the F word

[ashlesha]

feminism.

its been coming up a lot lately around here. is it good? is it bad? are equal rights good but only if you don't call it feminism? are men's rights and women's rights inherently opposed? (okay maybe these questions are loaded but you can come up with your own, too.)

it might be best for my blood pressure to avoid this thread after making it but i feel like it should be made right now cuz it seems to be on everybodys minds. we'll see. (who am i kidding.)

go forth and have rational and reasonable discussions. haha.

[Scapegrace]

There are equal rights and then there is coddling. Feminism has no place in the Westen world anymore. It makes me sick to see people whining about how women don't get paid as much as men (which is easily explained and has nothing to do with sexism), when girls in Pakastan are being killed by their own brothers because somebody raped them.

[DirectorAbbie]

Feminism has no place in the Westen world anymore.

We can vote, don't have to hide our faces, have the option of getting jobs outside the home, and don't have to do everything official through a man.
That's good enough for me. Nowadays sexism and racism are just reasons to hire people for tax breaks and bragging rights instead of for their skills.
People who put women above men aren't improving women's station in the world; they're diminishing men's.

[Aquagraph]

We can vote, don't have to hide our faces, have the option of getting jobs outside the home, and don't have to do everything official through a man.
That's good enough for me. Nowadays sexism and racism are just reasons to hire people for tax breaks and bragging rights instead of for their skills.
People who put women above men aren't improving women's station in the world; they're diminishing men's.

Practical as always.

[mu4]

I actually read an interesting article once that said a major reason women don't get paid as much as men is because that's not as high a priority for them. That, in general, women are more likely to factor in concerns for how well they get along with their boss, and other factors of comfort, etc., and men tend to ignore those issues and factor in the paycheck more highly. (IE: a woman might stay in a job that pays $40,000, where she gets along really well with her coworkers, over taking a position that pays $45,000, where she didn't like her boss in the interview; but men would be more likely to take the pay increase.)

Another reason to consider is that many women take maternity leave and/or become stay-at-home mothers completely, so their career growth gets stalled/halted, and this lack of consistent growth results in lower performance/earnings compared to people who are more consistent on average, in this case men.

So yes, I always thought the issue of equal pay seemed a bit silly imho. You have female billionaires like Sara Blakely, a self-made billionaire who's only 42 years old. So you have opportunities to grow just like anybody else. It's unfortunate fewer women seem to pursue those opportunities.

In my industry women are heavily underrepresented and there is a big stigma against women in the industry with a lot of workplace misogyny and bigotry. There are women that do advanced within the industry but it takes a tough skin to get past all the nastiness that can occur. Also pay comparison usually compare exactly the same job with similar experience. So same job, same experience, different gender results in women getting paid less. Career growth and child birth is usually not a factor in the studies.

It's not as bad as what West Point females have to deal with.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1267906.ece

Maternity is certainly something that makes women have less earning power than men, but this is something that is necessary for human survival. To punish women for perpetuating human survival and to limit their possible independence is important. Women didn't exactly choose to be the carriers of babies, they just got the side effect of evolution and there is often a primal drive to reproduce. The thing is that men need women and women need men and there is a negotiation that occurs which should try to achieve equality. It's impossible to say that men and women are equal completely, but men and women can enjoy equal rights, opportunity and ability to be independent.

Social equity is not formed naturally, but rather from the negotiation of social participants. What has happened in the past is often the use of force to keep minorities, gender or otherwise in captivity with the fear of their own survival for the purpose of exploitation. Modern society has solved many of these problems, but it is imperfect and will likely never be perfect. However, this doesn't mean the negotiation and discussion stops, it simply changes.

Women, men, minority and all individuals in today's modern societies have bargaining power, and it's their right to negotiate based on their bargaining power for fair and equitable pay, rights, opportunity. Men certainly have their share of complains and have never had any problems complaining about it.

Women have always been the biggest and most exploited minority, because often irregardless of culture, race, ethnicity, they were exploited. This systematic exploitation and it's aftereffects still remain today and is unlikely to disappear completely. How to solve these aftereffects is actually quite a important task, one which will also benefit culture such as Pakistan eventually, should they choose a path of modernization.

