Hi guys , i saw this article last week about female golfers complaining about equality rulings forcing them to pay the same as men at golf clubs.It made me think what would happen if there was a major war and conscription was enacted , for men AND women - after all equality is equality right - would women complain then as well? What about female only gyms - scrap them?
Do women want equality or just preferential treatment? Personally i think the latter.
Lady golfers unhappy about law to end sex discrimination
The Equality Act has given women more rights in golf clubs – but many lady golfers have been left out of pocket and out of sorts.
It was meant to put women on a par with men.
Women golfers have long faced restrictions at their local courses on what times they could play and which bars they could drink in. Often they were blocked from becoming club captain.
So when Harriet Harman introduced the Equality Act to give women more rights in work places and social settings, golf clubs were seen as ripe for reform.
But the drive by Labour’s leading feminist seems to have landed in the bunker. Many women golfers say that, following the changes, which have brought an end to men-only tee-off times at many clubs, they now have to pay more for membership.
Although the legislation was passed by Parliament just before last year’s election and came into force in October, many of its effects are only now being felt, with golf clubs forced to rewrite their own rule books.
Related Articles
* 'Government wasting millions on bizarre equality drives' 23 Jan 2011 * State bodies must spend £30m a year on equality audits 17 Jan 2011 * Equality Act: Six things employers need to know 28 Sep 2010
As well as allowing ladies to play on whatever day they want, clubs are also having to admit women to “men only” bars and restaurants in clubhouses, and some are abolishing the traditional post of club captain. Others are even planning to scrap “husband and wife” contests, replacing them with “mixed competitions” in which civil partners can also compete.
Kirstie Thirde, from the English Golf Partnership which incorporates governing and professional bodies, said many women were unhappy that they must now have the same unrestricted membership terms as men, meaning that they lost their ladies’ discount.
Mrs Thirde backed the Act but admitted: “Many golf club ladies don’t want equality.
“All they feel the Equality Act does is increase their fees and allow them access to the course at weekends, which they really don’t need.
“I visit an awful lot of clubs talking about the equality issue, and they will say to you 'women don’t want this.’ ”
Many women golfers are over 50 and retired. She said: “They play during the week. They don’t need access to the course at the weekend, so why would somebody pay for something they don’t want?”
Chris Jones, editor of Golf World magazine, said he too had heard women golfers complaining about the Act. “A lot of them are on fixed incomes and can’t justify an extra £40 a month for golf club membership.
“Most women don’t want to play with us men. They don’t want to endure the bravado, the trying to play like Tiger Woods, and the swearing, stamping and snapping of golf clubs that ensues. Ladies’ day is their day when they can get away from us.”
At some clubs, the post of club captain – once the preserve of men only – has been scrapped in favour of separate ladies’ and men’s captains. A 70-year-old honorary secretary at one club, who asked not to be named, regretted the change.
“To be club captain is one of the highest honours. These people that come up with the legislation don’t understand the traditions of this place.”
Some clubs have introduced changes with reluctance. Lenzie Golf Club, near Glasgow, announced that “veteran ladies” would now be expected to pay the same as “veteran gents”.
However, Robert Chalmers, the club captain, added: “I hope members will appreciate the changes are to be made as the result of legislation which we must comply with and not of our own initiation.”
A newsletter from Northwood Golf Club in Middlesex worried that “the new law bans the candidacy of a captain only being available to men. There’ll be a few harrumphs about this at the club bar, I am sure.”
The move was voted through with a big majority, but the club is now grappling with the thornier issue of whether it can still allow husband and wife discounts, or whether the average couple will have to pay an extra £200 in fees.
In Northwood’s newsletter, Steve Derbyshire, the club’s general manager, writes that “husband and wife competitions are discriminatory and need to be 'mixed competitions’ in future, taking into account civil partnerships as well as gender reassignment and sexual orientation issues”.
Alison Root, 43, the editor of Women & Golf magazine and a regular player, admitted: “To be honest, a lot of women don’t want change. They play during the week. They don’t care what happens on Saturdays. If you’re happy with your lot, why change?”
Objections to the Act among female golfers surprised Barry Johnston, compiler of the book The Wit of Golf. “I am sure they don’t want to go back to the bad old days,” he said.
“That’s when you heard stories about the ladies sitting on the veranda who were appalled by swearing from so-called gentlemen on the 18th hole. When the ladies complained, the committee took action – by banning ladies from the veranda.”
On February 16 2011 18:43 opsayo wrote: im sure far reaching generalizations of the female sex is the way towards intelligent discussion
OK , so you don't think men get a raw deal in the family courts with regard to child payments in divorce cases or how often they get to see the children etc? Where is the equality there?
Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?
Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?
Yes, women don't want equality. That's exactly it. Maybe your stupid golf course should just offer 'weekday passes' and 'all-week' passes and appropriate prices or something. Even if the golf courses don't care about having different prices, I don't really understand how you're making the leap from a few dumb women (be sure not to take this to mean all women are dumb, but that the author sought out these women who are dumb) being quoted saying stupid things, to all women are greedy and just want special treatment.
On February 16 2011 19:01 BasilPesto wrote: I don't get how you can go from equality on the golfing course, to equality on military front-lines, and then back to gyms.
Those were all examples of the topic....
For the record, we live in a patriarchal society where women are oppressed and discriminated against... so how about some sympathy?
Maybe that was true 50 years ago , the pendulum has swung too far the other way now.
In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs. Many will agree that wealth is the best determinant for success. Despite all of the progress so far, for equality, for equal treatment, women are still less likely to succeed as determined by the metrics of our society--money.
Also, there's a difference between physical, biological disparities between men and women, and equality through the means of legal rights.
but in all seriousness, this sort of shit pisses me off. they dont want equality, they want power. also, what iPlaY.NettleS said.
Maybe that was true 50 years ago , the pendulum has swung too far the other way now.
ive had waaaayyyyy too much of this feminist crap preached onto me, so i have a natural bias against it.
SURE, im for equal pay in jobs, SURE they should be given an opportunity. NO, im against them working in industry/metalworks/etc if they're pregnant, YES i believe some jobs are "for men" and other jobs are "for women".
a friend of mine said "in the future, the white, straight, male is going to be the lowest and most oppressed of the minority groups" and i have to agree. im all for eqaulity, but everyone needs to know what that is.
They want equality, have it in most things, but get preferential treatment sometimes for various things, usually because men give it, not because women want it.
If there would be an equality, why is there 2 totally different and distinct sexes? Answer is, there is no equality. Physiologies, psychologies, social responsibilities of both sexes are much different and these 3 are not the only fields of differences and these differences make both sexes so distinct and different. Thing is, there shouldn't be an equality and both sexes have to be treated differently.
On February 16 2011 19:13 Chef wrote: Maybe your golf course should just offer 'weekday passes' and 'all-week' passes and appropriate prices or something.
Like this filtered quote says, there are countable infinity number of ways to provide what women want. But, this is only true when women know what they want and express correctly. Women only golf courts? Easy. Courts should be open to both men and women and women will be able to play with men? Easy. Courts should be open to both men and women and women don't want to play with men? Easy as well. Thing is, what they want is so indefinite and indeterminate. If they are sure of what they want and express clearly, it may be done.
