Debate and Discussion

Sexism
ozoneocean at 1:21PM, Aug. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
Is this still a problem in Western society?

I'm one of those people who mainly tend to think that it isn't.
I've had female co-workers from time immemorial, female bosses etc. with no difference between working with them and male bosses or co-workers. I look around and see women in positions of power, working in almost every field, achieving high academic honours, making new discoveries, as great intellectuals, powerful leaders etc.

But that's not the full story, is it? There still this feeling that we need to “protect” women, that they're slightly less than men, that they can't be trusted to look after themselves-
-If they're soldiers, we don't want them to fight. My sister joined as part of the Army Reserve here in Australia, her group was one that would patrol the costs, moving from cap site to camp site all over the sate, constantly in the bush… She left soon after because as a female they didn't let her do any of the fun stuff. She was mostly restricted to domestic duties.
-If they box or fight we're horrified if they get hurt.
-We don't trust women in professional sports, unless they're segregated. and even then we don't like seeing women in rough sports like football or Rugby.
-We should ban the Burkah and the headscarf because there is no WAY any woman would ever actually CHOOSE to wear one herself and we must protect them from it!
-Women should be protected from pornography!

During my recent trip to the US I even got a taste of that attitude myself:
I'm slim and I have long hair, apparently this is very confusing to a lot of men, especially Australian customs agents. Constantly addressing me as “miss” and “dear”:
-“Right this way dear” “let me show you how the explosives detection device works dear” and so on…

And elsewhere.
A lot of men seem to take the idea that you are female as license to talk down to you or proffer unwanted sexual advances. Yep, had that. -_-
The talking down to you thing is what gets you though. Quite apart from the small embarrassment of being mistaken for a women, being talked down to makes you feel less than a full person.

So… It's not just the problem of female catholic priests and all the rest of it, there's STILL that sexism on a basic fundamental level, isn't there?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
MicMit at 5:22PM, Aug. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 43
joined: 6-16-2010
Oh absolutely, there is still sexism.

While like you said many women are in positions of powers, men of equal status still seem to make more money.
Significant women in history are still deeply overshadowed by the “respected” white males, though I will admit this is scar we're most likely stuck with, because well, western history was written by white males.
As for the military thing, the role of women or lack there of, has logic in some places and others not. For the longest period of time women were not aloud as crew members on American submarines, it was in wide debate for a long time. The NAVY's general stance was that they couldn't let women on because they could not fit birthing compartments. Well lo and behold, recently that's been overturned and the first women are being trained to work on submarines now. No changes have been made to the submarines that I am aware of.
In other areas such as the frontline (another place where women aren't allowed), though I still question the validity of this, the general argument is that women simply do not have the physical capabilities to perform under the harsh conditions. There some since there, scientifically speaking, the male body has larger more developed muscles that are better suited for endurance. Frontline soldiers carry packs that are at least 100 pounds, almost certainly more, and trek miles on very slim reserves. If there are women who could perform the task, they are few and far between, and it'd be an enormous waste of time to train all the women who'd be interested in order to find the few who can.
I still think it's stupid that most sports are segregated, but you know, as far as rugby and football go, without steroids, women wouldn't be smashed by the musculature of those guys.
The burkah ordeal is beyond stupid, and I'm infuriated at France's douche bag prime-minister for banning the burkah schools. If anybody here is French, I don't hate you, just your prime-minister, I very much enjoy your country's comics.


I don't know why people were confusing you for a girl in America, I have plenty of guy friends with long hair that don't have that problem, maybe you just ran into some really stupid people.

Now to even bother arguing that sexism is an issue on a World-scale, is just ridiculous. Anybody who denies that the majority of the world still denies the majority of their basic human rights has got their head up their ass.
But in the majority of the developed western world, where the issue is well known and fairly understood, it still does remain an issue.

The problem with the feminist movement now though, is that for the most part deliberate sexism is a thing of the past. What remains now, is not intentional sexism or misogyny, but fragments of what people still think of women. It's like you said, there's this desire to protect them, there still remains this basic idea that women are something that needs to defending. It's still an issue, and it's still often demeaning, but for the most part I'd say people doing this aren't even aware it is that way.

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:01PM
blindsk at 5:39PM, Aug. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 560
joined: 5-5-2010
This is a tricky topic, and I think your post outlines extremely well the illusion that western society gives us. We look at the forest instead of the trees and see feminine mobility in the workplace, government, and other types of institutions. So everything is fine, right?

I used to think so as well, for those listed reasons. However, recently shifting to a more male-dominated career has led me to believe otherwise. I hate to stereotype, but it's pretty clear-cut the type of women I do find working next to.

First, there's the shy type. If their initial attitude is one of quietude, then the men will quickly look to them as underlings. Like Ozone was saying, the men feel this type of woman needs to be protected. And unfortunately, it will remain that way for quite some time, even if they're the most brilliant individuals to cross paths with them.

The second is the type of woman that enters with a firm directive, standing her ground from the beginning. They're typically painted as a femnazi (though of course, no one will actually say that) and generally the men will steer clear of them.

In either case, women have trouble getting the funding they need for their research. In the former case, they never appear promising enough (due to their potential being suppressed), and in the latter, they're so distant from their male colleagues that people are just too afraid to give them money. The only exceptions I've seen is if they carry a last name by which their father (or older male figure) has already established a lasting legacy.

One might make the claim that men do share the same impressions - they can be shy or overbearing. But they don't have to deal with the default reaction of needing protection because it appears like they can't think for themselves. Besides, men are typically encouraged to become more affirmative while the woman are excused for their shyness because “it's just the way they are.”

It could be some natural instincts of our species. Nevertheless, it is true that on the fundamental level, this problem still persists.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:25AM
isukun at 7:03PM, Aug. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
While women do hold some executive positions, the number of women in those positions is significantly less than the number of men, so I wouldn't exactly say they are equal in that respect. Average earnings for women is lower, too. Look at the government, also, to see how women tend to be far less represented than men. There are a good five times as many men in Congress as women, we've never had a female president, and there are twice as many men in the Supreme Court. So while we have come some way, there is still some distance to go.

