Jump to content
chardonay Babii

Does SL cause a power reversal?

Recommended Posts

Typically, men in society often have privilege in many ways including strength, height, positions of power and higher wages. 

Does SL reverse this balance of power by a virtual world society placing greater value on attributes many women possess or are more likely to be better at than men? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I didn't know height was a privilege. In SL, everyone can fly, so, meh?

   I'm not sure what you're reaching for though, the 'wage gap' isn't a thing as much as 'people can't understand statistics or causality', in SL there are many talented creators of both genders, I don't see why either would be in any way better off than the other due to their genitalia. In societies where there's actual gender segregation, I'm not sure whether any of that bleeds through to SL; since most of them are comparatively underdeveloped they don't tend to have a whole lot of  representation in SL. I could be wrong though, but I've never come across a whole lot of Yemenites at least.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more of a simple demographic perspective than a power shift.  There are many more woman with much more buying potential and the poor men get the scraps.

1 hour ago, Orwar said:

the 'wage gap' isn't a thing as much as 'people can't understand statistics or causality',

Orwar, I like you, Buddy.  But there are times ....
/me sighs heavily.
Never mind.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, chardonay Babii said:

Typically, men in society often have privilege in many ways including strength, height, positions of power and higher wages. 

Does SL reverse this balance of power by a virtual world society placing greater value on attributes many women possess or are more likely to be better at than men? 

I'm a little confused by the question too. Especially the second sentence; 'placing greater value on attributes many women possess'? I'm curious as to what you think these might be. Physically? Sexually? Reproductively? Likewise with 'likely to be better at than men'; likely assuming a large degree of personal bias as what is likely to you may not necessarily be equally likely to someone else. I'm not trying to split proverbial hairs here, I'm generally confused. 

Do you mean men and women behind the keyboards or male and female avatars? There's a distinct difference for obvious reasons.

Regarding balance; Men and women can play either gender, or none at all, so it's hard to determine any great power shift when the playing field keeps, figuratively and literally speaking, changing depending on the account a person logs into. I'm not sure if there are reliable statistics regarding the ratio of female to male avatars, but I can say in role play environments there seem to be proportionally more women than men, but in their stories the power share is roughly equal. I've seen male "bosses" and female "bosses", or masters, or mistresses, or whatever title best fits here. Personally I haven't seen any obvious distinction where one has particular advantage over the other strictly due to gender. It comes down to ability. When it comes to fashion or appearance women have more selection, but this can be said for RL too, though the market is slowly adapting for men in both SL and RL too; this isn't SL-centric. In employment, I haven't heard of a single case where wages are different between men or women; though I don't know the entirety of SL either. And when it comes to height, everyone in SL is a giant with 6 feet being generally considered the average now, that goes for male and female avatars.

As for attributes; Body appearance is subjective to personal tastes, as in RL, though for many in SL proportions are greatly exaggerated. Again this may be more down to personal taste than making any statement, or simply just to modify their avatars in ways that cannot be done in RL or for strictly visual stimuli, again with little conscious decision on sexual equality or the like. And again, since we don't know what RL gender controls said avatar, there could be a large degree of objectification at play. This is true for both women and men. While it's true that sex is a popular pastime in SL, it's also greatly exaggerated. Male and female avatars are greatly endowed, can perform like porn stars, and live their fantasies better than any on a TV screen. If personal satisfaction equates to power then women are comparatively equal with men. Again, I'm speaking from personal experience when I say that I've seen a large percentage of female avatars objectify themselves on purpose as slaves or victims for gratification. I've also seen men slaves, or even "cucks" (cuckolds) but from what I've seen the numbers are disproportionate compared to women avatars. I don't have access to hard numbers so can only recite from what I personally have seen.

You could argue freedom of choice is power, but everyone has freedom of choice in SL. When you create an account you aren't "born" into a particular gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, or cultural identity. So technically speaking SL is a more level playing field in that anyone can be anything or do anything just as much as the next guy (or girl) can. I wouldn't call it a reversal by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited by RaeLeeH
Deleting a lot of weird white space on the screen 0.o
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RaeLeeH said:

I'm a little confused by the question too. Especially the second sentence; 'placing greater value on attributes many women possess'? 

Maybe..boobs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Maybe..boobs?

That's pretty much what I was thinking. But then that got me thinking about the shiny male genitalia that doesn't match the skin tone of the rest of the body, and a booty that defies gravity, and I don't care about the power struggle, I'm just looking for a return of common sense! 🤨

Edited by RaeLeeH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

But there are times ....
/me sighs heavily.
Never mind.