But, in this second case, it's different. Women want to play with men in a court that is open for both men and women, but men don't want to play with women? Hold it right there. This is the borderline for women to stop and respect what men think or feel. This time, you should find other men who are not against the idea of playing with women. And, women shouldn't expect men to respect their opinion if they won't respect men's opinion in the first place.
I read an article about equality in the human race, and I think some of it applies here. I can't find the specific article again, but I believe it was in a Discover magazine (Not googling this subject because I know I will get a mountain of shit).
But at the end of the article, the subject of the article stated that people should not expect that everyone in the human race should be equal, but that they bring different things into the melting pot that is humanity. That's not referring to, if someone should get more rights than another, it's referring to the physical and mental attributes of the different cultures and genders. Using some examples of stereotypes: Asians are good at math, Black people are good at sports; these aren't negative things, they add to humanity as a whole.
That said I do sometimes think women are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Then again so does everyone else, but in different areas.
Equality, to most people, means "I get all the perks that you do, but you don't get all the perks that I do".
Pure equality is something that people on either side of disparity cannot visualize, because it is tainted by their own desires. It's incredibly difficult to even concieve of pure equality between people, because it's just that unnatural.
Women and men are not the same. They are very, very different. The feminist movement is a very silly one IMO, they don't even want equality they want superiority.
I don't believe in being a douche to women or mistreating them or forcing them into things they don't want to do, or that they should be in the kitchen or laundry room. But equality is just plain stupid, it's never good for anything.
I also think the feminists QQ too much, I mean I have no doubt they are trolled and made fun of, I've seen the hateful comments around the web and Fat, Ugly, or Slutty website and some of it makes me very sad. But I highly doubt they realize how much of that is the case for EVERYONE in this day and age. People find SOMETHING about you to make fun of, that's just how it is. People are douchebags, not just to women.
What pisses me off about some women, is that they want equal treatment in some parts, but not in others. For example, they want equal jobs, equal payment, etc, but at a date, you have to hold the door open for them, and you're supposed to pay. Pick one or the other
On February 16 2011 23:55 Tazza wrote: What pisses me off about some women, is that they want equal treatment in some parts, but not in others. For example, they want equal jobs, equal payment, etc, but at a date, you have to hold the door open for them, and you're supposed to pay. Pick one or the other
Actually the feminist movement wants men to NOT do that stuff.
Which is equally silly IMO. There should be no expectations of equality.
The issue should be about areas where there should actually be equality, but I think it spilled over to everything ever at some point.
There is discrimination for no good reason in the world against women, but I suppose that's not the point of this thread since that's all something we agree shouldn't happen.
On February 16 2011 21:02 Fir3fly wrote: a friend of mine said "in the future, the white, straight, male is going to be the lowest and most oppressed of the minority groups" and i have to agree. im all for eqaulity, but everyone needs to know what that is.
Jesus fucking christ how do you say that out loud without a hint of irony and not want to kill yourself for being such a miserable piece of shit?
Congrats to everyone on this thread for being lucky enough to be blind to your privilege and be able to think that whenever an oppressed group tries to assert its rights that you are somehow being oppressed.
On February 16 2011 21:02 Fir3fly wrote: a friend of mine said "in the future, the white, straight, male is going to be the lowest and most oppressed of the minority groups" and i have to agree. im all for eqaulity, but everyone needs to know what that is.
Jesus fucking christ how do you say that out loud without a hint of irony and not want to kill yourself for being such a miserable piece of shit?
Congrats to everyone on this thread for being lucky enough to be blind to your privilege and be able to think that whenever an oppressed group tries to assert its rights that you are somehow being oppressed.
You can't succumb to emotion when discussing something like this. I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the topic has made it clear they are against actual discrimination. The thing is that really doesn't happen nearly as much as people complain about it; and the feminist movement sets an absurd double standard that has nothing to do with discrimination.
There's no irony in that quote at all. There are so many "special privileges" out there for minorities that the non-minority IS becoming a lower and lower position in society. He's not saying the day is here, he's saying the trend is such that the day will eventually come.
If you disagree, how about some logic instead of profanity and insults?
in the future, the brown, evolving (unsure on gender) zerg will be the lowest minority having to fight for buffs and calling imba on everything
i think the article is more that the equal rights for women in golf (but why would you want to play golf?) that has led to increased costs for women golfers
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
Perhaps living in one of the more "liberal" state and other factors considered has somewhat sheltered me from majority of the statements on that list, but a lot of them seem to be severely outdated or mostly irrelevant. A few of the statements appear to be true on first glance but there are no actual numbers or any percentage given, instead we are provided with a lot of "likely, chances, probably and in general". That list cannot be taken seriously at all.
Disclaimer, perhaps this is true in some part of the world, there is no doubt that that is very possible. It is however does not apply to everyone everywhere.
On February 16 2011 21:02 Fir3fly wrote: a friend of mine said "in the future, the white, straight, male is going to be the lowest and most oppressed of the minority groups" and i have to agree. im all for eqaulity, but everyone needs to know what that is.
Jesus fucking christ how do you say that out loud without a hint of irony and not want to kill yourself for being such a miserable piece of shit?
Congrats to everyone on this thread for being lucky enough to be blind to your privilege and be able to think that whenever an oppressed group tries to assert its rights that you are somehow being oppressed.
You can't succumb to emotion when discussing something like this. I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the topic has made it clear they are against actual discrimination. The thing is that really doesn't happen nearly as much as people complain about it; and the feminist movement sets an absurd double standard that has nothing to do with discrimination.
There's no irony in that quote at all. There are so many "special privileges" out there for minorities that the non-minority IS becoming a lower and lower position in society. He's not saying the day is here, he's saying the trend is such that the day will eventually come.
If you disagree, how about some logic instead of profanity and insults?
No, not everyone did say they are against discrimination. The remainder of the post I quoted is an example. What do you mean it really doesn't happen? Male privilege exists. A man and a woman, from the same circumstances and background, do not perform the same. This means if you control for all other factors, gender decides your success, favoring men. This comes from negative perception of women by men in power, by indoctrination of girls ("your worth correlates to your looks and your ability to please a man, not your individual talents") from a young age, by the perception by society as a whole of women as being sexual objects rather than people, and a whole host of other social factors. This is endemic in most societies, not a sort of random occurrence.
This is true for all oppressed groups. Racial minorities lack the privilege that white people have. A black person is going to do worse than a white person from the same circumstances. Homosexuals lack privilege that heterosexuals do. This doesn't mean "black people can't do well" or "women can't do well" or "gays can't do well", it means that an oppressed person has to be that much better to succeed. As an analogy, if you have two equal performing SC players, but one player starts with two less peons every game and only 10 minerals in the bank, it's clear that he is working much harder than his counterpart to achieve the same results. Would you think it was reasonable for the second player to say "that's going to end with the game being imbalanced towards him!" if we gave the guy his 2 peons and 40 minerals?