I think the biggest issues with gender based prejudice, however, is more media based. Social preconceptions created by and reinforced by the media which present unrealistic or misleading images of both genders. This includes not just physical appearance, but also how we act. The media presents people in either an idealized or stereotyped fashion which reinforces divides between the sexes. Yes, there are things which separate men and women, but quite frequently the media reinforces negative gender stereotypes which effect how we view ourselves and others, yet don't really represent the reality behind those genders. For women, we have a tendency to reinforce an unrealistic standard of beauty, but we also have a tendency to depict women as being contradictory in personality and ability. They tend to be strong spirited, but still fragile. Men, on the other hand are mostly broken and irresponsible. They are basically full grown children in terms of personality. The idealized man, as ridiculous as the stereotype may be, really is that guy from the Old Spice commercials (“now I'm on a horse”). The really annoying thing about this stereotype is that it reinforces this idea that relationships are more material than emotional.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
Product Placement at 8:15PM, Aug. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Historically, equality among sexes have always been pretty good where I lived. For one, women have always been allowed to refuse proposals and were never treated as bargaining chips. Most other countries can't say the same. Anyways when it comes to present time, I think that we stand pretty much where most of the rest of the western world currently stand. As far as the laws are concerned there is no divide between men and women although some individuals may have their opinion about where womans place should be.

There's been some debates about what kind of salaries each sex is getting but the data that's presented during these debates is highly biased, in my opinion. You see, apparently someone thought it was a good idea to present the average income of every single working male and compare it with the average income of every single working female. Naturally, women dragged behind but that's pretty easy to explain. As far as low and medium income jobs are concerned, there is absolute no difference between salaries. However all the manager positions, way up in the top is ruled by the older generation that are still from the time before women became more active as a work force. They're hogging all the ultra high income which messes up charts like these. However, I only can only predict that once those old geezers finally retire, the scales will finally balance. So currently the salary problem is only present in the way up there salary. I don't know how the salary divide abroad is treated but that's how its currently presented here.

As for physical attractiveness, I happen to go for the smaller, frailer type of women cause I tend to be more attracted to that. It's true that the sense of “needing to be protected” comes up in my head when I spot girls like that but none the less, I prefer a relationship based on equality.

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of keeping the sports segregated, physically speaking, on average men tend to have an edge over women. Testosterone helps build muscles and men just have more of that stuff. This is no lie. Men in training have far higher muscle mass then women. If Olympic events were not kept segregated, you would only see men on those podiums.

Since I don't look particularly feminine, I guess I'm unlikely to ever experience things from the other side but I believe I do an all right job at being a considerate person. However, should you ever spot me holding a door for a lady, I guess I have to apologize for that now lol!
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
YuiPweeLi at 9:32PM, Aug. 28, 2010
(offline)
posts: 39
joined: 7-25-2006
I think sexism will always exist, because men and women are different. But there is sexism that just doesn't make sense. Like the fact that there are women that are able to play sports at a comparable level to men, (even though there are few,) and they aren't allowed play on the same level. There are no professional female baseball players in America, there is only female softball players.
I am reminded of Air-Bud:
“There's nothing in the rulebook that says the dog can't play.”
But a woman, I don't think so!

I also think that women are still seen as sex objects too often. A woman's body is still put a pedestal, a hot sexy pedestal. You can't show boobs on TV but you can show man-boobs, and there really isn't a difference (because the only thing they are censoring is the nipple). By censoring boobs it's saying that boobs are as shameful and offensive as genitals. So when a woman breastfeeds in public it's a big deal, and should be stopped. That doesn't make any sense, that's what they are for!
Women must hide their bodies or they're sluts, and yet they are encouraged to dress provocatively.

Women are definitely victims of ridiculous sexism, but don't forget that men are victims too, and it seems like that's hardly an issue in society. If men spoke out about it, that would emasculate them, and they can't have that.



last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
Freegurt at 1:46AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 331
joined: 11-24-2007
It's still a HUGE problem in the US.

I can tell you that in the gender gap index, the United States doesn't even rank in the top ten for equality. It didn't even show up the last two years in the top 20. Heck, the US isn't even ON the top 5 rank for highest countries in North America. So yeah, still a problem.

I'll just give you these to browse through:
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report

And it's kind of hard to deal with it because if you didn't notice the thread I opened up in the comics forum, nobody wants to pay attention to it, but just joke about it and move it aside for something more exciting.

ozoneocean
I'm one of those people who mainly tend to think that it isn't .

No offense, but it's because you're a guy. It's hard to see what's wrong when you're not the one being the brunt of the joke or the objectification, etc. It's like me understanding that racism is definitely a bad thing. And I try to keep an eye out for it and acknowledge it, try to prevent it and generally do the same thing with the feminism. But I can't fully understand the problems it causes for those who really experienced it and had to live with it all their lives. I don't see it as well as people of colour do because I haven't experienced it exponentially throughout my life like they have.


MicMit
The problem with the feminist movement now though, is that for the most part deliberate sexism is a thing of the past. What remains now, is not intentional sexism or misogyny, but fragments of what people still think of women. It's like you said, there's this desire to protect them, there still remains this basic idea that women are something that needs to defending. It's still an issue, and it's still often demeaning, but for the most part I'd say people doing this aren't even aware it is that way.

Actually, no. The US is still very much a patriarchal society. If sexism wasn't such a problem now as it was back in the day, then why is it still in debate if a woman would make a good president? Or why is it that women are still objectified in the media? Or that they can't walk down the street without getting unwanted attention from the other sex? Or even have free reign of their bodies without getting reprimanded for it from both sides?
Women are in a no-win situation the majority of the time. For example, if a woman is shy, she'll be taken advantage of, but if she's confident and strong, she's called a bitch. If a woman won't have sex with someone, she's stingy or holding out. But if she has sex, she's automatically a slut. Or how about this more subtle one. If there is a really good movie that men of all ages love and rave about, it's obviously a good movie, right? But what happens with women of all ages loves and raves about a movie? From my experience, eyes will roll and the insults will fly and they should just shut up and watch quality movies like the ones guys like! Now I'm being a bit extreme here, but hopefully all these examples will clear up any confusion.

