Senate Let's talk about sexism.

I applaud the way you give these issues their due seriousness by using them as springboard for insults of the sort you make in every single other inane thread.

Even accepting the entirety of your implication--that Vivec specifically has a lot of unexamined views and in fact supports cultural conventions that implicitly perpetuate and condone unequal treatment of women--that's not the same thing as a person consciously arguing that "sexism is okay." Nor does it really motivate anyone to change their ideas. Can we perhaps embrace a bit larger of discussion than finding the newest vehicle for schoolyard taunts? Is there a way to discuss a profoundly important cultural issue in a way that doesn't make it about belittling or praising individual users that are actually pretty peripheral to the thread?

I've enjoyed the articles a lot and the other stuff. . .considerably less.

 

I stated earlier, and will again, that I believe that gender roles developed in society as cultural memes to stabilize society, encourage reproduction, protect those most intimately associated with reproduction (women and children) from harm, and put those with the most physical capability in positions to utilize that strength for society's benefit. I think that memes like beliefs in biological determinism serve purposes like reinforcing the gender roles.

Note well that this isn't a statement on whether or not gender roles SHOULD exist. Merely an explanation of a belief of why they do.

Most young people I know believe that men and women are fundamentally different and should be treated differently in some ways. However, most people perceive themselves as believing in gender equality. I don't know anyone who (consciously) believes that women should be paid less than men for the same job.

One example: I'm part of a men's group that does homeless outreach. The leader of the group stated at our last meeting, "I'm not sexist, but this outreach is restricted to men. It's simply too dangerous out there." We go out at night and give food, drink, and warm clothing to the homeless who have been kicked out of shelters because of violent behavior or substance abuse. Now, the leader of this group has obviously expressed that he believes women should be treated differently than men - he's explicitly discriminating. If you asked his girlfriend, she'd certainly say he wasn't sexist and say he treats her as an equal. This was a clear example of him discriminating, though. He, and I would surmise most of the guys there, did not think his words or behavior sexist.

He believes in gender roles that emphasize female safety and place men at risk. However, I'm 100% certain he would say men and women deserve equal pay, women should be able to be doctors, lawyers, President, or whatever. He would also decry rape, sex trafficking, and pornography.

Among young, religious men and women, attitudes like his are very typical. Among my non-religious friends, attitudes are actually pretty similar. Most people believe in gender roles. People who believe that men and women should be treated identically without any regard for their sex or gender, I find, are very rare.

 

LostOnHoth made a good attempt at it on the previous page... closest we've come, within the last several pages, to a person taking part in an actual discussion.

 

this

 

I mean there's a sort of chicken and egg thing as far as pornography is concerned but I think internet porn is an easy scapegoat for tropes that are way, way more pervasive in the publicly acknowledged arenas of society than we care to admit.. For example I had a big facebook discussion today about the character Skyler in Breaking Bad. Without getting into spoilers she doesn't support her husband doing bad things and everyone seems to hate her for that - even though we're supposed to acknowledge his actions are wrong whatever the motivations. The word 'nag' got thrown around more than once which is weird for such a non-sitcomy show. Maybe there's something there.

That said, even very educated women seem to, on average, gravitate more towards child rearing and such than comparably educated men do, for whatever reason. It's surely a function of our expectations but maybe isn't so bad of a phenomenon - I can't think of a better word to describe someone who turns down a life of high stakes finance for example than 'sane', but that's not my world so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

No stahp.

 

Did you read that Daily Life article too?

 

If that's what they'd rather do I have a tough time making an issue out of it, especially if it's to gain points in some sort of race with a statistical average. The bigger deal is figuring out if they're doing it because their future ambitions aren't supported by enough people or if its because they simply value that choice over continuing the rat race - if it's the latter then we should probably hope that more men make that choice rather than hoping more women make the opposite.

 

God forbid that women should want children over money.

 

Took me a while to track it down but basically this article from The Atlantic is what I was thinking about, by Clinton's former director of policy at state:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/]Full[/url] Article

 

Suzy this thread is about not being sexist. You should take a back seat and think about what you've said.

 

So far I've said that I don't see a problem with what women want, on average, being different from what men want on average. Related to this, I've said that I don't think male ambitions, on average, should be the standard for everyone. I've also said that women or men wanting to spend more time with their family than on their career isn't necessarily a bad thing. Which of these do you have a problem with?