..yep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But seriously, I imagine perhaps the power dynamic could be switched due to women feeling empowered to say “no” to / ignore potential suitors, who can only make fools of themselves if they keep trying. Desperate, desperate men. 

Plus, more women may work as “hosts:escorts”, creators/sellers (employment advantage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

Never mind.

   People care about the bottom line which is concluded to '7X cents to the dollar'. True as the bottom line might be, the 'median pay' doesn't say anything about any individual person, or in any way suggest discrimination. Again, I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, it does - and it goes both ways - but to call it a structural problem in society is frankly short-sighted.

   Compare the median wage, to the median amount of hours worked, and compare in what sectors the work force is dominated by men and in which it's dominated by women. Men work more hours, men work in sectors where they are more likely to suffer injury or death - the last study that I saw stated that the 'wage gap' between men and women were that women were paid 19% less than men at the end of the month, but if you change that to wage per hour, the difference went down to 3.6%. Then look at the work force, how many men continue to work past the age of 65 against how many women do so? Again, men work a longer time, which means that they've accumulated a longer work-life experience, which is a huge factor of what salary an employer is ready to give you; and when they do retire, they've paid more tax and saved more in their retirement funds, which means that they have a larger income throughout their retirement (here, at least - I've got no clue how that works across the pond).

   Should we arbitrarily lower the hourly wages of men (or raise those of women), or even create 'man taxes', so that men have to work longer so that men and women receive the same end-of-month salary? That doesn't sound like equality to me.

   If still, somehow, that makes you like me any less, I'm very curious how that works. I'm an economical libertarian, I think that everyone should have equal rights to do their best (regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or other shenanigans), and that the less government tampering with the market, the better - the whole redistribution of wealth ploy that the socialists here are on about just feels the same way the republicans (in Sweden, anti-monarchists) are simply driven by irrational jealousy (the monarchy is, strictly economically speaking, an income rather than an expense). Were it legal to employ a woman at a distinctly lower wage than a man, why would I ever employ a man? It just doesn't make any sense.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But seriously, I imagine perhaps the power dynamic could be switched due to women feeling empowered to say “no” to / ignore potential suitors, who can only make fools of themselves if they keep trying. Desperate, desperate men. 

Plus, more women may work as “hosts:escorts”, creators/sellers (employment advantage).

Valid points. Women have a lot more freedom perhaps to enforce personal boundaries, but it's not exactly gender specific either. Men have the same ability to do so to would-be suitors or wanna-be sex slaves, etc. If anything I think women have a tendency to be more aggressive in their wants than men because they can be, but that's a gross overgeneralization and not based on fact, just my personal assumption and experience as a woman, obviously. A lot of women may feel more "free" to actively pursue a man they want, or career or situation they want, where they may not necessarily be able to in RL. But there would also have to be men who are turning to SL to pursue their wants as well with their own RL restrictions - and no I don't mean married men looking to have an affair, but men who don't fit the stereotype of what it is to be a man in this day and age, or don't know how to approach women, or are afraid or wary to, especially in this growing climate of sexual inequality.

Let's face it, history was largely written by men. Yes, men have dominated civilization, and we can debate the evils done by our ancestors until the proverbial cows came home. I'm not disputing all the wrongs done to women throughout time, and as a society we still have a long way to go to make things "right" for want of a better word. But SL is not RL. The comparisons between worlds aren't equal. One is reality, one is fiction. If people are oppressed in SL it's probably more to do with personal choice, perhaps personal bias, masochistic tendencies, or whatever other desire one has to willingly relinquish power to another than sexual oppression. And that's the point. Here power is GIVEN. It's not generally taken. The constructs are totally different. But at the end of the day its RL people who populate this virtual world and bring with them all their personal beliefs and bias ingrained from their specific upbringing. Its as equal as we make it. 🤔

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, RaeLeeH said:

I'm a little confused by the question too. Especially the second sentence; 'placing greater value on attributes many women possess'? I'm curious as to what you think these might be. Physically? Sexually? Reproductively? Likewise with 'likely to be better at than men'; likely assuming a large degree of personal bias as what is likely to you may not necessarily be equally likely to someone else. I'm not trying to split proverbial hairs here, I'm generally confused. 