The thing is, it's still as big a problem now as it was in the 50's. It's just hidden. There is a very good book on this subject called ‘The Macho Paradox’ written by Jackson Katz. He basically says that society still has some sort of hateful vendetta against women and that men can help. And he wrote something that was a huge eye opener and I'll just quote him right here:

Someone
“I draw a line down the middle of a chalkboard, sketching a male symbol on one side and a female symbol on the other. Then I ask just the men: ‘What steps do you guys take, on a daily basis, to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted?” At first there is a kind of awkward silence as the men try to figure out if they’ve been asked a trick question. The silence gives way to a smattering of nervous laughter. Occasionally a young guy will raise his hand and say, “I stay out of prison.” This is typically followed by another moment of laughter, before someone finally raises his hand and soberly states, “Nothing. I don’t think about it.”
Then I ask the women the same question. “What steps do you take on a daily basis to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted?”
Women throughout the audience immediately start raising their hands. As the men sit in stunned silence, the women recount safety precautions they take as part of their daily routine. Here are some of their answers:
Hold my keys as a potential weapon. Look in the back seat of the car before getting in. Carry a cell phone. Don’t go jogging at night. Lock all the windows when I go to sleep, even on hot summer nights. Be careful not to drink too much. Don’t put my drink down and come back to it; make sure I see it being poured. Own a big dog. Carry Mace or pepper spray. Have an unlisted phone number. Have a man’s voice on my answering machine. Park in well-lit areas. Don’t use parking garages. Don’t get on elevators with only one man, or with a group of men. Vary my route home from work. Watch what I wear. Don’t use highway rest areas. Use a home alarm system. Don’t wear headphones when jogging. Avoid forests or wooded areas, even in the daytime. Don’t take a first-floor apartment. Go out in groups. Own a firearm. Meet men on first dates in public places. Make sure to have a car or cab fare. Don’t make eye contact with men on the street. Make assertive eye contact with men on the street.
The exercise can go on for almost half an hour. Invariably the board fills up on the women’s side. This is true, with slight variations, in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Many women say the list is like an unconscious mental checklist…”

I can go on and on, but I'll just stop myself there because like I keep saying, I'm terrible with saying my thoughts succinctly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
blindsk at 2:11AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 560
joined: 5-5-2010
YuiPweeLi
Women must hide their bodies or they're sluts, and yet they are encouraged to dress provocatively.

I didn't even think of this, but it's glaringly true. The virginity of women has been viewed as almost a sacred paradigm throughout history, and still is today for the most part. If the person is male, they're generally laughed at if they still have it. So the guys are expected to sleep around as much as they can, while the women must remain pure. Pretty backwards.

If you don't mind me shifting the flow of discussion a little, how about the women that readily take advantage of the way people treat them? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here - the capable woman that acts incompetent to receive all of the handouts, the woman that allows men to fawn over them for the attention, and so on. Are they feeding the issues women face today? Are they at fault for anything? I'm curious to see what people here think about that, because others I've personally conversed with about this seem to believe it's excusable - they're just a victim of their own construct.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:25AM
ozoneocean at 3:38AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
MicMit
There some since there, scientifically speaking, the male body has larger more developed muscles that are better suited for endurance. Frontline soldiers carry packs that are at least 100 pounds, almost certainly more, and trek miles on very slim reserves. If there are women who could perform the task, they are few and far between, and it'd be an enormous waste of time to train all the women who'd be interested in order to find the few who can.
I still think it's stupid that most sports are segregated, but you know, as far as rugby and football go, without steroids, women wouldn't be smashed by the musculature of those guys…

…I don't know why people were confusing you for a girl in America, I have plenty of guy friends with long hair that don't have that problem, maybe you just ran into some really stupid people.
I don't think the frontline soldier thing holds up. Very few men are at the peak of physical perfection and when it comes down to it, most average men handle extreme situations just like average women. Soldiers definitely do not represent the best of the best… they're just normal men and women with a tough job. So while the scientific argument stands up in theory, in practise it's a bit out of touch I'd say.

-As for being confused for a women, it's not just the hair :)
I'm small, very slimly built, smooth faced… Anyway, it happens a lot, always has. There were just a big concentration of incidents over there. I'd probably make a decent tranny lol!

blindsk
In either case, women have trouble getting the funding they need for their research. In the former case, they never appear promising enough (due to their potential being suppressed), and in the latter, they're so distant from their male colleagues that people are just too afraid to give them money. The only exceptions I've seen is if they carry a last name by which their father (or older male figure) has already established a lasting legacy.
That's an interesting aspect, I hadn't considered that.

isukun
I think the biggest issues with gender based prejudice, however, is more media based. Social preconceptions created by and reinforced by the media which present unrealistic or misleading images of both genders
This is quite true! The media does tend to make things worse. But it does HAVE to reflect community attitudes in order to be understood- so if that is what the media is showing, it's because those attitudes already exist to some extent in the general population.
Although I still don't understand why Angelina Jolie is supposed to be the epitome of female beauty and how so called “supermodels” were ever considered a standard of beauty.

Product Placement
I don't see anything wrong with the idea of keeping the sports segregated, physically speaking, on average men tend to have an edge over women. Testosterone helps build muscles and men just have more of that stuff. This is no lie. Men in training have far higher muscle mass then women. If Olympic events were not kept segregated, you would only see men on those podiums.
Perhaps, but they should still be given the chance to compete together anyway. Unlike the frontline soldier argument, these ARE people at the peak of their ability, but sheer physical mass and brute strength doesn't for everything in every sport. Especially team sports!

YuiPweeLi
Women must hide their bodies or they're sluts, and yet they are encouraged to dress provocatively.
Ha! That reminds me of all the comments I used to get about Pinky (my comic character) in the old days. These strange people would say things like “she dresses like a SLUT WHORE” “She must be a prostitute!!!”. Not trolls either, genuine commenters… It's like they'd never seen comics before. And why should sexuality be defined by dress?