The thing is that it's relatively easy to solve some problems, but there are harder problems which remain unsolved, and festering, all which can snowball into oppression and exploitation.

It's not like there haven't been tolerant societies in the past, but it seems that history keeps finding ways to turn great cultures into a world of brutality.

[ashlesha]

"The rugby team was reported after a cadet who was not a member was forwarded an email in which an ex-girlfriend was described as having worn a sex toy because she had been “the man” in the relationship."

Don't make me link a woman with a dildo to make a point lol. If a woman is sporting a strap-on, my point is, how much is she really trying to be viewed respectfully herself?

what the fuck.

1. it never said she actually did wear a strap-on. just that she was described that way. it was the joke.

2. the joke was motivated by their perception that she was stepping outside of gender roles.

3. even if she did wear a strap-on in private how is that asking to be disrespected?

[ashlesha]

So you've NEVER joked about an ex-boyfriend, after breaking up, about anything silly they've done? If they did something a bit 'girly', you wouldn't tell any of your girlfriends about it?

If you have, I would NOT say you're perpetuating gender inequality.

that doesn't address what i said.

i don't remember saying anything in particular about any of them being "girly," no. and even if i had it was a completely different context in which it was a pattern of behavior engaged in as a group in conjunction with a high rate of sexual assault reports and and instructor who allegedly filmed women in the bathroom. come on.

[ashlesha]

There were 80 reports of sexual assault, on a campus of over 4,500 students at West Point. Let's compare that to your state of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota has over 50,000 students and an estimated between '500 & 1,300 unwanted sexual contacts per year'. http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/events/saam.html

So I would disagree that there was a "high rate of sexual assault reports". Rather, it's a very comparable rate to other major universities. So I don't give any exceptions to the environment, for the case of changing behavior based on an exceptionable environment.

oh, so theres a high rate of sexual assault everywhere. so that makes it okay. my bad.

[Kim]

Also, how many women in the industry, if you were to honestly poll them, would seriously like a position of leadership? Perhaps more men want to be leaders, that's why they are rising to the top, as opposed to women who have no desire to be the 'head honcho'.

I am very sure that women desire leadership positions to the same extent as men do, but we are not socialized to be aggressive. In my field, women often make less money because they don't negotiate as aggressively as men.

No offense, but the gender stereotypes you perpetuate make things a lot more difficult for women. As long as we continue to talk about men and women in terms of protector/protected, aggressive/non-aggressive, it becomes very hard for women AND men to do what they truly want. I was very lucky to meet a man who would gladly stay home as the house-husband should the need arise and who does not feel threatened because I make more money than he does. It is mind-blowing how many men would feel "emasculated" by this. My brother-in-law went on paternity leave with both kids and it raised eyebrows.

My personal brand of feminism means that we do away with these redundant and archaic stereotypes. You can have a preference for women who you can protect and who will run the household, but it's YOUR preference, not "the way it is meant to be." If that is what you want and you find a woman who wants that, too, all power to you. But don't assume that your way is the way gender naturally plays out. If a man wants to wear a skirt or a woman wants to be the breadwinner or what have you, we should let them without constantly regurgitating gender stereotypes of what is "masculine" and what is "feminine."

[FDG]

I am very sure that women desire leadership positions to the same extent as men do, but we are not socialized to be aggressive. In my field, women often make less money because they don't negotiate as aggressively as men.

Yeah, but what I often wonder is, is there a "social equilibrium" where both genders are equally (non) aggressive in negotiating, or will it always be that one of the two sexes has to be more aggressive? I don't think it's a moot question, in "evolutionary" terms...

[squirreltual]

Yeah, but what I often wonder is, is there a "social equilibrium" where both genders are equally (non) aggressive in negotiating, or will it always be that one of the two sexes has to be more aggressive? I don't think it's a moot question, in "evolutionary" terms...

When working with the topic of salaries there are almost too many factors to untangle; maybe the only way to really find out is by fostering the right conditions that an equilibirum may be reached. With the right methods there seems little to lose in this.

Secondly, if you have knowledge of evolved inputs then you can change the behavioural outputs. This seems perfectly in line with evolutionary psychology. EP doesn't justify human behaviour but solely seeks to explain. Otherwise you can easily fall into that naturalistic fallacy of evolutionary/natural=good.