 

I could have half answered my question in my post but that is no fun.  As a guy myself in society I feel like I have always had certain privileges like strength, size, naturally good at math, logic, mechanical altitude and have noticed  higher paying jobs for the average person in those jobs in the trade or STEM fields and it is predominated by men as they are more likely to possess higher levels of attributes desirable for those jobs or enjoy the traditional public  perception that they do that opens doors to employment.  For building in RL strength is a huge advantage to work in construction whereas in SL you need creativity. 

In SL the arts and creativity  are valued more highly  than say being an inworld engineer.  Being an electrician, carpenter or a plumber is replaced by using photoshop  and 3D modelling programs thereby levelling out the employment playing field.      

Predominantly the biggest drivers of the SL digital economy are the sale of products targeted at women as a market such as clothing or body parts.  Most guys experience difficulty conceptualising and creating those items and need help from women to do it.     

I think here are also other power reversal areas particularly in relationships and who inhabits the most desirable form.  

Edited by chardonay Babii
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chardonay Babii said:

I could have half answered my question in my post but that is no fun.  As a guy myself in society I feel like I have always had certain privileges like strength, size, naturally good at math, logic, mechanical altitude and have noticed  higher paying jobs for the average person in those jobs in the trade or STEM fields and it is predominated by men as they are more likely to possess higher levels of attributes desirable for those jobs or enjoy the traditional public  perception that they do that opens doors to employment.  For building in RL strength is a huge advantage to work in construction whereas in SL you need creativity. 

In SL the arts and creativity  are valued more highly  than say being an inworld engineer.  Being an electrician, carpenter or a plumber is replaced by using photoshop  and 3D modelling programs thereby levelling out the employment playing field.      

Predominantly the biggest drivers of the SL digital economy are the sale of products targeted at women as a market such as clothing or body parts.  Most guys experience difficulty conceptualising and creating those items and need help from women to do it.     

I think here are also other power reversal areas particularly in relationships and who inhabits the most desirable form.  

Hm.. I'm not sure it isn't simply matters of interest as opposed to skill or ability. The psychological literature in, say, spatial visualization, is debatable - it seems to be more a matter of exposure and practice, so it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions on cognitive differences between men and women in areas of creativity and design. 

You have an interesting idea, but there are so many variables and unknowns here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Orwar said:

  the last study that I saw stated that the 'wage gap' between men and women were that women were paid 19% less than men at the end of the month, but if you change that to wage per hour, the difference went down to 3.6%. Then look at the work force, how many men continue to work past the age of 65 against how many women do so? Again, men work a longer time, which means that they've accumulated a longer work-life experience, which is a huge factor of what salary an employer is ready to give you; and when they do retire, they've paid more tax and saved more in their retirement funds, which means that they have a larger income throughout their retirement (here, at least - I've got no clue how that works across the pond).

   Should we arbitrarily lower the hourly wages of men (or raise those of women), or even create 'man taxes', so that men have to work longer so that men and women receive the same end-of-month salary? That doesn't sound like equality to me.

need to factor in to this: who bears the children, who stays home and looks after them, and who gets to go to work full time and who works part time so that the children can be looked after out of school, and who doesn't

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Orwar said:

   People care about the bottom line which is concluded to '7X cents to the dollar'. True as the bottom line might be, the 'median pay' doesn't say anything about any individual person, or in any way suggest discrimination. Again, I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, it does - and it goes both ways - but to call it a structural problem in society is frankly short-sighted.

   Compare the median wage, to the median amount of hours worked, and compare in what sectors the work force is dominated by men and in which it's dominated by women. Men work more hours, men work in sectors where they are more likely to suffer injury or death - the last study that I saw stated that the 'wage gap' between men and women were that women were paid 19% less than men at the end of the month, but if you change that to wage per hour, the difference went down to 3.6%. Then look at the work force, how many men continue to work past the age of 65 against how many women do so? Again, men work a longer time, which means that they've accumulated a longer work-life experience, which is a huge factor of what salary an employer is ready to give you; and when they do retire, they've paid more tax and saved more in their retirement funds, which means that they have a larger income throughout their retirement (here, at least - I've got no clue how that works across the pond).

   Should we arbitrarily lower the hourly wages of men (or raise those of women), or even create 'man taxes', so that men have to work longer so that men and women receive the same end-of-month salary? That doesn't sound like equality to me.

   If still, somehow, that makes you like me any less, I'm very curious how that works. I'm an economical libertarian, I think that everyone should have equal rights to do their best (regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or other shenanigans), and that the less government tampering with the market, the better - the whole redistribution of wealth ploy that the socialists here are on about just feels the same way the republicans (in Sweden, anti-monarchists) are simply driven by irrational jealousy (the monarchy is, strictly economically speaking, an income rather than an expense). Were it legal to employ a woman at a distinctly lower wage than a man, why would I ever employ a man? It just doesn't make any sense.