Freegurt
No offense, but it's because you're a guy. It's hard to see what's wrong when you're not the one being the brunt of the joke or the objectification
You may not have read the rest of my post…? :)
I say I tend to think there isn't a problem, for the points I outline, and then go on to explain why there actually IS one. And, yes, as I also explain, I have had a lot of very small and admittedly insignificant tastes of what it's like, but tastes nonetheless. -Whistles, strange preferential treatment, condescending behaviour… etc.

blindsk
If you don't mind me shifting the flow of discussion a little, how about the women that readily take advantage of the way people treat them? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here - the capable woman that acts incompetent to receive all of the handouts, the woman that allows men to fawn over them for the attention…
Of course there are! And why not? :)
If the situation presents itself, why not take advantage?
I remember, years ago back when I was an art student. One of the women in my studio was a former model, still extremely attractive, with long blonde hair. Anyway, she was a very assertive, strong willed, capable person, and yet regaled us all about how she'd take advantage of that preferential treatment whenever she could- stuff like getting people to fill her car up for her at the petrol station and so on.
But the funny thing was that with me the situation was reversed- she would do things for me! And not because she was attracted to me or anything, it's just that she was quite forthright and assertive and saw slim little me as someone to protect.
And that has indeed been something I've traded on in the past and used to get out of difficult tasks- you play on people's vanity, make them feel big and strong and more capable in relation to you so that it feels natural and even valorous for them to do all those things FOR you. People will ALWAYS do it, and both parties get something out of it: The “strong” party feels better about themselves and the “weak” party gets a free ride.

The problem is that for men and women who rely on that they lose valuable experience in doing those things for themselves, so when it comes time TO do those things for themselves they flounder.
As Blanche Dubois found out, you can't always rely on the kindness of strangers.
(haha, but in her case it was because they took advantage of HER as she was taking advantage of them.)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Product Placement at 8:57AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Freegurt
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
Hey! Cool! My country scored at the top. That's probably because the current parliament has more women then men at the moment.

Edit: -after looking at the charts better-
…they're scoring countries on sex ratio at birth? How the hell do you affect ratings like that? “Oh look. You gave birth to a male. Clearly that makes you sexist.”
ozoneocean
Product Placement
I don't see anything wrong with the idea of keeping the sports segregated, physically speaking, on average men tend to have an edge over women. Testosterone helps build muscles and men just have more of that stuff. This is no lie. Men in training have far higher muscle mass then women. If Olympic events were not kept segregated, you would only see men on those podiums.
Perhaps, but they should still be given the chance to compete together anyway. Unlike the frontline soldier argument, these ARE people at the peak of their ability, but sheer physical mass and brute strength doesn't for everything in every sport. Especially team sports!
I'd argue that it would only make things worse for women. If you dropped sex segregated leagues and merged it into one, you'd effectively be kicking women out of sports. If you were a owner of a sports team who's income depended on you winning the big games and I would come over and show you proof that a particular group of people outperforms another group 10% of the time, you would hands down pick that group over the other. Of course, once in a blue moon the agents would spot someone from the “weaker” group that excels in that particular sport and is let in the team but those individuals would be vastly outnumbered by the other group. Don't believe me? Just check out the top NBA teams. What is the stereotype there?

Yes strength isn't everything. You also have to take into account that men tend to be bigger then women, thus have longer reach and gate. With more developed muscles and stronger bones, the risk factor of them suffering injuries is lessened. It may sound unfair but the fact is that us men are full of natural steroids, cause that's what testosterone is. They don't ban testosterone injection in sports without reason.

There are few sports that women can fully match men in. In those where stamina is the most important factor, women stand a far better chance against men, since that is an aspect that they can match men in. Therefore it is believed that long distance running events might be the one Olympic field where women can stand equal at.

The real complaint isn't that women are kept separate from men in sports. It's that womens team aren't covered as well as the mens. We recently finished the World cup in football (Yes, yankees. That's what we call soccer). Everyone has heard about that. However, did anyone hear about the Womens World cup? I bet that little event flew right past you. The womens sports teams in Iceland complained that their big events weren't getting the same coverage as the mens and that their tournaments were poorly attended cause they were being held out of season as opposed to the mens who got the best summermonths of the year. There was some improvements made this year, when they decided to move the womens cup into the late part of summer, as an attempt to boost ticket sales. So I say that if you want to try to improve things for women in sport. Increase their coverage. Besides, I think I'd prefer watching womens teams duking it out as opposed to giving David Beckham more screen time.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
seventy2 at 9:51AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,953
joined: 11-15-2007
Sports/frontlines:
I watched a show a couple months back, Sports science: you hit like a girl. it brought out an undefeated female professional boxer 56-0 vs a male “olympian” it doesn't say anything about his career. In the end they use a dummy to measure force, the male does 780lbs of force, and the female does 910. but she also jumps into her punch. and she does a hook compared to his jab. (hooks are stronger punches)
for sports that are segregated, you have to look no further than world records to find definitive proof that women are just physically shy of men. look at track and field events, swimming. things that are not against each other, but against ones self. you can't say “she only knocked him out because he left his right side open for a second, and her small frame allowed for a quick shot” or some other type of thing. These people all receive the same training, even compete on the same tracks/fields/pools, and still aren't able to surpass.
but that's just the sport side of it.
—————————-
outlook women:
Women can be confident, and not be a bitch. I married one. There is a definite difference. The women who are considered “bitches” have the same attitude as dudes who are “dicks”
facara
Running Anew an exercise blog.
I'm gonna love you till the money comes, half of it's gonna be mine someday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:30PM
ozoneocean at 10:42AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
Product Placement
Yes strength isn't everything. You also have to take into account that men tend to be bigger then women, thus have longer reach and gate. With more developed muscles and stronger bones, the risk factor of them suffering injuries is lessened. It may sound unfair but the fact is that us men are full of natural steroids, cause that's what testosterone is. They don't ban testosterone injection in sports without reason.
These generalities are really irrelevant though aren't they? Because they don't apply to actual sports people, they only apply to statistics. And using that as part of your assumption is actually inherently sexist.

Real sportspeople with their actual abilities and performances and drive to win and succeed can decide if they can compete and how they can complete. (I'll be Kirk to your Spock here)
Decisions made on the basis of generalities based on statistics are nothing but discrimination when it comes down to it. It's like saying that black people tend to have slightly smaller brains, represent a higher percentage of the prison population and have a lower literacy rate but have a good muscle to fat ratio, resistance to skin cancer, and good endurance so that makes them inherently better suited to outdoor manual labour… I think you'd agree that's horrifically discriminatory in that case, why not in the other?