In 57 years the Chartered Management Institute (UK) predict female managers will be equalling pay of males. These are long term transitions being talked about that none of us will live to see the outcome of. There are also many factors that could tip the scales again in the opposite direction between then and now. I think one of the best things we can do is to focus on the education and careers advice we give to young people because they have more power and time with which to influence things.

*is an equity feminist*

[malna]

So negotiate more aggressively!

That's how supporting my PoLR shows. Inspiring.
Here's a radical thought, how about creating circumstances that would allow us work instead of fight for everything in a workplace? I'm fairly certain most women would welcome the change but so might many men.
I know, DIY...

I really wish women would appreciate men's emotional and gentle nature more

Oh, stop whining already!

[InvisibleJim]

That's how supporting my PoLR shows. Inspiring.
Here's a radical thought, how about creating circumstances that would allow us work instead of fight for everything in a workplace? I'm fairly certain most women would welcome the change but so might many men.
I know, DIY..

Because the workplace is designed to get the maximum productivity out of men due to mens societal disposability. Most men do not control their workplace, shareholders do.

Someone has got to make the money for the government to tax.

At the moment in the workplace if a woman wants to drop 'disposability' all she has to do is get pregnant. The laws regarding maternity leave in the UK make her invincible for over 2 years.

In the recent downturn 4 women at my work decided it was the perfect time to get pregnant and 2 men were sacked. Ironically 2 of those women were, to say the least, completely incompetent and wouldn't have survived as male in the normal state of business. The men were average, not bad, not great.

Infact the idea that 'work' should be changed to be socially supportive rather than productivity first is ethically questionable since the principle behind the activity is to generate excess to increase wealth and pay for things, not to fuck about hugging and kissing and showing how great your new shoes are. That's called happy fun non-work time.

[squark]

You have a history of coming out of nowhere in the middle of discussions, misinterpreting my motivations, and attacking me as a person before the issue. Just like you did in this thread, first posting 'William, shut up' before editing your post or even mention what you were referring to. I actually think we would get along in real life, better than it seems online.



The best argument so far imho. But I honestly I think this may be a case of Ti versus Te. See, while it might make sense to have a more consistent system like that, I would rather view it objectively for profit. For example, I don't consider the risk that someone with blue eyes becoming an alcoholic is nearly as likely as a woman taking maternity leave. As a brief example:

I'm interviewing two people. Ceterus paribus, same experience, background, etc., but a woman and a guy in their 20s. Let's guess that the woman has a 40% chance to take maternity leave at some point in her 20s, which will cost me 3 months of labor. The blue-eyed man has a 2% of becoming an alcoholic because of his predisposition, much less likely, and it won't cost me nearly as much as 3 months of lost labor completely, AND that would be more easily identifiable as his work begins to drop, and I would have time to find a replacement. If there's a 40% chance I will lose money versus a 2% chance, I would consider the woman to be 20 times riskier, if the costs were the same.

Basically, I think many employers are more concerned with maternity leave as opposed to hiring drunks, at least for professionals in their 20s. Drunkenness might be a bigger problem among part-time or lower-wage jobs, but those positions rarely offer maternity leave anyway, imho.

So good argument, but I believe the cost in the decision is more important than any arbitrarily consistent value system.

meh. I don't see anything wrong with an employer offering a choice of higher wages, and less time off, vs. maternity/paternity leave, extra days off both paid and unpaid, and lower wages to compensate for the cost to the company for those benefits. More men would probably pick higher wages, and more women would probably pick more days off, but the point is that they'd be choosing it. You wouldn't just look at someone and say, "male. you must fit the stereotype, and I'm going to treat you as such against any argument to the contrary."

Single men are the ones who most often complain that they are the ones who always have to work late, come in on holidays etc. because they don't have the "excuse" of having a family. And employers very often do operate like that - favoring married men with more time, and fewer undesirable hours, while not paying them any less than the single men, and paying them more than either single or married women. I think everyone would be happier if they were given the choice of what kind of compensation they prefer per their qualifications/job title, and some employers do offer different packages that you can choose from.