Again, to be totally clear (because discussions of privilege always seem to degenerate to the privileged talking about THIS ONE PERSON THAT I KNOW WHO IS PART OF THAT GROUP BUT MAN THEY MADE A MILLION BUCKS and how their one example of a successful oppressed person is proof that the oppression is imagined), privilege doesn't mean that a member of the oppressed group is unable to perform a member of the unoppressed group. These exceptions are outliers, exceptional people who are able to do exceptional things in the face of such difficulty.
The problem with your viewpoint is you're thinking oppression is this loud thing that anyone who isn't a total bigot will see, like slavery or something. In reality oppression is a quiet part of our day to day lives, ingrained into the way we think. Men are smart, strong leaders and women are weak, subservient, and need to be protected; these ideas form the core of how gender is perceived. People who diverge from these roles are aberrations and deviants. A woman acts too "manly" and she's a dyke or at the very least sexually undesirable (and the fact that this is how she gets valued is part of the oppression). A man acts too "feminine" and he's a pussy (wow a gendered term which reinforces gender roles, this just keeps getting deeper doesn't it!), or as the esteemed poster above put it, a "FAAAAAAAAAAGGGG".
I can only assume this line of thought derives from having privilege in every way, and therefore not ever having to fall victim to these less blatant, ball-and-chain forms of oppression. But please, read the pdf linked above, and consider what your life would have been like if you just had happened to get that second X chromosome and what differences would be imposed by an external source, simply due to your gender.
Those "special privileges" you're so scared of serve to relieve the imbalance caused by privilege. Feminists (and most champions of oppressed groups) don't want to rule over their oppressors, they want an egalitarian society where people succeed and fail on their own merits rather than their gender or their skin tone or their sexual orientation. These privileges serve to provide a leg up to the people who aren't provided privilege automatically by society, that they can perform at their own level of ability, rather than their ability adjusted down by their gender. One example in this thread, the fact that mothers tend to win custody of children, is not even in the aid of women as much of born from the idea that the woman's job is to care for their children and so they will be more capable of shouldering that burden. Do men want custody of their children? Then they should work towards a society where judgement of someone's ability is in fact based solely on the ability they have, rather than the script handed to them by society.
A very very very small minority, if they even exist at all, believe they should dominate their oppressors. The myth of the "feminazi" who wants to take over and instate a matriarchy is perpetuated, in fact, by the patriarchy in order to silence the movement. The message is if every resistor wants to destroy society and rule over its ruins, then it must be the case that resistance is a mad, antisocial activity which should be suppressed.
The idea that leveling the playing field will result in the privilege-holders becoming the most oppressed class is nonsense drivel fed to society to make sure they hate any push for egalitarianism. It is fed to us to keep us saying "im all for eqaulity, but everyone needs to know what that is" and acting like it's a progressive thought. It's born of the same notion of the privileged that ensuring things are fair is not an elevation of the oppressed but the suppression of the oppressor. The very thought is disgusting because it's so pervasive and is such a powerful blocking factor to any sort of meaningful progress towards actual equality for so many people.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
Perhaps living in one of the more "liberal" state and other factors considered has somewhat sheltered me from majority of the statements on that list, but a lot of them seem to be severely outdated or mostly irrelevant. A few of the statements appear to be true on first glance but there are no actual numbers or any percentage given, instead we are provided with a lot of "likely, chances, probably and in general". That list cannot be taken seriously at all.
Disclaimer, perhaps this is true in some part of the world, there is no doubt that that is very possible. It is however does not apply to everyone everywhere.
That list doesn't feel true for you because chances are, you've never experienced those things.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
Perhaps living in one of the more "liberal" state and other factors considered has somewhat sheltered me from majority of the statements on that list, but a lot of them seem to be severely outdated or mostly irrelevant. A few of the statements appear to be true on first glance but there are no actual numbers or any percentage given, instead we are provided with a lot of "likely, chances, probably and in general". That list cannot be taken seriously at all.
Disclaimer, perhaps this is true in some part of the world, there is no doubt that that is very possible. It is however does not apply to everyone everywhere.
All of these exist and are pervasive in the United States, even in "liberal" states.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
Perhaps living in one of the more "liberal" state and other factors considered has somewhat sheltered me from majority of the statements on that list, but a lot of them seem to be severely outdated or mostly irrelevant. A few of the statements appear to be true on first glance but there are no actual numbers or any percentage given, instead we are provided with a lot of "likely, chances, probably and in general". That list cannot be taken seriously at all.
Disclaimer, perhaps this is true in some part of the world, there is no doubt that that is very possible. It is however does not apply to everyone everywhere.
If you would point out the specific ones you have a problem with, I would be glad to try and find sources. I agree a few things on the list are silly (On a daily basis, you won't be expected to change your name when you get married? =\) but most of them, especially the points about attractiveness/sexuality, childrearing, and the business world are difficult to disagree with IMO.
On February 16 2011 21:02 Fir3fly wrote: a friend of mine said "in the future, the white, straight, male is going to be the lowest and most oppressed of the minority groups" and i have to agree. im all for eqaulity, but everyone needs to know what that is.
Jesus fucking christ how do you say that out loud without a hint of irony and not want to kill yourself for being such a miserable piece of shit?
Congrats to everyone on this thread for being lucky enough to be blind to your privilege and be able to think that whenever an oppressed group tries to assert its rights that you are somehow being oppressed.
You can't succumb to emotion when discussing something like this. I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the topic has made it clear they are against actual discrimination. The thing is that really doesn't happen nearly as much as people complain about it; and the feminist movement sets an absurd double standard that has nothing to do with discrimination.
There's no irony in that quote at all. There are so many "special privileges" out there for minorities that the non-minority IS becoming a lower and lower position in society. He's not saying the day is here, he's saying the trend is such that the day will eventually come.
If you disagree, how about some logic instead of profanity and insults?
How do you know discrimination doesn't occur as much as people complain about it?
The reason minorities get special privileges is that they were systematically oppressed until the very recent past, and arguably still are. We, as the most privileged people in society, cannot simply stop oppressing people and declare things equal due to the advantages we have accumulated.
And it's ridiculous to ask for logic when the position you are defending is "straight white males are no longer incredibly privileged, therefore they will eventually be oppressed." Where is the logic in that? It's a textbook slippery slope fallacy.
On February 17 2011 03:41 PetitCrabe wrote: Next time, I will wait for a girl to open the door for me.
Fair enough. Just spend every morning after you take a shower an hour and a half putting on make up, doing your hair, getting dressed, etc.
So many ignorant posts here, its pretty disgusting.
Yeah. I'm not sure the majority of men have any idea of what "feminism" actually, and for whatever reason some women don't either. Not everyone politicizes everything at all times, especially at a golfing club, but that doesn't mean the ideological background noise isn't there.
I mean, to the extent that feminism cannot be generalized anymore than "a school of thought that pays attention to women," I can't generalize about it, let alone "what women want," but the general, pragmatic feminist byline does not oppose men opening doors for women, just men treating women like chivalric maidens.
So if you are opening doors for women because you believe that women are the fairer, weaker sex, and that as a polite male you wish to preserve from her the stress of opening a door, lest she chip a nail, then, yes, feminism has some issues with you.