Its probably very different in each country and culture.

I know over here in the Netherlands the gap is closing slowly, but it definitely exists.

In my opinion (and how I handle it myself), pay should be decides on ability to perform the job you get payed for, and just that, nothing else. Saying someone who works more time deserves more pay is an ancient point of view. If person A delivers amount of work and quality in 1 hour, and person B does exact the same amount of work and quality, but takes them two hours, person A is the better employee to me, and would deserve a beter pay. Basing payment on age or work hours is an outdated concept.

There a minimum wage per age decided by law, but besides that, you deserve a better wage if you provide better value to the company you work for. And thats not decided by gender or age, but the quality of your work, mentality, dedication and so on.

Still, there's still plenty of examples here where woman and men doing the exact same job have a different starter/base wage. Not based on skills or anything, just based on being male or female. And thats just plain wrong. On the other hand, government is also influencing (forcing) a woman/men ratio in management roles by setting quota's. That's plain stupid too. A function should be filled by the best skilled and suited person, not based on gender at all.

2 hours ago, Mollymews said:

need to factor in to this: who bears the children, who stays home and looks after them, and who gets to go to work full time and who works part time so that the children can be looked after out of school, and who doesn't

Having children is a choice. Deciding who takes what responsibilities in your relationship is a choice too. And it has consequences. If you work part time for whatever reason, you deserve a pay based on those working hours and your skills and value to the company you work for. You should not be entitled to a higher wage just because you "bear children" nor a lower wage for that matter. I have both male as female employees who started working part time to care for their children, and that's great. The only aspect of that influencing their salary is the amount of hours they put in work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

Having children is a choice. Deciding who takes what responsibilities in your relationship is a choice too. And it has consequences. If you work part time for whatever reason, you deserve a pay based on those working hours and your skills and value to the company you work for. You should not be entitled to a higher wage just because you "bear children" nor a lower wage for that matter. I have both male as female employees who started working part time to care for their children, and that's great. The only aspect of that influencing their salary is the amount of hours they put in work.

nobody, including me, said anything about entitlement.  What Orwar wrote, he was explaining a study of the disparities in male/female income over a lifetime as he understood it. When looking at this then we do need to factor in the impact that children have in this equation

you also put your finger on it. While your employees may get paid the same rate for the same job, the data is that over a lifetime mothers as a group, work less paid hours than fathers as a group, because children. This is a social structural problem

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

nobody, including me, said anything about entitlement.  What Orwar wrote, he was explaining a study of the disparities in male/female income over a lifetime as he understood it. When looking at this then we do need to factor in the impact that children have in this equation

you also put your finger on it. While your employees may get paid the same rate for the same job, the data is that over a lifetime mothers as a group, work less paid hours than fathers as a group, because children. This is a social structural problem

My apologies, I misread your post.

I am not sure its always a social problem as such. It is more common that a woman takes more care responsibilities, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If its based on an economical decision that a male makes more money and therefor the woman stay home to care, that's a problem. But I do see in my surroundings that in most cases the mother has more drive or urge (not sure what English words to use here, but you get my point probably) to provide the daily care for their child  than the father.

Its all just guessing and reading my surroundings for me though, I don't have children, and I don't particularity like them for that matter :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I am not sure its always a social problem as such. It is more common that a woman takes more care responsibilities, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If its based on an economical decision that a male makes more money and therefor the woman stay home to care, that's a problem. But I do see in my surroundings that in most cases the mother has more drive or urge (not sure what English words to use here, but you get my point probably) to provide the daily care for their child  than the father.

is socially structural in the sense of Me Hunter - You Homemaker, which is based on millennia of how humans structured their societies

on the other, about choosing to have or not have children as a personal choice

a thing about this is that (historically speaking), as a society gets more affluent then people on an individual basis choose to have less children.  This can turn into a whole other societal structural problem.  Japan is an example of this. People there chose to have less children resulting in an ageing population. A consequence of this is that older affluent people tend to have everything material that they need, so they buy less.  And they have less children/grandchildren than they might have had otherwise, on whom to spend their money. Which for Japan resulted in deflation - not buying stuff, not spending money, because already have everything needed or wanted

deflation also compounded by less young people entering the workforce than previously. A consequence of lesser numbers of younger people entering the workplace causes efficiency and output to drop, relative to other countries with a younger (on average) workforce

Japan has been struggling with this since the early 1990s. And there is no easy solution for them other than massive immigration of younger people from other parts of the world. Something which they are not yet prepared to do, in the numbers necessary.  Other western countries like USA and in Europe, etc are beginning to see this problem approaching them as well

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Orwar said:

Were it legal to employ a woman at a distinctly lower wage than a man, why would I ever employ a man? It just doesn't make any sense.