There are solutions for employers that don't involve profiling, making assumptions, or discriminating via these broad categories, and allow people to be treated as individuals.

[malna]

You can't negotiate salary higher because of your PoLR?

If this requires more aggressive attitude, as was assumed, then it might prove difficult indeed.

I'm not sure why you decided to join everyone else, but this argument doesn't make sense, and is an extremely poor example of gender inequality. You know there are male EIIs, right? You know there are female SLEs and female SEEs, right?

Yes, thank you, I'm aware. I added my two cents about my discontent with belligerent work environment as a woman and Se PoLR at that, which is the combination to make me particularly aware of the issue here. Women are less prone to start or carry out a conflict than men are. So yes, my point stands: work for > fight for. According to statistics, most women agree with me on this.

Saying you can't do something because of your PoLR, and saying that it's an argument for gender inequality is a bad argument and very belittling to women, imho.

I hope my explanation clarified things some, however if you still find what I say belittling to women or me, then I am sorry you think that.

[mu4]

There are plenty of entrepreneurs out there who took advantage of their skill-sets and creativity to create MASSIVE FORTUNES for themselves. Spending time arguing over why women should be receiving 10% more pay in a JOB, or a few thousand dollars extra per year, seems like an incredible waste of time, when there are women overseas who are being beaten, raped, and brutalized. The 10% difference in pay, which is already explainable for various factors, seems like highly dramatized first-world problems imho.

Let me try to explain, there are how many women billionaires....

And how many men billionaires?

I came from a country has vastly bigger woman's right issues than the west, but it doesn't mean that these problems don't exist. Ultimately, you're bringing up examples of women that have bucked the social and cultural legacy that they inherited in a civilization that hasn't even allowed women to vote for a century. So 90 years of basic rights for women is not going to cure it, and this is compounded by the lack of basic rights for women of color which was addressed 50ish years ago.

The fact that women have made it this far shows how talented and capable people are when given basic rights and freed from oppression. Those rights and any current inequities are still worthwhile to consider and cure.

I think currently the world is experiencing unprecedented transitions which creates problems prior societies have never conceived of, modern societies have different problems all of which can turn modern societies into primitive ones. First world problems are certainly of less existential concern to individuals than famine and the brutality that occurs in many unstable societies, but that doesn't mean they're any easier to solve.

As far as hiring women and maternity leave, I have zero problems hiring women because they tend to have less of a ego and do the work in a more conscientious fashion. Maternity leave is a much smaller issues vs the ego clashes men engage in. Women have never "worked" less then men, they just worked tasks which trapped them in dependence on men and the wealth or security provided.

The fact that you would break the law and discriminate against women(because by considering maternity law in the hiring process, there is a conscious act of discrimination), you are perpetuating a problem which will continue to existence. Businesses and men want to make selfish choices, keeping a female enslaved, cooking and cleaning makes sense for men, and that's the choice that was made for many women for thousands of years, but it is simply not just. What makes business sense sometimes is simply injust and inhumane, don't do it.

[some chair]

"Feminist" to me seems to be another cult like "Democrat" or "Republican", especially reading some of the myopic, fanatical bullshit I've seen in blogs like "gender equality is feminism in disguise". Jesus.

Of course, I think people can hold feminist ideas. Doing so doesn't make you a lunatic, I've just seen nutjobs on parade under the banner, much like with any other banner.

EDIT

For clarity, I think since the word "Feminist" is a prominent idea in culture, you can get some real fruitloops gathering under the label where you wouldn't with something obscure like Pyrrhonian skepticism. I don't see a mass movement of pyrrhonian skeptics with smaller sects of pyrrhonian skeptic zealots who read from a holy pyrrhonian skeptic bible (or circulating memes, as seems to be the case with the fruitloopinists) of falsities and propaganda like I do with the Gender-isms.

[Pa3s]

I have a rather negative impression of feminism. As Scapegrace already implied, it is almost an anachronism today (in the western world). There are also no women's or men's rights in my opinion, just people's rights. And it's certainly important to preserve them. Just not only for women or any other group of people but for everyone, equally.