Besides, in things like team sports all your players are NOT generally supreme examples of physically fit humanity in every sense. You have a real mix. In crazy American sports like Grid iron it's insanely skewed to a certain body type that DOES favour mainly males, but there are women who could compete even there given the chance.

seventy2
for sports that are segregated, you have to look no further than world records to find definitive proof that women are just physically shy of men. look at track and field events, swimming. things that are not against each other, but against ones self.
At those extremes, the sex differences do show, but that doesn't apply to every sport, especially team sports.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Product Placement at 11:04AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ozoneocean
Product Placement
Yes strength isn't everything. You also have to take into account that men tend to be bigger then women, thus have longer reach and gate. With more developed muscles and stronger bones, the risk factor of them suffering injuries is lessened. It may sound unfair but the fact is that us men are full of natural steroids, cause that's what testosterone is. They don't ban testosterone injection in sports without reason.
These generalities are really irrelevant though aren't they? Because they don't apply to actual sports people, they only apply to statistics. And using that as part of your assumption is actually inherently sexist.
Like it or not, sport does deal in statistics. I did bring up the NBA example for a reason. Exceptions do pop up from time to time but they're dwarfed by the fact that some groups are recognized/assumed to be superior in certain fields. It's the reason why people put their betting money on runners from Kenya or Nordic/Slavik people during strong men competitions. You can sing praises about equality but when it comes to winning the game, people will go what's considered to be the sure bet. That is why women would not fair well, if both sexes were treated equally in sporting events. They would simply not be given the chance.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
ayesinback at 11:12AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
blindsk
. . . The virginity of women has been viewed as almost a sacred paradigm throughout history, and still is today for the most part. If the person is male, they're generally laughed at if they still have it. So the guys are expected to sleep around as much as they can, while the women must remain pure. Pretty backwards.
. . .

Interestingly (to me), I read recently that the high value on virginity has not been throughout history but surfaced when women became properties rather than fellow tribes people. Back then, no male wanted to hook up with a female unless there was proof that she was able to bear kids. In some of those cultures, a mother would journey with her daughter to have her deflowered by an outsider so that the shame of virginity would not be known within the village.

Re sexism today, I actually feel a little sorry for guys these days. There's been such a backlash stateside that in an office setting, a guy needs to think twice about complimenting any female co-worker about anything other than strictly work-related subjects. M to M: no prob. F to F: no prob. Even F to M: OK. But not M to F. Even if both parties are totally cool with what's being said—What if someone overhears!!!

So is it about looks? A lot of times yes; most of the “ism”s are. But I'd rather be where we are then everyone walking around in full-body snuggy sacks.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
ozoneocean at 11:31AM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
Product Placement
That is why women would not fair well, if both sexes were treated equally in sporting events. They would simply not be given the chance.
Still a sexist assumption though and still not true.
You can only use that for certain rather stupid endurance/performance “sports” like swimming or running etc. But in most sports individual ability almost always counts.
ayesinback
a guy needs to think twice about complimenting any female co-worker about anything other than strictly work-related subjects. M to M: no prob. F to F: no prob. Even F to M: OK. But not M to F. Even if both parties are totally cool with what's being said—What if someone overhears!!!
Thank goodness it's not like that here (Australia). But I'm still reasonably careful anyway because my tongue tends to veer towards acid coated sandpaper if I'm not careful.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 12:19PM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
No offense, but it's because you're a guy. It's hard to see what's wrong when you're not the one being the brunt of the joke or the objectification, etc.

Objectification and sexism goes both ways in modern society, you just don't see as many people crying foul about how men are represented or objectified. The problem is that male and female oriented sexism reinforce each other. One stereotype reinforces the other, so simply focusing on the mistreatmet of women isn't going to solve the problem. More people need to notice sexism on both sides.

But it does HAVE to reflect community attitudes in order to be understood- so if that is what the media is showing, it's because those attitudes already exist to some extent in the general population.

Not always. A lot of the self image issues we have today are created by advertisers trying to push products that we as a society don't really need. They exaggerate social norms until people begin to believe that is what we should expect. Other forms of media also tie in with advertising and push particular physical attributes, fashion, and behavior. In modern society, the media has a massive role in social change and perception. Everybody watches TV, goes to movies, and surfs the internet. We're all constantly bombarded with media meant to inform us on how we are supposed to look and act. That is what people turn to when they want to know what is considered normal in modern society.

Also, entertainment frequently doesn't reflect social norms. Studios want beautiful people in extraordinary situations. Characters are exaggerations of reality. If it just reflected normal every day situations, it would be boring. Media has a tendency to represent an ideal in one way or another, and people often mistake that ideal for the norm.

…they're scoring countries on sex ratio at birth? How the hell do you affect ratings like that? “Oh look. You gave birth to a male. Clearly that makes you sexist.”

China comes to mind, but I don't think most countries have the problems China has. I'm sure the birth rates are taken into consideration based on other statistics like comparing birth rates and population to the number of infant fatalities or the number of people employed in each gender.

Therefore it is believed that long distance running events might be the one Olympic field where women can stand equal at.

Height and strength still factor into long distance running. Check the records for marathon runners and you'll see a good 15 minute difference between the men's record and the women's. Sports that are more suited to integration are sports where both genders can perform similarly. Things like baseball, golf, figure skating, gymnastics, archery, fencing, curling (seriously, why isn't this mixed?), or other sports that rely on judging finesse or demonstrating control over raw power.

Everyone has heard about that. However, did anyone hear about the Womens World cup?

At this point, that is still an issue because people are trying to generate interest in something new. It's like those European (American) football leagues. There is already a dedicated and longstanding audience for the American teams, so getting people to follow new teams and a new league is difficult. Women's soccer is probably one of the few new sports that really managed to take off in the US and that's likely due to the fact that we dominated in it and had big advertising campaigns based on players like Mia Hamm, Kristine Lilly, and Julie Foudy. I don't even watch the sport and I still know who they are. The Women's World Cup does get a decent following here in the US and the introduction of Women's soccer also sparked interest in the men's leagues. Although we still prefer the European and South American leagues over our own and that can be seen both in the games we televise and the fact that the US league has been stealing players from other regions like we do with hockey and baseball.