 

You're essentially just spouting out a lot of opinions about women, and given your vast experience of being a woman I'm calling you on your BS. Furthermore, you don't seem to have read the OP at all. You just sound like one of those guys who claims to be modern and support women's rights and then backs it up with a ton of opinions that are actually pretty softcore sexist, and then ask what the problem is.

 

The discussion topic..

 

The opinions I'm 'spouting' aren't about 'women', they're about social outcomes, why they happen, and which ones we want. And even if they were about women, I don't get how it isn't relevant to the OP? This is one of the bigger questions people have on the gender gap on incomes that you mentioned in the OP. I don't really understand how anything I've said would require being a woman to say, since my stance is basically "I feel like they should do what they want to do". Also if my opinions are sexist why not just explain why rather than just saying that they are?

 

The sexist thing is that you are saying (From what I gather) women chose not to enter the workplace, instead of acknowledging the societal barriers in education and hiring.

Then people with those lives should be a small percentage of the population, but the exact same ratio of genders. Choice and sanity aren't factors here.

 

^that.

Anyways on topic, I was just informed today that I would probably not be able to work for a company because said company doesn't have any women in that department. Apparently women can't handle that kind of "atmosphere". Said company is going to get a copy of my resume and a goatse virus after I get hired somewhere else.

 

Why should it be the same?

Should the number of stay-at-home dads and stay-at-home moms be the same? Should the number of men who have sex with men and the number of men who have sex with women (and correspondingly for women) be the same? Should the number of male childcare workers and female childcare workers be the same?

Why can't men and women make different choices? Why can't men and women be different? Why should they be the same?

Certainly I think that women who want to enter fields like finance should have that option, but why should the ratios be the same? Why do they have to be the same?

Um . . .

Who informed you of this? If it was a representative of the company, I have a more constructive suggestion for you:

File a discrimination claim.

Companies like that should not be able to get away with such blatantly discriminatory policies.

 

1) I'm saying that men and women make different decisions about advancing their careers which is http://www.immpressmagazine.com/closing-the-gender-gap-for-women-in-science/]true[/url] but only a partial explanation of the wage gap, and might itself be because women who decide to have a family are treated differently.

2) Maybe it should be the exact same ratio, I dunno. But as long as men and women interested in it are equally supported in general in pursuing it, the fact that there might be a difference in the percentage of genders going for it doesn't strike me as necessarily bad. Men and women have different average levels of interest in a lot of things. Surely the message of equality isn't that we're supposed to be the same thing, but that we're supposed to have the same opportunities and such.

With that I'm out, I don't really want to belabor the point if it's not relevant to the thread.

 

Yes. Gender roles are a construction of society. They may have been needed in a hunter/gatherer society or efficient for farmers to have the tasks divided, but now there are two-income households, single parents, etc. The traditional nuclear family is no longer a requirement.

Impossible, as these rates are determined by biology.

Because they are the same. but what someone has down there doesn't affect your ability to work in any specific field and segregation is not needed. I understand that masculine is associated with physical strength and femininity is associated with emotional intelligence, but I genuinely wonder what percentage of that is learned.

 

It's not learned or a meaningless distinction if a particular level of physical strength is a requirement of the job. For example, combat roles in combat units in the armed forces, which in general across the world women are excluded from. There is a specific segregation there for very good physical reasons, and some substantial psychological reasons.

Differences in physical gender performance are well-recognised. It's so well-recognised and so much a fact of basic biology that ISO and EN standards in workplaces -- which are in effect the UN standards for many industries --( ISO 11228 (Ergonomics - Manual handling) and EN 1005 (Safety of machinery - Human physical performance)) -- restrict women to two thirds of the physical performance of men.

 

Yes, because being all litigious is the answer, especially if you can force them into hiring you!

SLG was not at all concerned about the institutionalised bias that says a woman couldn't function in that role or environment. Because she's a woman, she had no idea of her right to sue everyone and was fortunate that a man was there to explain this basic concept to her.

SLG, I explained this for you because I have testicles and the ability to grow facial hair and drive sports cars much faster than you. These attributes are gifted to me in a biological lottery known as gender, and they made me better than you because you don't have those amazing things. You should feel blessed that I was here to stand up for you, my delicate little flower. You can now put this half-baked sexism nonsense to bed.

Oh, it's ok, you can do that after you fix me a sandwich.

 

are we taking issue with everything ozk says just because he's ozk now?