I often get the impression that feminists are so radical just to get "revenge" for the hundreds of years of patriarchy. They try to impose rules just to create similarly unfair conditions, but for men. This article describes a prime example of this approach.

[Words]

Hehe, lungs and her controversial threads. Good call.

[ashlesha]

my feminist views are mostly concerning the issues of sexual violence and widespread assumptions about gender which i don't think are moot in western culture. these studies are from the 90s but they get at the sort of thing i'm talking about and i don't think they're resolved. there are definitely far worse things happening in the world. i don't know if we should start comparing pakistani women to starving african children or litter in nyc to smog in china or if these kinds of comparisons are relevant.

i also don't know if i'm idiosyncratic in thinking that things like mens custody rights and the low reporting rates of abused males are also issues that fall under the umbrella of feminism. just like cultural acceptance of rape and murder of middle eastern women, they are symptoms of the historical perception of gender. i've been told maybe i should just call myself a proponent of human rights, but that feels like giving in.

it is frustrating, though, that mens rights and feminism are seen as opposing philosophies. its also frustrating when men are blamed in isolation or when i'm accused of blaming men in isolation when the historical root issue is all pervasive and has been perpetuated by society in general, including men and women, for how many years. its also frustrating when extremists are used as examples of feminism, just like all republicans are tea partiers and all those for drug legalization are potheads.

[Scapegrace]

my feminist views are mostly concerning the issues of sexual violence and widespread assumptions about gender which i don't think are moot in western culture. these studies are from the 90s but they get at the sort of thing i'm talking about and i don't think they're resolved. there are definitely far worse things happening in the world. i don't know if we should start comparing pakistani women to starving african children or litter in nyc to smog in china or if these kinds of comparisons are relevant.

i also don't know if i'm idiosyncratic in thinking that things like mens custody rights and the low reporting rates of abused males are also issues that fall under the umbrella of feminism. just like cultural acceptance of rape and murder of middle eastern women, they are symptoms of the historical perception of gender. i've been told maybe i should just call myself a proponent of human rights, but that feels like giving in.

it is frustrating, though, that mens rights and feminism are seen as opposing philosophies. its also frustrating when men are blamed in isolation or when i'm accused of blaming men in isolation when the historical root issue is all pervasive and has been perpetuated by society in general, including men and women, for how many years. its also frustrating when extremists are used as examples of feminism, just like all republicans are tea partiers and all those for drug legalization are potheads.

I actually absolutely agree with most of this. However, I think it has more to do with general human welfare than women in particular. Distinguishing these problems as MRM (male right's movement) issues or feminist issues ads yet another degree of separation. I think we can agree that it's beneficial to the population as a whole when courts award custody to the best parent for a child regardless of that parent's gender.

In ideal society nobody would ever take advantage of anyone -- sexually -- or other wise, but I don't think any amount of campaigning or raising awareness is going to stop people (men or women) from taking what they want if they are inclined towards sexual violence. Women are not the only people who sexually victimized either. My mother used to sleep with married men simply to blackmail them. I don't think any of them ever even thought of going to the police because it would have emasculated them.

Also if you're getting unwanted attention from boyz you can just wear these:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/18/hairy-...ntion-3845865/

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'd rather just call it human rights and to support whatever group is being the target of some sort of double standard that doesn't make sense. I'm for gay rights because I'm a gay man you are for women's rights because you are a woman, it's healthy to be self-interested like that. Whatever 'type' one is, they are going to feel the brunt of some sort of stupid rule.

The thing with feminism is that a lot of women use it when it suits them but when it isn't useful they'll drop it like a $2 habit. So they will be like "hmph, you think I can't do that because I'm a girl!" and then they will do the thing society told them they couldn't do... but they still will want protection from an evil thug in an alley... because well, that is also natural because women on average have weaker bodies or something (well according to the frailty myth they don't but I disagree) and I guess my point is, anybody can take political correction too far. I don't want women to feel bad for needing/even wanting to be protected or anything but... I feel like society is pulling them in so many directions. You're still expected to be everything to everybody kinda. You have to be this dykey career-focused girl who is independent and has her own money but at the same time you have to be a caring compassionate friend.