This wouldn't be a problem if more sports were mixed. The WPGA doesn't get the same coverage as the PGA, but if the two weren't segregated, people wouldn't stop watching the PGA matches just because women were involved. There are some sports that seem to better emphasize the women's side, as well. Gymnastics and figure skating seem to have far more recognizable female athletes than male, even though both sports have men's and women's competitions. Then you get sports like tennis where you get pretty equal coverage between the men's and women's competitions.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
Hawk at 3:30PM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I think there is actually a lot of ignorance going into play when some people consider the gender gap in specific industries. For instance, I pay a lot of attention to the video game industry. It never fails that periodically you'll get the article or blog post of somebody complaining about the imbalance of men to women in the industry's workforce.

But I have to think, is it really that shocking or unfair? Is it so surprising that fewer women are interested in a career in video games? Those unhappy with the situation make the assumption that either men are somehow not letting women into the business, or they've made the gaming industry inhospitable to women for years now, and I know both are untrue.

Things like this need to be looked at differently. Rather than comparing the number of current male employees to female employees, compare the people applying to fields. Or undergoing education to enter these fields. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the industries that seem to lack women are simply less interesting to women in general, and thus garnering fewer female applicants. It goes both ways. Want to compare the number of male nurses to female nurses? Start by comparing the number of men entering the nursing program in Universities.

I really like what YuiPweeLi said up there. Men and Women are different, and there will be sexism until we accept those differences.

isukun
Objectification and sexism goes both ways in modern society, you just don't see as many people crying foul about how men are represented or objectified. The problem is that male and female oriented sexism reinforce each other. One stereotype reinforces the other, so simply focusing on the mistreatmet of women isn't going to solve the problem. More people need to notice sexism on both sides.

I agree with this A LOT. It's true that women have to compete with plenty of unfair imagery and expectations, but when was the last time you heard a guy crying over how he must be compared to Calvin Klein models or the latest infestation of vampire heart-throbs. It's the same thing. And yet we're getting the perpetual guilt-trip over how the women look in our comic books, video games, and movies.

Here's something wacky I did:
Ever noticed the sexist treatment of women on the magazines in the grocery store checkout lines? It's fun to look at their covers and count how many times they say “Sex”…. Sex quizzes, how to please your man, how to look sexier… And also how often they mention some new diet. Plenty of weight loss stuff to be talked about in every magazine. The fun part is opening up these magazines and looking at the page with their editors and staff. These magazines are created mostly by WOMEN! When are these magazines going to get the same bum's rush male artists and creators have been getting for years?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
El Cid at 3:58PM, Aug. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 971
joined: 5-4-2009
Men and women are different. That is not a controversial statement. If men and women as groups are different then, given the same opportunities, we should expect different outcomes.

People love to blame the differences in income between men and women on employer discrimination, but the very notion is just plain absurd. If employers could get away with paying women 75 cents on the dollar for what they pay men, then they’d never hire another man, ever. The men would all be at home cooking dinner and making themselves pretty.

Women on average make less than men because they give birth and men don’t. This, along with the often disproportionate responsibilities of childrearing, has all kinds of ripple effects on women's earning potential, from how far they advance in their given careers to what careers they choose to go into in the first place. Women tend to shy away from careers that have high levels of obsolescence (technology), or that require long and irregular hours, because they're incompatible with having children. And as a further injustice, having children tends to increase men's earning potential. But women who don’t have children tend to advance further and earn more than their male counterparts.

So biologically the deck is just stacked against mothers. That’s not discrimination though; that’s just the way the cookie crumbles, as the saying goes. That’s life. It only looks like something sinister is going on when you look at the statistics without questioning what’s going on behind the numbers.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
isukun at 1:56AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
If employers could get away with paying women 75 cents on the dollar for what they pay men, then they’d never hire another man, ever.

The problem isn't that employers think they can pay less, it's that women aren't promoted to the higher paying jobs.

Women on average make less than men because they give birth and men don’t.

That's a load of crap. Women typically don't give up their jobs or base their career choices around their children, anymore. This isn't Japan where maternity leave is still a myth and women have to choose between a career and a family, nor are we living in the 50's anymore where women are expected to be stay-at-home moms. Women who choose to be housewives don't factor into the statistics since they are technically unemployed. It is becoming the standard these days for both parents in a household to hold steady full-time jobs. Househusbands are also becoming increasingly common.

Women without children don't tend to advance further or earn more than their male counterparts. They are held back just like any other women. I've watched it in the retail jobs I've worked where women work hard to learn the job and apply for management positions only to see those positions get filled by male outside hires.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 2:31AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
El Cid
Men and women are different. That is not a controversial statement. If men and women as groups are different then, given the same opportunities, we should expect different outcomes.
Not really. Social differences and biological differences aren't entirely causally related. Too many people make the mistake that they are.

El Cid
People love to blame the differences in income between men and women on employer discrimination, but the very notion is just plain absurd. If employers could get away with paying women 75 cents on the dollar for what they pay men, then they’d never hire another man, ever. The men would all be at home cooking dinner and making themselves pretty.
Your theory here is quite old fashioned… It doesn't explain inequalities, only some and in certain instances.

Part of the problem with understanding differences in male and female pay discrepancies rests largely with the pro equality movement- They tell us about the discrepancy, tell us what a bad thing it is, and do almost nothing to explain what they mean by it, leaving us to guess.
Pay discrepancy mainly means that women are more represented in careers that are lower paying- Care workers, teachers, retail etc.
There are some arguments to say that those occupations are not valued at anywhere near what they should be- at least with teachers and care-workers.

Why are women more highly represented in those lower paying fields? From a more misogynist, sexist point of view the answer would be that women are biologically drawn to and suited to these “womanly” sorts of caring, nurturing roles. Realistically though, there are a lot of very obvious social factors at play, particularity in regards to care workers.
For example:
Women have not been professionals in the workplace in any great amount for very long, the percentage of unskilled women to unskilled men (especially older women) is great. For a relatively unskilled woman, especially an older women, this is one of the few industries they DO have skills in. And the more women you have in a profession, the more attractive it becomes to other women, and the less attractive it becomes to males.
-hence the greater percentage of female teachers etc.
It's also less socially unacceptable for men to look after children.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
seventy2 at 2:56AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,953
joined: 11-15-2007
pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

this states that there's no explanation, however, the statistic doesn't do anything other than say it's a full time job.

but it is true that less females work then males.