If you are opening doors for women and men on the basis of human decency, like "this person has a lot of things in his or her hands, so I will hold the door open" or "this person is right behind me, so why not hold the door open," then you're kosher.
For whatever reason the TL.net Blog section seems like the most peculiar place for flexing one's knowledge of feminism, but I won't be throwing any salvos around here for now.
fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ –noun the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
People who want more than equal treatment just because they have two X chromosomes aren't feminists. They're extremists. I'm all for equal rights....and I don't wait for some random man to show up and open a door for me. Not because I want to be independent from men as a gender - I open the door because I freaking can.
About the golfing - you should get what you pay for. If their membership was less because they were excluded from things, then it has a reason to jump up in price when they were finally included and equal. They shouldn't be paying more than men, though. Same content, same price.
Wait, so women were paying less than men for golfing? Every golf course i've been to costs the same for men, women, boys, girls, grandpas, and grandmas. No reason to have multiple pricing unless you are trying to reach a specific market.
When people complain that the main character in a story is male. When people complain that a male opens the door or gives flowers to a girl. When people complain that females get a special deal on golf. When people complain that there are less female sports leagues. (there are less female athletes.) When people get angry at someone who has shown no disrespect towards anyone due to gender, but has expressed that they do not feel gender roles are as pronounced as they once were. When people get angry for no understandable reason and blame it on sexism. When females assume they are the only ones being trolled on the interw3bz. When females blame all of their problems on sexism instead of trying to achieve their goals. When people try to argue by insulting other people and calling them sexist even though they clearly stated they are against sexism. When people ignore half of your points and quote a small no-context portion of your post, then embellish it to label you a sexist. The attitude that anyone who doesn't think sexism is the biggest problem in the world is part of the problem.
Basically, irrationality. A LOT of people who label themselves feminists are irrational and extremist, and that is the group my comments are directed to. I find actual equality to be an irrationality. Equal opportunity however, I can stand behind.
It's really not hard to open a door, whether or not I choose to hold it open depends on whether or not the person is going to arrive before it fully closes or not. If they are that close, closing it on their face isn't really polite but if they're far enough away they just have to open it normally.
I think the problem here isn't equality, but homogenisation. Women should be allowed to go to women only shit, men should be allowed to go to men only shit, husband and wife stuff should be allowed. I think equating equality and equivalence (holy shit alliteration) is the main problem here.
I heard it described as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I'm totally in favor of equality of opportunity, but definitely not in favor of equality of outcome.
On February 17 2011 05:13 Tzel wrote: fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ –noun the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
People who want more than equal treatment just because they have two X chromosomes aren't feminists. They're extremists. I'm all for equal rights....and I don't wait for some random man to show up and open a door for me.
Cute.
Generally, yes, equality is important; Virginia Woolf, I'm pretty sure, said "feminism" was a misnomer for this very reason. But look, assuming that this equality has been functionally attained (which it hasn't, because as the previously posted PDF noted the higher up you go in most companies and government institutions, the less likely you are to encounter a female, and the more likely you are to find sexist justifications for that), the problem is that male chauvinism asserts itself so easily and unconsciously. Equal opportunity is difficult because it necessitates a restructuring of people's private, reflexive opinions about gender, race, etc., and with almost the entirety of western civilization an assertion of white male dominance, this restructuring is profoundly difficult to do.
With thousands of years of male dominance leading into the 20th century's various feminisms, what does it mean to say, "we are equal," and how can someone presume that this equality has been achieved? Underlying a lot of supposedly civil discourse on this subject (e.g. some posts in this topic that think practical equality is as easy as institutionalizing it; women in the workplace) is a lot of people who privately think women are emotional, irrational, and incompetent, and so long as that attitude exists, equality has not been achieved.
This is why just the process of finding historical records of female agency, female intellectualism, and female perspectives is arduous, a life's work, and why the privileging of the female gaze is imperative - the history of the world is written by the winner, and the winner has been profoundly male because only the male was allowed to play. A large part of feminism is just that: the privileging of female perspectives if only for a moment, because society's gaze (its ideology) is male. A large part of feminism is getting men to shut up for just a moment and let women speak; the weighing of gazes against one another.
I'm not saying the women shouldn't have to pay the same as everyone else. This is bigger than golf: this is about people using this golf story as a synecdoche whereby they judge women and feminism in their entirety. This is about how if a female wants more than equal rights, she's an extremist; if a male wants more than equal rights, he is a man.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
A lot of that list just seems unnecessary, break even or just unproven observations where all you can do is shrug.
I mean look at some of these
13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
Can easily flip this and say if you're a man and you don't have sex that you will be made fun of.
18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch
As opposed to being punched in the face or challenged to a duel?
23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
Does this factor in the # of stay at home moms vs dads? If it does, then duh?
Do we automatically assume if more women want to stay at home than men it's "cultural oppression!"?
26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
This is just basic supply and demand and there is clearly no shortage of dick in the world, which would lead us to believe that maybe there isn't a big market for it.
Of course the statement like everything else seems to imply that there is no demand because of cultural oppression on women. But if we're just randomly throwing around armchair sociology you could just say that poor poor men are culturally driven in to porn with the oppressive women reaping the benefits of higher wages as porn actresses.
I don't really know a lot about feminism or have much of an opinion but I don't think a list like that is going to enlighten anyone. It just seems like a brainstorm list for further study by a freshman sociology student.
Women not making as much as men is going to happen as long as fewer women than men major in fields that will get them high-paying jobs. Look at Engineering, Law, Medical, and Business schools, they're mostly men despite lots of scholarships specifically targeting women to go into those fields.
Also, there's the whole taking time off to raise kids thing.
On February 17 2011 05:13 Tzel wrote: fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ –noun the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
People who want more than equal treatment just because they have two X chromosomes aren't feminists. They're extremists. I'm all for equal rights....and I don't wait for some random man to show up and open a door for me.
Cute.
Generally, yes, equality is important; Virginia Woolf, I'm pretty sure, said "feminism" was a misnomer for this very reason. But look, assuming that this equality has been functionally attained (which it hasn't, because as the previously posted PDF noted the higher up you go in most companies and government institutions, the less likely you are to encounter a female, and the more likely you are to find sexist justifications for that), the problem is that male chauvinism asserts itself so easily and unconsciously. Equal opportunity is difficult because it necessitates a restructuring of people's private, reflexive opinions about gender, race, etc., and with almost the entirety of western civilization an assertion of white male dominance, this restructuring is profoundly difficult to do.
With thousands of years of male dominance leading into the 20th century's various feminisms, what does it mean to say, "we are equal," and how can someone presume that this equality has been achieved? Underlying a lot of supposedly civil discourse on this subject (e.g. some posts in this topic that think practical equality is as easy as institutionalizing it; women in the workplace) is a lot of people who privately think women are emotional, irrational, and incompetent, and so long as that attitude exists, equality has not been achieved.