And it goes both ways and often with feminism we forget about the man. Part of feminism (it should have a different name like gender equality imo- that would even help include gay people as misogyny is linked to homophobia) is understanding that men have feelings and souls we just aren't brutes who lift milk crates. Studies have shown if men feel comfortable to talk about our feelings we will commit a lot less violent crimes. I also don't like being tall and looking 'manly' because people ASSume all sorts of stuff about me, yes a lot of if it is positive but it's negative as well. I've seen women put men in a box just as much as males have put females in a box, so instead of feminism - which would put too much power in the hands of females and thus exacerbating things and creating more victims, we need to call it something else, gender equality is the best imo. After all, the entire point of not being able to discriminate based on sexual orientation is that it applies to straight people as well, but again we as a nation have to utilize common sense. I don't like a bunch of straight men looking in our bars like we're zoo animals, or we exist as nothing but a joke to them, sometimes it's okay to just want to be around your own kind and discriminate others on a personal basis... it doesn't mean people are haters or "wanting to keep the negro down" as it were.

I think this is healthy for every movement, a lot of women advocate for feminism but women don't like each other... they don't like other women yet they are for woman's rights. it's bizarre to me. It's disheartening to me when girls don't get along.

Also on Buffy, a very feminist show which I love, they sometimes tried to "fix" things by humiliating the guys and empowering the girls too much, which was eyeroll to me, and it really reminds me of this super good quote I heard somebody say once:

Most people don't want to end human suffering. They just want to be the ones that are holding the whip.

[Beautiful sky]

my feminist views are mostly concerning the issues of sexual violence and widespread assumptions about gender which i don't think are moot in western culture. these studies are from the 90s but they get at the sort of thing i'm talking about and i don't think they're resolved. there are definitely far worse things happening in the world. i don't know if we should start comparing pakistani women to starving african children or litter in nyc to smog in china or if these kinds of comparisons are relevant.

i also don't know if i'm idiosyncratic in thinking that things like mens custody rights and the low reporting rates of abused males are also issues that fall under the umbrella of feminism. just like cultural acceptance of rape and murder of middle eastern women, they are symptoms of the historical perception of gender. i've been told maybe i should just call myself a proponent of human rights, but that feels like giving in.

it is frustrating, though, that mens rights and feminism are seen as opposing philosophies. its also frustrating when men are blamed in isolation or when i'm accused of blaming men in isolation when the historical root issue is all pervasive and has been perpetuated by society in general, including men and women, for how many years. its also frustrating when extremists are used as examples of feminism, just like all republicans are tea partiers and all those for drug legalization are potheads.

So, you're saying that women are less likely to report sexual abuse because they view the crime because they're made to feel embarrassed by society's expectations and men less likely to report their crime because they see themselves as men? And the feelings of shame or guilt is set by how society views gender rights/roles? And, you do you see the "feminist" role as the "fighter" against these gender stereotypes to prevent these views so that women can break free from these thoughts and protect themselves when needed?

[ashlesha]

So, you're saying that women are less likely to report sexual abuse because they view the crime because they're made to feel embarrassed by society's expectations and men less likely to report their crime because they see themselves as men? And the feelings of shame or guilt is set by how society views gender rights/roles? And, you do you see the "feminist" role as the "fighter" against these gender stereotypes to prevent these views so that women can break free from these thoughts and protect themselves when needed?

i think societal expectations are one major reason both males and females don't report. i think the rates for females are brought up to highlight how common it is and to counter the "bitches always false accusing" thing. i dont know the numbers otoh but i'm pretty sure reporting rates are much lower for males because the climate created by gender roles makes it even harder for them, i think. (and this is where indignant anti feminists jump in and blame womens expectations of men but i think its a side effect of a culture that labels men as stronger and more capable, which has been generally convenient for men for a pretty long time.)

i don't really have an opinion on what the "feminist role" is. i think a feminist is whoever calls themselves one. different feminists have wildly different agendas and opinions.