Women still believe in staying home, and in fact most the women i know, choose this option, and only take jobs when money gets tight. My mother worked as a nurse, and made more money than my father. She turned down a lot of positions because having both parents working all the time would have been a bad thing.
———————————–

Women are different from men. fact. biological differences will always set up groups within groups.
facara
Running Anew an exercise blog.
I'm gonna love you till the money comes, half of it's gonna be mine someday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:30PM
bravo1102 at 3:44AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,296
joined: 1-21-2008
Ozoneocean
Pay discrepancy mainly means that women are more represented in careers that are lower paying- Care workers, teachers, retail etc.
There are some arguments to say that those occupations are not valued at anywhere near what they should be- at least with teachers and care-workers.

A woman who works in the same area as a man will still make slightly less than a man – on the average not in actual practice. Her performance is dragged down in the numbers by…

El Cid
Women on average make less than men because they give birth and men don’t. This, along with the often disproportionate responsibilities of childrearing, has all kinds of ripple effects on women's earning potential, from how far they advance in their given careers to what careers they choose to go into in the first place.

A woman's income who never interrupts her career to have children will usually be competetive with her male co workers. However leaving to have children is what throws off the numbers and performance. It would be so nice if this wasn't true, but it is. Young women just in the work force often make the same and occasionally more than their male co-workers, it isn't until the maternity leaves come into it and the resulting loss of time on the job that the inequities show up. So that by the the time you get to the senior female workforce they aren't making what the men do, and aren't in the jobs the men are in.

But if you take a step back and look a sampling of women who never had children They are in the same jobs and making similar salaries to their male co-workers.

However since most women do take the time out to sire a new generation (thanks mom) and therefore lose the time that allows the male to get a lead the board rooms end up becoming “boys clubs” akin to the No Girlz Alowed tree house from the Little Rascals.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 3:49AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
seventy2
pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

this states that there's no explanation
Maybe you didn't read down far enough…
wiki
Any given raw wage gap can be decomposed into an explained part due to differences in characteristics such as education, hours worked, work experience, and occupation, and an unexplained part which is typically attributed to discrimination
———————————–

seventy2
Women are different from men. fact. biological differences will always set up groups within groups.
Fact…? You're not saying anything here except trying to bolster the notion that biological differences are the only explanation for social cultural differences.

Society is far more complicated than one person having tits and a vag and the other having a dick. We're not wolves, prairie dogs, mole-rats, bees, or cave people living the simple life under a rock. We have several thousand years of highly evolved and layered culture on top of us. The culture you're living inside of right now! It wasn't constructed yesterday by some bearded men, and it's certainly not innate IN us.
To ignore that is artifice at best, vile ignorance at worst.

bravo1102
A woman who works in the same area as a man will still make slightly less than a man – on the average not in actual practice. Her performance is dragged down in the numbers by..
ozoneocean
Your theory here is quite old fashioned… It doesn't explain inequalities, only some and in certain instances.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
bravo1102 at 4:17AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,296
joined: 1-21-2008
Just because something is “old fashioned” doesn't make it any less true according to the numbers and experiences of women in the workforce. All other things being equal, the time taken in child birth puts women at a disadvantage in the work force. It's the “old fashioned” that is the probelm. We're old fashioned thinkers.

It's inconvienent to admit it but that doesn't make it any the less true. Only fairly recently has it become possible for a professional woman not to lose an inordinate amount of pay and experience due to time lost to maternity leave and some numbers are showing that they might be closing the gap. The performance numbers are similar to a male having a loss of work time due to an accident (like falling down an elevator shaft maybe)

But at the end of the day that may not matter because of the sexism inherent in the senior ranks of management. It's cultural and maybe even deeper in our sexual behavior. Certain sex roles may be how we are wired to think by thousands of years of evolution and a few decades of positive thinking shouldn't be expected to undo that.

We have to open our minds to why we really think the way we do and redefine things accordingly. Some behaviors that may have been great for hunter-gatherers or sustenance agriculturalists may not apply to urban service workers.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 4:47AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
bravo1102
Just because something is “old fashioned” doesn't make it any less true according to the numbers and experiences of women in the workforce….

…certain sex roles may be how we are wired to think by thousands of years of evolution…
The studies and the numbers do not bear out what you say. You can read that wiki article that Seventy linked to for a start, or listen to any of the pro equality people speak… Or just go along with old socially constructed “facts” based on the transitory experience of a bygone era.

The fact is your that your very thinking on the matter is sexist. Maybe you can't help that because it's how you're wired…?

You could make use of some of those historical analytical skills you're proud of and see the colossal jumps women have made with their earnings in ONLY the last 100 years and tell me that biological factors reign supreme.
Do so and I will laugh.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
El Cid at 6:37AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 971
joined: 5-4-2009
ozoneocean
Pay discrepancy mainly means that women are more represented in careers that are lower paying- Care workers, teachers, retail etc.
I thought that's what I said. Women are under-represented in more demanding fields because they are incompatible with maternity. That doesn't necessarily mean women make conscious decisions not to enter these fields, but rather simply the fact of these fields' inhospitable nature results in them being traditionally male-oriented.

There are women who do enter professional fields requiring they work long irregular hours, but they do so at a much lower rate than men, and when surveyed by the Harvard Business Review they were found to be twice as likely as men to plan on leaving within five years. That's the other big problem, as Bravo1102 pointed out: interruptions in continuity. When women interrupt their career to raise children until they're old enough to be put in daycare, they usually make considerable less money upon re-entering the workforce (a British survey found that prior to these interruptions, women on average earned 90 percent what their male counterparts do, and after returning on average earned 67 percent). They're also less likely to go into serious full-time work after having children or pursue promotions. These things aren't true for all women, of course, or even for all working mothers, but the net effect is to pull down the mean average pay for women. Most men spend their lives supporting their own careers, while most wives spend their lives supporting their husbands' careers by disproportionately bearing the brunt of domestic responsibilities.