The issue is not usually the wage someone is hired on at -- often they are the same. The increase in wages (or not) comes from gender attitudes in the workplace as one tries to advance and receive greater pay -- the 'old boy network' is alive and well and favors the advance of men in leadership positions and the higher wages that come with it.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

[...] the 'old boy network' is alive and well and favors the advance of men in leadership positions and the higher wages that come with it.

   Well, seeing as the topic itself is to stoop to such a low level of gross generalisation; men tend to be more successful in a competitive market than women due to the exact same reasons that even at the first level of employment they come home with a larger pay check at the end of the month - if you're looking to promote someone, would you pick the guy who've never said no to taking that shift that suddenly needed to be filled, the guy who in the same time frame of employment has distinctly more hours of experience on the job, the guy who doesn't as often call in sick - or the one who values free time more than anything, who never took an extra shift after dealing with the bare minimums required by the employment contract, and whose sick leave is the highest in the work force? It's not about some 'old boy network' or 'the patriarchy'. Again, this is a gross simplification and generalisation, and there are countless cases of women being given positions of power on their own merits.

9 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

In my opinion (and how I handle it myself), pay should be decides on ability to perform the job you get payed for, and just that, nothing else. Saying someone who works more time deserves more pay is an ancient point of view. If person A delivers amount of work and quality in 1 hour, and person B does exact the same amount of work and quality, but takes them two hours, person A is the better employee to me, and would deserve a beter pay. Basing payment on age or work hours is an outdated concept.

   I see what you mean, but it's not always easy to determine and it might be in the interest of the employer to underestimate their employees performance to save money. As far as I understand it, it's illegal here to have an employee where you pay someone X per Y performed, you must give your employees an hourly wage to ensure that they have a stable (and thus, more easily taxable) income - a common 'solution' to this is to give them a terrible wage and then offer them bonuses, such as salespersons being given a cut of each transaction they secure, or even 'outsourcing' production so that instead of being given employment, you're given a contract to produce Z amounts of Y and that you'll receive X per delivery (the Cuban cigar industry comes to mind).

   Either way, I don't see how such a system would somehow make the market more approachable for women - I suspect that some men and some women would preform better under such a system, and that some men and some women would preform worse than currently (although I would speculate that it would work in many ways the same as the current statistics suggests); how much better or worse it would be, I haven't got any data to go on. The laws were made the way they were simply because when we did allow such systems, the work force was being utterly abused by factory and land owners to maximise profit. Basing one's salary on age (or at least years of experience in their field) and locking it into an hourly wage is a simple and effective way, and ensures that the worker has growth potential even at the same level of employment - in the end you've got to ask who the law should be protecting between the employer and the employee, here it's certainly been in favor of the employee (although to be blunt, the history of the unions and their politics in Sweden is something of a laughing matter).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is that our existence in SL is voluntary. The OP's question is like going into a department store and wondering if it causes a power reversal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 8:27 AM, chardonay Babii said:

Typically, men in society often have privilege in many ways including strength, height, positions of power and higher wages. 

Does SL reverse this balance of power by a virtual world society placing greater value on attributes many women possess or are more likely to be better at than men? 

Agree, in real life men have more power, but what attributes do many women possess or are better at in SL? Can't think of any right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orwar said:

  I see what you mean, but it's not always easy to determine and it might be in the interest of the employer to underestimate their employees performance to save money. As far as I understand it, it's illegal here to have an employee where you pay someone X per Y performed, you must give your employees an hourly wage to ensure that they have a stable (and thus, more easily taxable) income

Well being an employer myself, I use Business Intelligence software to determine performance based on raw data, and off course by personal experiencing and other input. After I hired someone based on their job interview and so on, they get an agreed upon fixed salary based on their function at start. Their chances and amount of wage raises in the future, or their contracts being renewed at all is based on their performance.

When I say people should be rewarded compared to their work hours, I mean if someone works 32 hours a week, they should earn a salary based on that, which would be less than a 40 hour workweek of similar nature. Not judge each hour how they performed and pay them more or less :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...