[ashlesha]

What do you propose be done?

in the western world like ive said i think its generally just a culture thing and there's not much to be done except communicate. i mean if you could bring the percentage of 11-14 year old kids who think rape is acceptable inside of marriage down from 87% to 0% that would be fantastic, but that's not something you can write into policy. i'm not even sure how i feel about policies in colleges that favor women etc. since i think that sort of thing breeds resentment and perpetuates the "men and women have to fight for opposing rights" myth and i'm not sure if the pros outweigh the cons in the long run.

so i dunno. i think visibility and time are on the side of a lot of "fairness and rights" types issues like gay marriage, etc, like how interracial marriage is pretty normal now (at least in my part of the country). i don't know what causes major shifts in public consciousness that happen quickly so all i know to do is provide visibility and foster communication and wait. i know this isn't a very satisfying response. there are more tangible efforts to be made other places in the world about more pressing feminist issues.

[Aquagraph]

in the western world like ive said i think its generally just a culture thing and there's not much to be done except communicate. i mean if you could bring the percentage of 11-14 year old kids who think rape is acceptable inside of marriage down from 87% to 0% that would be fantastic, but that's not something you can write into policy.

Is this a statistic?!

i'm not even sure how i feel about policies in colleges that favor women etc.

This kind of benevolent sexism makes some women get the place instead of more qualified men. It also means that in time all women going and gone through those institutions will suffer from the prejudice as they are seen as less qualified.

If doing that is okay, why wouldn't we also do the same with ethnic minorities?

[ashlesha]

Is this a statistic?!.

its in the link from my first post. its kind of dated (from 1991 iirc) so i wonder what the number would be now. it was 87% of boys and also a significant number of girls, i think it was like forty something (can't be bothered on my phone but the link is there.) the study used the word "forced sex" to avoid the stigma of the word "rape." it also asked if forced sex was acceptable under various other scenarios and the responses are pretty depressing.

edit: just checked and it was 79% of girls. damn

[Aquagraph]

its in the link from my first post. its kind of dated (from 1991 iirc) so i wonder what the number would be now. it was 87% of boys and also a significant number of girls, i think it was like forty something (can't be bothered on my phone but the link is there.) the study used the word "forced sex" to avoid the stigma of the word "rape." it also asked if forced sex was acceptable under various other scenarios and the responses are pretty depressing.

Raping within a marriage was still legal here back in 1994 or 1995. Although I guess feminism is doing well overall, this seems to be very persistent. Maybe we are hardwired biologically to think so or something.

[squark]

Is this a statistic?!

This kind of benevolent sexism makes some women get the place instead of more qualified men. It also means that in time all women going and gone through those institutions will suffer from the prejudice as they are seen as less qualified.

If doing that is okay, why wouldn't we also do the same with ethnic minorities?

They do. It's called affirmative action. And one effect is that the women and minorities that do get jobs in typically white male-centric occupations where affirmative action is in place are automatically eyed with suspicion because people assume they're not as qualified. There are a number of people who refuse to go to black doctors for example because they assume that they're clueless numbskulls who only got through med school due to affirmative action policies. There are also places in the US that are very white-dominated states, where if you're a minority you can get practically any job you want if it's state/government related, with just the barest of qualifications because it's so difficult for them to meet the required quota.

Those policies have nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with sexism and racism, as it's assuming that women and minorities need help to get into certain jobs or professions because they're inherently inferior to white men. A lot of people don't recognize it for what it is, and call it a victory for women's rights or victory over racism, and it's nothing of the sort.

Any time you make special rules that apply to certain groups and not others, it separates those groups and creates an inequality among them. There has been for quite a few years a push to get women into STEM jobs (science, tech, engineering, math) and it's been a success in some ways, as now women outnumber men among PHD students in STEM fields, but, when you look closer, they're all crowded into the softer, human-centric areas. Biology and health, not CS, physics or engineering. In math and engineering - men still far outnumber women, because few women WANT to go into math or engineering. The only thing that forcing a quota in those areas would do, would be to give the few women in the fields an extremely unfair advantage. And it'd make the very qualified women that are working in the fields suddenly eyed with suspicion, and seen as less qualified than they actually are as people would assume they had help to get where they did.

[Absurd]

Oh squark, let Aqua fight whatever he is fighting...

I heard Garden Gnomes are oppressed and would prefer to spend their free time under water and not in garden.

Egalitarianism misunderstood once again.

[Words]

I believe in equal rights, except I don't know if feminism..... well women are ready for it, to be completely equal.