Someone
You could make use of some of those historical analytical skills you're proud of and see the colossal jumps women have made with their earnings in ONLY the last 100 years and tell me that biological factors reign supreme.
Do so and I will laugh.
I hate to tell you this, but Bravo's absolutely correct. Women's progress has not followed as straight a path as you seem to think it has. There were considerably more American women obtaining degrees of higher education and represented in higher levels of employment and wealth at the beginning of the twentieth century than in the middle. In fact, to find a time when women were obtaining degrees at 1950s-era levels, you'd have to go all the way back to the 1870s. The reason for this is that the median age at which women chose to have children, and the percentage of women who didn't have children, were higher during these time periods than in the middle of the century.

Since then, these numbers have gone back up, and the bulk of women's progress today can be credited not to any mystical enlightening of the menfolk, but to women's growing pursuit of higher learning and participation in the workforce. In fact, in the U.S. today there are 140 women for every 100 men in institutions of higher learning. This is a big improvement, but it cannot erase the legacy of biology. There did a survey in 2001 of female graduates from Harvard Business school going back to 1985 and they found that about a third of them worked part time or less, and another third of them did not work at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
El Cid at 7:21AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 971
joined: 5-4-2009
My bad, it was killing me that I couldn't remember where I'd read about that survey. It was a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1283176867-Kuc5OySYL1I/CRHAyGBAAA). One of the interesting things I found about this article was that the author seems to detect something of a rejection of the aggressive feminist ideals that were so prevalent in the latter half of the twentieth century. She points out that whereas in the past women were more likely to be career-minded and expect their family to take a backseat to their careers, more American women today expect their careers to be a lower priority than their families.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
ayesinback at 7:43AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
El Cid
She points out that whereas in the past women were more likely to be career-minded and expect their family to take a backseat to their careers, more American women today expect their careers to be a lower priority than their families.
This doesn't surprise me at all.

What's missing is that in the past couple of decades, men have also placed a greater premium on being involved with their families. I work with guys who will take time off to go see their kids in a school play, or who will juggle their schedule so they can coach a team during the week instead of just weekends.
A lot more common now than when I was a kid.

Both genders are continually adapting, so it can be off-putting to focus on the stats of just either one when it's the interaction between the two that determines the state of things.

btw: I read through most of the previous sexism thread just now; I thin this time around there's a more conciliatory tone, so getting back to Ozone's question—yeah, maybe things are actually improving. btw2: I like the term humanist.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
ayesinback at 8:19AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
Yeah, and while I'm at it, I'd be a little careful about throwing around the men-and-women-are-just biologically-different factoid.

Because then I start asking why the hell so much money has been spent on researching prostate cancer over the years compared to breast cancer (which also affects men) and which is every bit the killer. Or why it has just been within the decade that medicine has realized that symptoms for women's heart disease are substantially different than men's symptoms?

How about MDs who just smile and pat a woman on the head when she complains about fatigue and frustration. They're just emotions, and women are emotional, right? It's the dawning of a new day that medicine is realizing that these are symptoms, and some of the first to appear in the realm of a woman's biochemistry.

There's cake, and then there's the eating of it.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
ozoneocean at 8:41AM, Aug. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,942
joined: 1-2-2006
El Cid
I thought that's what I said. Women are under-represented in more demanding fields because they are incompatible with maternity.
This is what YOU said, not what I said. Your interpretation favours biological determinism.
El Cid
There are women who do enter professional fields requiring they work long irregular hours, but they do so at a much lower rate than men, and when surveyed by the Harvard Business Review…
You are merely supporting a particular point of view, one that you are extrapolating to the entire female sex, using examples that only relate to a specific few.
El Cid
. Most men spend their lives supporting their own careers, while most wives spend their lives supporting their husbands' careers by disproportionately bearing the brunt of domestic responsibilities.
Wives? Husbands? What is this, the 1970's?

El Cid
you seem to think it has. There were considerably more American women obtaining degrees of higher education and represented in higher levels of employment and wealth at the beginning of the twentieth century than in the middle. In fact, to find a time when women were obtaining degrees at 1950s-era levels, you'd have to go all the way back to the 1870s. The reason for this is that the median age at which women chose to have children, and the percentage of women who didn't have children, were higher during these time periods than in the middle of the century.
This interpretation shows the limitations of your outlook quite starkly, and illustrates the validity of mine even more so: You're talking about biological determinism, you mention (if in jest) the enlightenment of MEN and talk about the changing levels of women in the workforce over that period…

My friend, what happened over that time period is a PRIME example of social cultural factors at work:
We had the industrial revolution in the 1800's- low skilled women in their thousands were taking up employment away from the home. In the 1900's there was the growing movement of female suffrage and women's rights. In the 1910's there was the Great War with millions dead, women taking more and more male jobs as a matter of necessity.
During the 1920's it was a great time for social and economic freedoms and liberalism throughout Europe and the US.
The 1930's however brought uncertainty, economic collapse and a growing conservative movement as a result. It was less acceptable for women to be working since there were less jobs and men were considered historically entitled to those…
The 1940's of course gave us WWII, millions more dead, more women replace men in low skilled jobs…
the end ofthe 40's and the rest of the 1950's gave us the cold war and a conservative resurgence mirroring the 1930's and the babyboom!
The 1960's saw a reaction against that conservative crackdown during the 50's and a continuation of the liberalist movements of the past. That continued, with a lot of ups and downs, all the way till now.

All the way social factors were the prime driving force.

What you don't see with your insistence on maternity is that maternity within a society is ITSELF a social construct- NOT some naturally evolved process.

ayesinback
What's missing is that in the past couple of decades, men have also placed a greater premium on being involved with their families. I work with guys who will take time off to go see their kids in a school play, or who will juggle their schedule so they can coach a team during the week instead of just weekends.
A lot more common now than when I was a kid.

Both genders are continually adapting, so it can be off-putting to focus on the stats of just either one when it's the interaction between the two that determines the state of things.
THIS is a fantastic point! families change to meet people's needs. And they always have.

The idea that a woman is purely a slave to her womb is… wrong.
I see why you do it (El Cid, Bravo etc)- you've seen examples of it and so you think that makes it a rule. You go by experience of mothers or grandmothers and think that make it eternal instead of specific to the times and social periods that these women lived through, then you discount the influnce that these women have had on their daughters and instead of thinking of that as social learning, you think of it as biological inevitability.

In the end it's just blindness to history.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved