to take maternity leave and are likely to work less hours, because women generally care for the children. This would be an inconvenience to companies as they lose some of their workforce. Also, because of this, women are more likely to have worked for less time and have less experience than their male counterparts because they spend more time looking after children. So whilst the men further their careers and get pay rises, women are stuck looking after their children and halting their career for their family. I know that this is unfair, but in a capitalistic society where money is important, this is what I'd do to earn more money. So, basically since women are more likely to look after children, because of the societal stereotypes placed on women, they end up getting a lower wage on average. This is unfair and should be changed, but it's just what happens when society is based around money.

You could say that this in itself is sexist (even though you don't mean to be) because you're inferring so much based off a person's gender. It could be that they don't plan to have children (though good luck asking this question in an interview without opening yourself up to discrimination claims). It could be that their partners take care of the children. There are also arguments that providing flexible work arrangements to women counteracts much of these 'inconveniences' - there are many capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours. And so on and so forth.

[zhen]

You could say that this in itself is sexist (even though you don't mean to be) because you're inferring so much based off a person's gender. It could be that they don't plan to have children (though good luck asking this question in an interview without opening yourself up to discrimination claims). It could be that their partners take care of the children. There are also arguments that providing flexible work arrangements to women counteracts much of these 'inconveniences' - there are many capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours. And so on and so forth.

I was going to say that this is really unfair on women that don't look after their children, but I decided to leave it out. But like you said employers can't ask these questions, so employers have to assume that female employees will take maternity leave or have to look after their children, since statistics say that females are much more likely than males to do this. Also, in my scenario, I was assuming that the woman and man were just as productive, so there would be an equal playing ground. I'd say that most employers would hire "capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours". I think that although flexible arrangements may make women more likely to be employed, it would also mean that they would receive lower wages, as they'd be working less. Also, from my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) women on maternity leave generally don't work at all during this time because they have to devote their time to looking after their children, so this would definitely be an inconvenience, which would limit their experience and ultimately their pay and job opportunities. Additionally, my post was just about what I think I would do as an employer to get the maximum profit, not what I think is morally correct.

[Joseph41]

It was more sort of what I believed (couldn't find any evidence to this). I am not saying that I am definitely correct in any way. It's just that I think that one's wage is related to one's performance/ talent, not what they look like (in highly-paid jobs). Which why I think that such thinking is slowly narrowing down such a wage gap that exists today. Again, I have no statistics, but I do think our history is an evidence to this, as females were paid so less compared to males, in let's say 1800's compared to 2017. 

This article here supports your argument to an extent:

However, women earned on average around $4.1m a year in chief executive roles, while men earned around $2.5m. This could be explained however, by the number of women CEOs in the banking and finance industries, which historically outperforms other industries in terms of salary.

But the same article suggests that "a new survey of Australia's top 200 companies by Qlik shows that 95 percent of CEOs are men", and that men on average "reach the position about 10 years faster than women".

So I guess you could argue that assuming all other things are equal, there's little difference in pay for, for example, female and male CEOs. But at the end of the day, it's very clear that there is not equality.

Some other statistics:
- Full-time average weekly earnings are 16.2% less for women than men (Source)
- Full-time average hourly earnings are 13.9% less for women than men (Source)
- The gender pay gap in ASX 200 organisations is 28.7% (Source)
- Average graduate salaries for women are 9.4% less than for men (Source)
- Women hold 14.2% of chair positions (Source)
- Women hold 15.4% of CEO positions (Source)
- Less than one third of Federal MPs are women (Source)
- Over a third of organisations have no senior female leaders at all (Source)

And yet:

A meta-analysis of 95 leadership studies found no significant overall difference in performance ratings between male and female leaders. In fact as business leaders, women fared slightly better, particularly in more recent studies. The research papers where men were rated as superior were also found to be based on self-ratings of performance.

There was a study in which Australians were asked to describe a typical Australian corporate CEO. The results?

Source

If nothing else, statistics back me up (these from the Australian Government) in suggesting that more females than males work part-time. And an extremely large part of this is the social expectation of mothers caring for their children. For years, women have ultimately had to decide between career and family, particularly in fields such as politics and medicine. Even in the last few days, one of my favourite MPs (Kate Ellis) resigned for such reasons. And there are a million sources I could give you on this if you're interested. This one is pretty telling:

... in 2006, women employed full time spent 6 hours and 39 minutes per day taking care of children, compared with men employed full time who spent 3 hours and 43 minutes. The time men spent taking care of children remained unchanged since 1997, whereas for women it increased by 49 minutes.

I guess you could argue that the pay gap is minimal at the very top end, but I also think that's not a very telling argument to make in the first place.

Some more statistics on women in leadership positions from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013).
Glass ceiling still restraining women who make up only 17 per cent of CEOs
Fewer women run top Australian companies than men named John - or Peter, or David

[peterpiper]

I was going to say that this is really unfair on women that don't look after their children, but I decided to leave it out. But like you said employers can't ask these questions, so employers have to assume that female employees will take maternity leave or have to look after their children, since statistics say that females are much more likely than males to do this. Also, in my scenario, I was assuming that the woman and man were just as productive, so there would be an equal playing ground. I'd say that most employers would hire "capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours". I think that although flexible arrangements may make women more likely to be employed, it would also mean that they would receive lower wages, as they'd be working less. Also, from my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) women on maternity leave generally don't work at all during this time because they have to devote their time to looking after their children, so this would definitely be an inconvenience, which would limit their experience and ultimately their pay and job opportunities. Additionally, my post was just about what I think I would do as an employer to get the maximum profit, not what I think is morally correct.

Interesting. Because at my brother's workplace, they're actually implementing a thing which negates what you say about maternal leave being a problem behind how an employer should choose to select their employees. It's called a "paternal leave", which allows men who have family to take time off to tend to their family life. I really hope this would be a thing behind all workplaces, because it's already making its way through with the bigger companies. The philosophy behind is to provide employees with a level of flexibility for men, just as how women have maternal leave. So yeah, very interesting that you should point that out.

That said, if this becomes something as common as how we have maternal leave -- that sort of way of thinking will have less than 'legitimate' ground than what it appears in the way you put it.

[Russ]

There has been a lot of research done examining the contribution of social factors, such as motherhood, to the pay gap and when you (attempt to) account for them, there's still a difference. Smart people have wondered about this before - literally the first result for "wage gap adjusted social factors" on google scholar says

The persistence of an unexplained gender wage gap suggests, though it does not prove, that labor market discrimination continues to contribute to the gender wage gap, just as the decrease in the unexplained gap we found in our analysis of the trends over time in the gender gap suggests, though it  does not prove, that decreases in discrimination help to explain the decrease in the gap. We cited some recent research based on experimental evidence that strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted as contributing to the persistent gender wage gap.

However, I feel like currently feminism is ignoring the problems of men and focusing just on women's rights. 

I think that the main reason why feminist causes focus on the areas in which women's rights are lacking is that there are simply more systematic discriminatory practices that disadvantage women!

One of them is attitudes, which is why the traffic lights act as a stimulus to provoke discussion. It's also interesting to reflect on why it's necessary to redirect a discussion about feminism to the problems men face.