As a man I still treat most women differently, because, regardless of the intellectual arguments, as a man I can say to another man, eg "This is shit", but to say it to a women I phrase it differently, simply because i'm aware of the physical differences and a women might find it overbearing for example, seeing someone bigger than them being a little annoyed about something.

It's not just as simple as that, I find men evaluate things in terms of does it work/not work, whereas women evaluate it on, do I like this person/not like this person.

Also, gender has been investigated, but I don't trust all the findings because to produce dichotomous results can leave the researches open to being called sexist, but here's something from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...ans#Psychology

Differences in male and female jealousy can also be observed. While female jealousy is more likely to be inspired by emotional infidelity, male jealousy is most likely to be brought on by sexual infidelity. A clear majority of approximately 62% to 86% of women reported that they would be more bothered by emotional infidelity and a clear majority of 47% to 60% of men reported that they would be more bothered by sexual infidelity.[8]

Seems a common thread that women are more passioned by emotional things, and i've seen this trait through various cultures i've read about.

So maybe I got it wrong but it seems to work in what I can understand in my experience.

Ultimately I think we should have the same opportunities, but the sexes will still treat each other differently in comparison to how they will treat their same sex.

[FDG]

It's not just as simple as that, I find men evaluate things in terms of does it work/not work, whereas women evaluate it on, do I like this person/not like this person.

Meh, I haven't really found this to be true at all, in my circles.

[malna]

Generally speaking, there are some nasty leftovers in people's brains from overpast times.

I don't think any of them ever even thought of going to the police because it would have emasculated them.

That's one example.

We can agree that they don't belong, still they have an impact. Sometimes we notice, probably more often we don't because we grew up in this, but it's harmful regardless. So I'm a feminist. Wham!

Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with Words:

Ultimately I think we should have the same opportunities, but the sexes will still treat each other differently in comparison to how they will treat their same sex.

Exactly this. Perception of men and women has been and will be different, same for treating them. Fighting this would be ridiculous but it just shows that there is a need to keep an open eye so that these differences won't influence granted possibilities.

[Words]

Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with Words:


Exactly this. Perception of men and women has been and will be different, same for treating them. Fighting this would be ridiculous but it just shows that there is a need to keep an open eye so that this differences won't influence granted possibilities.

Are we the sexes opposite then...some emoticon like >..>

[malna]

Don't push it.

[blackburry]

~~~F ornication.

[InvisibleJim]

I treat everyone equally. It's not popular because men like to see women get preference and many woman like to feel both 'special' yet 'empowered'. Destructive testing has shown this is the most confusing thing about dealing with most women. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary mixture of 'you must be my shining knight' coupled with 'fuck you for being a chauvinist' had to stop. So it did

I found a much better way to value people, by what value they bring: Do they make other people more productive? Can they do something no-one else can do? Are they someone you just want to have around? Are they trustworthy and beyond reproach? If most of these are exhibited to be a yes, then regardless of their sex they are good people. But no-one gets chauvinist favours.

However there is a lot of changes which are required to remove certain biases in the social state and legal systems to remove legacy anti-male discrimination that is inherent to their design.

As I once told an INFp lodger who was staying with me when she complained that she left her husband and the country of Belgium her kid stayed with him 'Well, I don't really think that's a problem, sounds pretty fair to me.' AGHAST REACTION 'I'm sorry that you assumed there was the same bias in the Belgian legal system as here, unfortunately it matches with how I think the world should work. Didn't you do your research before you got married and bred? Surely you considered him a capable man to breed with and to look after the child in your absence?'.

[xerx]

I'm more attracted to people that act like equals and share my interests.

I don't want to live out my life with some submissive homemaker wife in a suburban house with a white picket fence. I would probably commit suicide from boredom.

Also, I hate being the one expected to pay for expenses, including dates. I appreciate it when there is agreement to split the payment in proportion to each person's level of income.

[ashlesha]

lkgblhbjlgbkjlhlkjhlkhshdfljkdhaflkashflakdjshfsdf kjasdfha

[Absurd]

As long feminists won't turn out like Black Panthers did, that is, ending up promoting everything they have fought against, you don't have anything to fear.