This is why just the process of finding historical records of female agency, female intellectualism, and female perspectives is arduous, a life's work, and why the privileging of the female gaze is imperative - the history of the world is written by the winner, and the winner has been profoundly male because only the male was allowed to play. A large part of feminism is just that: the privileging of female perspectives if only for a moment, because society's gaze (its ideology) is male. A large part of feminism is getting men to shut up for just a moment and let women speak; the weighing of gazes against one another.
I'm not saying the women shouldn't have to pay the same as everyone else. This is bigger than golf: this is about people using this golf story as a synecdoche whereby they judge women and feminism in their entirety. This is about how if a female wants more than equal rights, she's an extremist; if a male wants more than equal rights, he is a man.
We are equal when gender becomes a characteristic - similar to skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, et cetera - and no longer is part of a person's identity and tied to their personality. I don't know if it will ever happen. A lot of people haven't gotten over the stereotypes that come with blonde hair, or darker skin. Yes, this equality would be almost impossible to see at the individual level, because one cannot see another's thoughts. However. Since being politically correct is so big on the societal agenda...if that kind of prejudice was kept only in the history books as a reference to see how much society has changed, it could be caught in the current generation and have very few ways of continuing past the current chauvinists. Those chauvinists will maybe lock away their feelings and restrict it to themselves, but as long as it is not perpetuated, it can be 'bred out'. When prejudice by any physical characteristic of a person has been suppressed to the individual level and is no longer being passed on and expressed through their children, whether it is due to a sudden enlightenment of the human race or the pressure of society...that will be a day of victory.
The last paragraph in your post interested me in the way that I automatically wrote "I disagree with that last statement because here's X example of males being extremists" - and then it hit me. I couldn't think of any websites or publications with female extremists off the top of my head...because the idea of 'feminism' and 'feminazis' are so prevalent in society that people don't even give it any thought. Sure, everyone knows about those guys that yell 'HEY WOMAN GET ME A SAMMICH AND A BEER" from in front of the TV - but they would definitely be held in higher esteem than a woman who attempted to do something similar to his male counterpart.
(note, I hope this post makes some sense. I just finished it and realized it's past midnight...I'm normally asleep two hours earlier. lol. I'll edit it tomorrow afternoon if need be)
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
A lot of that list just seems unnecessary, break even or just unproven observations where all you can do is shrug.
I mean look at some of these
13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
Can easily flip this and say if you're a man and you don't have sex that you will be made fun of.
18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch
As opposed to being punched in the face or challenged to a duel?
23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
Does this factor in the # of stay at home moms vs dads? If it does, then duh?
Do we automatically assume if more women want to stay at home than men it's "cultural oppression!"?
26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
This is just basic supply and demand and there is clearly no shortage of dick in the world, which would lead us to believe that maybe there isn't a big market for it.
Of course the statement like everything else seems to imply that there is no demand because of cultural oppression on women. But if we're just randomly throwing around armchair sociology you could just say that poor poor men are culturally driven in to porn with the oppressive women reaping the benefits of higher wages as porn actresses.
I don't really know a lot about feminism or have much of an opinion but I don't think a list like that is going to enlighten anyone. It just seems like a brainstorm list for further study by a freshman sociology student.
There are definitely feminists that would agree with a few of the points you've made. Some will acknowledge that the double standard for the amount of sex you have is unfair both ways; a few will acknowledge that there is actually a substantial amount of career-related societal pressure that men have to deal that prevents them from spending more time at home or even outright becoming stay-at-home dads. I'm not saying that these feminists make a majority or even number significantly as those who identify as feminists, but they do exist.
It's problematic in that the feminist movement is incredibly bloated (much like how political parties in the US can cover a very wide range of interests and issues), and that people are more inclined to focus on their issues of concern within the movement itself. I mean, the patriarchal structure of society that's existed up to now isn't susceptible to overnight change, so there will be certain social and cultural stigmas that favor one gender over another.
Current standards widely favor female bodies as sex objects and homemakers and male bodies (more like persons) as success objects. In that regard men do have an edge when it comes to things like career (and avoiding sexual harassment), and I'm not one to deny it. But, it's always good to acknowledge the converse - that these stereotypes can and DO work both ways. I imagine some men would like to spend more time with their families and doing things around the house, but there's always the pressure to advance so you can provide more for your family materially speaking.
Some feminists will acknowledge those issues; others will ignore. I think a lot of men don't really notice or care, as men are wont to do, but whether or not this is due to socialization or to do with genetics has to deal more with biology and gender psychology which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
On February 17 2011 05:27 darmousseh wrote: Wait, so women were paying less than men for golfing? Every golf course i've been to costs the same for men, women, boys, girls, grandpas, and grandmas. No reason to have multiple pricing unless you are trying to reach a specific market.
I don't understand australia.
It was an article from a UK newspaper , did you even read my post?
I tend to be a little bit of an old school type guy. I was raised in that sort of a family where the man was the head of the household and the woman was the man's support or back up ( I don't mean this to be derogatory toward women). It was just the way I was raised so I grew up believing that men, in general we supposed to have a more chivalrous outlook when it came to women. Then I got out into the real world. I would say that the vast majority of women don't really want equal treatment but preferential treatment. Where I work, the boss tries his best to make it well known that men and women are paid equal. However if both a man and a woman are there and a heavy object needs moved or anything that would be traditionally considered a "man's job" needs done he gets it. Even if he is so busy he can hardly breathe and she is sitting on her butt eating bon bons. The man doesn't get extra pay. He doesn't get any benefits at all for having to do the extra work. He just does it because he is a man. This is just an example of the way it seems to be in my area at least. When I was in the Air Force it was the same. Women were supposed to be treated equal but were clearly given preferential treatment. On night watch, they had cable t.v. and in each room they had a mini fridge. We had to make due with several hours of walking and trying to come up with something to say to the guy that you're stuck on watch with and have nothing in common.
On another note how about the fact that it is totally culturally acceptable for a woman to leave a man because he makes no or too little money but if the tables were reversed it would be totally wrong? I see this one all the time. Women I know are ok with breaking up with a man because he doesn't have a good enough job to "take care of them." Why is that ok? What if I left my wife because she doesn't make enough money to put me through college? I think that society in general would look on me negatively while if it were the other way around most people would have no problem with it.
I did write a long post that would have netted me a warning when I re-read it, so here is a shorter opinion.
Equality isn't possible with our current technology. Biology states that females and males of the human race are different. Males in general have higher muscle mass so things that require heavy lifting or similar is favoured for males by a small margin (not that many jobs of this kind left). Females also need to bear children or the race will die out.
These two things means equality can't happen, we can get pretty close though and favour women over men to get equal end results. Which will gall most males since they have more months spent working and don't get anything for it since the companies will have to compensate the females for keeping the race alive.
It is an iffy issue that won't be resolved until we get an even higher level of living (where work isn't really needed)/force males to take care of the children (for a time at least) or get the technology to cheaply have children born outside of the mother.
On February 16 2011 23:55 Tazza wrote: What pisses me off about some women, is that they want equal treatment in some parts, but not in others. For example, they want equal jobs, equal payment, etc, but at a date, you have to hold the door open for them, and you're supposed to pay. Pick one or the other
On February 16 2011 23:55 Tazza wrote: What pisses me off about some women, is that they want equal treatment in some parts, but not in others. For example, they want equal jobs, equal payment, etc, but at a date, you have to hold the door open for them, and you're supposed to pay. Pick one or the other
I think it's unfair to say, "Pick one of the other." A date is COMPLETELY different from jobs, equal pay, and all that.
You DON'T HAVE TO pay for dinner or hold the door open for them. But it is polite and you're considered a gentleman if you do. But it's not something you have to do. What you do on a date for a woman is your choice, depending on how much you like her and what you want out of the relationship forming.
If you're just wanting a quick fuck, and you're just in it for the game, then do it. Charm her and get her in bed. If you're wanting a relationship, or something more than just friends, do it. But don't go all the way. If you find out you don't like her, don't do it, but still be nice. You were never told, "You have to do this and this for women whether you like it or not." In the long run though, if you do these things, they will be reciprocated in a similar way. Whether it's the woman paying once, or her making you dinner, or doing something special. Most of the time, it's never one sided. :/
My boyfriend paid for lunch the first time we went out, and then I paid. A lot of the times when we go out i'll pay, hold the door open, things like that, because I ask him for back rubs when my back is hurting or I ask him to grab me gravol when I have a tummy ache.
Women I know are ok with breaking up with a man because he doesn't have a good enough job to "take care of them." Why is that ok?
It's not. That's the whole point of female independence. Women are taught from a young age in our culture that they are supposed to find a man to take care of them. The feminist movement is trying to get rid of that neediness, and create women who have confidence in their own abilities and can do what they want if they work hard.
In our media and in our arts, we train men and women to think of each other in certain ways. These thoughts are entirely cultural and have nothing to do with biology. Do men have more upper body mass than women on average? Of course. That doesn't mean a woman can't pick up a box and move it. The difference is not that huge. If you want a piano moved, is it probably going to be moved by men? Yeah, because our culture tells women they are unattractive if their muscles are too big. But you aren't going to get normal guys moving that piano either. That's a job that requires working out for muscle mass.
Saying that you've met hypocrites doesn't make sexism okay, especially when it is sexism that creates those hypocrites.
On February 16 2011 23:55 Tazza wrote: What pisses me off about some women, is that they want equal treatment in some parts, but not in others. For example, they want equal jobs, equal payment, etc, but at a date, you have to hold the door open for them, and you're supposed to pay. Pick one or the other
I think it's unfair to say, "Pick one of the other." A date is COMPLETELY different from jobs, equal pay, and all that.
You DON'T HAVE TO pay for dinner or hold the door open for them. But it is polite and you're considered a gentleman if you do. But it's not something you have to do. What you do on a date for a woman is your choice, depending on how much you like her and what you want out of the relationship forming.
If you're just wanting a quick fuck, and you're just in it for the game, then do it. Charm her and get her in bed. If you're wanting a relationship, or something more than just friends, do it. But don't go all the way. If you find out you don't like her, don't do it, but still be nice. You were never told, "You have to do this and this for women whether you like it or not." In the long run though, if you do these things, they will be reciprocated in a similar way. Whether it's the woman paying once, or her making you dinner, or doing something special. Most of the time, it's never one sided. :/
My boyfriend paid for lunch the first time we went out, and then I paid. A lot of the times when we go out i'll pay, hold the door open, things like that, because I ask him for back rubs when my back is hurting or I ask him to grab me gravol when I have a tummy ache.
=_____=''
While that may be your reality, it`s not a universally spread way of living. The sad reality is that a large percentage of women absolutely expect preferential treatment whenever they want it. Not 90% of them or anything crazy and I don't have any statistics to back up that claim but enough that it`s a crap shoot when you meet a new girl (be it as a date or a new coworker). Sometimes you get a decent human being, sometimes you get a "princess". From my experience, I've noticed that educated women tend to be not as needy in such a sense of entitlement but that's not exactly a fact, just what I've lived through.
The feminist movement can be pretty unfair and downright scary for any man. I'm all for equal pay and benefits but unfortunately it never stops there. I can get fired because a girl felt I looked at her the wrong way even if I was just staring into space. I can have a sexual harassment case on my hands because I make a bad joke and someone takes it too personally. I can be put into jail for rape after a consenting sexual relationship because the girl randomly decides she hates me, with very little chance of me winning the case even if she presents no evidence. These might seem a bit exaggerated but these are things people go through every day and I could go on.
On the other hand, these type of rules rarely apply to women. I'm not saying they are immune to being fired or that they don't have their own set of challenges compared to men (such as earning respect), but at the end of the day, in my eyes, the movement for equality is more of a movement for dominance and that's my real problem with it. Too many women take advantage of such things I mentioned earlier to get back at men in ways that can ruin their careers or lives. It's not a majority and obviously I'm not saying that every woman who wants preferential treatment is a sociopath that's going to try and ruin your future but it's a threat any man has to work with.
Also, to answer your post a bit more specifically, as a guy, if you go on a date with a girl and DON'T offer to pay and do everything "gallantly", you're already past the 50% chance of never seeing that girl again without even starting to think about personality, interests and looks, things that would normally be what you're being judged on. Let's not forget that as a man you're expected to have a good future, education and job but for the woman it doesn't really change much if she has no prospects for the future (if you want a real relationship that is; if you just want to get laid you need to be the opposite of that).
Admittedly some women like to do role reversal and want to pay for everything because they want to show their independence and I can sympathize with that although it's far from the norm. I don't personally hate these dating stigmas to be honest but it's not fun to have to pay for any random date. It's not a huge deal in couples like you said because people share but when you're meeting new people, it could take a few dates to find someone you really click with and that's where it gets annoying, because it's not cheap to pay for other people's stuff in the hopes that you actually like her after the date.
I LOVE when a guy pays for me and does things like holding the door open, but if he doesn't, it's not the end of my world. I'll still be willing to see him. I find it weird(and slightly repulsive) that some girls can be so incredibly selfish.
I don't know. Feminism, in all honesty, seems like an extremely old issue to me. It's tiring to hear about. But I suppose it is more of a female trait, to want absolutely everything without giving anything. ^^;;;;;;;
Oh lord, if I had posted what first popped into my head after reading this OP I would've been banned fast as hell. XD It's one of my favourite topics to troll about IRL, I'm fucking great at it.
On February 16 2011 18:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: It made me think what would happen if there was a major war and conscription was enacted , for men AND women - after all equality is equality right - would women complain then as well?
I would certainly appreciate this country requiring that women serve the same period that men do for national service (rather than not at all). That would be equal and fair.
Won't ever happen, of course. Yes, there are a lot of girls that think it's right that they shouldn't have to put in the same service that men do - but also some that I know that don't agree with the situation, and think either both should serve or neither should. Can't really generalize here, so I have little to add.
On February 17 2011 03:08 denzelz wrote: If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
This one is hilarious since most of these do not happen on a daily basis. Some could but for example looking for a job shouldn't happen daily.
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
Since so many companies today want to get nicer equality statistics this one is often reversed. Women who makes as much sacrifices for their career as most higher up males usually go really far.
2. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
However if a woman fails in her job or career, she can feel sure that she wouldn't lose all respect as an individual and that she can still easily live a rewarding life without risking her husband leaving her over this.
3. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.
You are however far more likely to face physical harassment and get laughed at when you cry.
4. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
If you do the same crime as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are that people will think that what you did was a worse crime.
5. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
If a woman choose not to have a career, her femininity will not be called into question.
6. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
If a woman have children and a career, no one will think that she is irresponsible if she gives up a few years to stay at home.
7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
I don't get this one, if women wanted women they could elect them on their own. Women outnumber men and since we have a 1 vote per person democracy there is no patriarchy here... Also how is this a privilege?
8. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
Again, how is this a privilege?
9. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
As a child, chances are you were not comforted and protected as much as your sisters.
10. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
As a child, chances are that you got more complaints from the teachers for the same behavior.
11. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
If you are careless with your sexual affairs it will be attributed to your sex.
12. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
If you are irresponsible at school it will be attrivuted to your sex.
13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
A woman could go her whole life without ever having a proper job and still not be called a lazy bum.
14. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.
A female don't have to worry about the message her wardrobe sends about her sexual orientation. The gender conformity thing isn't true, a male having lots of pink skirts is a good counterexample.
15. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
This one depends a lot, many types of clothing are a lot cheaper for females than males. What you are talking about here only applies to the formal dress codes.
16. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.
The extra food intake needed by males easily weighs up that, also males are generally expected to do sports which takes a ton of time and money.
17. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
If you are conventionally attractive the advantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
But you can't be passive without being called a pussy.
19. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc.
So what? That is usually jus a result of old privileges and not a current privilege.
20. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
This is however a concern based on real science. The hormonal swings during these periods can cause her to do things she shouldn't etc. Males lacks such a mechanism and are thus more stable.
21. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
A woman however wont be questioned if her husband don't change his name.
22. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
The choice to have a family lies mostly with the woman however.
23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
If you have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are that you will have to work full time while she just works part time in the end means that you have to work more than her overall.
24. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
Again, chances are that you will have to be working most of the time to support her and the child.
25. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
Chances are that it was her decision to have the child from the start.
26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
Both women and men prefers scantly clad females over males on billboards so this is only natural.
27. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.
You are however under much more pressure to make a career. Women suffers fewer social and economic consequences for lacking career ambitions than males do.
28. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
Men just interrupts people more than women, they don't specifically targets women. I think that this has more to do with that men usually interrupts each other a lot as a part of determining status while females don't do this as much with each other. So when they meet and the man will dominate the woman since she don't have much experience how to behave when you are interrupted.
29. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
In exactly the same way as women are unaware of their female privilege. People are just unaware in general, this is not a privilege granted only to men. Some men would prefer the privileges granted to women and some women would prefer the privileges granted to men. It might be that men have overall the preferable position but at least I don't think that it is obvious.
Most ways to determine success today is of course made up by men so they will measure things that males care about. So of course in those measures males are privileged compared to females. But if we instead made new measurements of success catering more to what females in general wants we would maybe have a different picture. Most females don't want a well paying job if it costs them all of their time with their kids for example while that is the situation males have to live with.
Edit: Also why do black males out earn white females? It is not like they have historically had more privileges than white females...
On February 17 2011 03:08 denzelz wrote: If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
Since so many companies today want to get nicer equality statistics this one is often reversed. Women who makes as much sacrifices for their career as most higher up males usually go really far.
2. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
However if a woman fails in her job or career, she can feel sure that she wouldn't lose all respect as an individual and that she can still easily live a rewarding life without risking her husband leaving her over this.
4. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
If you do the same crime as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are that people will think that what you did was a worse crime.
7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
I don't get this one, if women wanted women they could elect them on their own. Women outnumber men and since we have a 1 vote per person democracy there is no patriarchy here... Also how is this a privilege?
8. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
A woman could go her whole life without ever having a proper job and still not be called a lazy bum.
14. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.
A female don't have to worry about the message her wardrobe sends about her sexual orientation. The gender conformity thing isn't true, a male having lots of pink skirts is a good counterexample.
15. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
This one depends a lot, many types of clothing are a lot cheaper for females than males. What you are talking about here only applies to the formal dress codes.
19. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc.
So what? That is usually jus a result of old privileges and not a current privilege.
20. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
This is however a concern based on real science. The hormonal swings during these periods can cause her to do things she shouldn't etc. Males lacks such a mechanism and are thus more stable.
23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
If you have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are that you will have to work full time while she just works part time in the end means that you have to work more than her overall.
24. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
Again, chances are that you will have to be working most of the time to support her and the child.
25. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
Chances are that it was her decision to have the child from the start.
26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
Both women and men prefers scantly clad females over males on billboards so this is only natural.
27. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.
You are however under much more pressure to make a career. Women suffers fewer social and economic consequences for lacking career ambitions than males do.
28. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
Men just interrupts people more than women, they don't specifically targets women. I think that this has more to do with that men usually interrupts each other a lot as a part of determining status while females don't do this as much with each other. So when they meet and the man will dominate the woman since she don't have much experience how to behave when you are interrupted.
29. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
In exactly the same way as women are unaware of their female privilege. People are just unaware in general, this is not a privilege granted only to men. Some men would prefer the privileges granted to women and some women would prefer the privileges granted to men. It might be that men have overall the preferable position but at least I don't think that it is obvious.
Most ways to determine success today is of course made up by men so they will measure things that males care about. So of course in those measures males are privileged compared to females. But if we instead made new measurements of success catering more to what females in general wants we would maybe have a different picture. Most females don't want a well paying job if it costs them all of their time with their kids for example while that is the situation males have to live with.
Edit: Also why do black males out earn white females? It is not like they have historically had more privileges than white females...
Dude, you are just nit-picking on these issues and making wide generalizations. How can you say that "most females don't want a well paying job if it costs them all them [sic] with their kids"? Even if you happen to survey all women in the world, how can you prove that this "preference" is not the result of societal pressure?
And your other point about menstrual cycles? I'm not saying that scientifically, women do not experience hormonal changes during certain parts of the month but to attribute every outward emotional expression to the fact that "it's that part of the month" is incredibly condescending.
By the way, just for a historical trivia, black males did historically held rights (at least voting rights, which is one of the basis to citizenship) longer than white females in the United States. Blacks (and other people of color) were allowed to vote via the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 1870 while women in the US were allowed to vote in 1920. So...I'm not really sure what your statement at the end was trying to say. That Blacks should be even more inferior to women in terms of income? Oops, did I just reveal some kind of prejudice?
On February 17 2011 03:08 denzelz wrote: If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
This one is hilarious since most of these do not happen on a daily basis. Some could but for example looking for a job shouldn't happen daily.
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
Since so many companies today want to get nicer equality statistics this one is often reversed. Women who makes as much sacrifices for their career as most higher up males usually go really far.
2. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
However if a woman fails in her job or career, she can feel sure that she wouldn't lose all respect as an individual and that she can still easily live a rewarding life without risking her husband leaving her over this.
3. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.
You are however far more likely to face physical harassment and get laughed at when you cry.
4. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
If you do the same crime as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are that people will think that what you did was a worse crime.
5. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
If a woman choose not to have a career, her femininity will not be called into question.
6. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
If a woman have children and a career, no one will think that she is irresponsible if she gives up a few years to stay at home.
7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
I don't get this one, if women wanted women they could elect them on their own. Women outnumber men and since we have a 1 vote per person democracy there is no patriarchy here... Also how is this a privilege?
8. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
Again, how is this a privilege?
9. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
As a child, chances are you were not comforted and protected as much as your sisters.
10. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
As a child, chances are that you got more complaints from the teachers for the same behavior.
11. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
If you are careless with your sexual affairs it will be attributed to your sex.
12. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
If you are irresponsible at school it will be attrivuted to your sex.
13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
A woman could go her whole life without ever having a proper job and still not be called a lazy bum.
14. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.
A female don't have to worry about the message her wardrobe sends about her sexual orientation. The gender conformity thing isn't true, a male having lots of pink skirts is a good counterexample.
15. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
This one depends a lot, many types of clothing are a lot cheaper for females than males. What you are talking about here only applies to the formal dress codes.
16. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.
The extra food intake needed by males easily weighs up that, also males are generally expected to do sports which takes a ton of time and money.
17. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
If you are conventionally attractive the advantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
But you can't be passive without being called a pussy.
19. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc.
So what? That is usually jus a result of old privileges and not a current privilege.
20. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
This is however a concern based on real science. The hormonal swings during these periods can cause her to do things she shouldn't etc. Males lacks such a mechanism and are thus more stable.
21. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
A woman however wont be questioned if her husband don't change his name.
22. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
The choice to have a family lies mostly with the woman however.
23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
If you have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are that you will have to work full time while she just works part time in the end means that you have to work more than her overall.
24. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
Again, chances are that you will have to be working most of the time to support her and the child.
25. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
Chances are that it was her decision to have the child from the start.
26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
Both women and men prefers scantly clad females over males on billboards so this is only natural.
27. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.
You are however under much more pressure to make a career. Women suffers fewer social and economic consequences for lacking career ambitions than males do.
28. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
Men just interrupts people more than women, they don't specifically targets women. I think that this has more to do with that men usually interrupts each other a lot as a part of determining status while females don't do this as much with each other. So when they meet and the man will dominate the woman since she don't have much experience how to behave when you are interrupted.
29. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
In exactly the same way as women are unaware of their female privilege. People are just unaware in general, this is not a privilege granted only to men. Some men would prefer the privileges granted to women and some women would prefer the privileges granted to men. It might be that men have overall the preferable position but at least I don't think that it is obvious.
Most ways to determine success today is of course made up by men so they will measure things that males care about. So of course in those measures males are privileged compared to females. But if we instead made new measurements of success catering more to what females in general wants we would maybe have a different picture. Most females don't want a well paying job if it costs them all of their time with their kids for example while that is the situation males have to live with.
Edit: Also why do black males out earn white females? It is not like they have historically had more privileges than white females...
Women ****in general**** don't want true equality, they want to not be discriminated against. They want all the benefits of men, but they want to keep all their own benefits as well. It's pretty basic hypocrisy and it's nothing new.
Of course there are a lot of exceptions, but there are still hundreds of millions of "equality" supporters that will give you the evil-eye for not holding the door open for them. It's the same problem with racism and other discrimination.
Racism will not disappear as long as we talk about racism. Sexism will not disappear as long as we talk about sexism and try to balance favours. As long as we acknowledge a difference between two people, that difference will always exist. If a child grows up without ever hearing the term "racism" or "black history month" or hearing about racism in the past, he will not be racist.
This is a pretty major problem in my town. The native community is so heavily funded, supported and favoured by our government that any native family which doesn't waste what they're given is wealthier than most middle-class white families. Unfortunately a significant percentage of that community doesn't work and doesn't go to school. They live off of our government's pity for crimes that happened before most of them were ever born, but they always ask for equality. It's at the point where even a lot of the first nations students who WANT to do well struggle because of the prejudices people have against them for the freeloading of a minority of the native population.
Discrimination will only go away when we stop acknowledging a difference between human beings that needs to be actively rectified. We don't do society any favours by enabling it with apology after apology, they've been said and done by now.
On February 16 2011 19:27 denzelz wrote: In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs.
This is the most retarded myth I can think of. If this were actually true, I would be a successful billionaire by paying 20-30% less labor costs by only hiring women. If women were truly paid less for THE SAME work, nobody would hire men. There must be something men bring to the table that women don't. And indeed, just using common sense observations, there's lots. Who's willing to work the more dangerous/hazardous/unpleasant jobs? I don't remember the last female construction worker I've seen, men far outnumber women in the military, and a vast majority of work related deaths have been men. Hormones make people behave differently. Men happen to have more of the hormone correlated with drive, aggression, ignoring danger and discomfort, and leadership. These things are all important attributes for succeeding in most careers. It's retarded to have social norms that relegate women to the kitchen and the schoolhouse exclusively, as there are individual women who most certainly can perform as well as men in traditionally masculine arenas. But we're dealing with averages, and legislating privileges for women is probably even more damaging.
There's one more thing on that misandric checklist of "male priviledge" that gets ignored:
30. I am also more likely to die a violent death, be depressed, commit suicide, have a divorce initiated against me without any burden of proof, be arrested first in any domestic violence report regardless of where fault lies, have my children taken away from me for no good reason, have to lose financially from a divorce, be homeless, die at work, have a lower life expectancy, be denied university admission, or not succeed in public school.
There are ways that women and men are unequal and situations where that inequality is in favor of one gender or another. When it's out of the male's favor however, it can very often be the difference between life and death. Nah bro, blind to privilege. Rules being the biologically expendable sex.
On February 20 2011 23:54 tyCe wrote: Well, there's a difference between feminism and gender equality..
I completely agree with this.
Feminism = Legislate higher pay, privilege, etc for one gender.
Gender egalitarianism/equality = equality of opportunity, not outcomes. Recognize that there are certain disadvantages and advantages to being male or female and that the disadvantages as well as privileges need to be shared. Sometimes, a "hands off" approach is best for this rather than involving the federal government.
I personally believe that there's a shit ton more difference between a male and female of the same ethnic group than two people of the same gender but different ethnic group, but the second ideology isn't an intellectually bankrupt and hateful one.
On February 16 2011 19:27 denzelz wrote: In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs.
This is the most retarded myth I can think of. If this were actually true, I would be a successful billionaire by paying 20-30% less labor costs by only hiring women. If women were truly paid less for THE SAME work, nobody would hire men. There must be something men bring to the table that women don't.
I know you took a Microeconomics class once and know all about supply and demand curves but please review these articles. These are simply the first results that popped up on Google, but I think they suffice. Please let me know if I need to do more to convince you of this disparity.
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
Seriously. like that list has a few exaggerations oversights and stuff, but holy fuck, the somehow likens women on the golf course to women in a total war. And then at the top of this page, someone seriously questioned the fact that women get paid less on the dollar a myth. Lordy.
the whole fucking discussion is basically a bunch of morons upset they have to hold the door for someone. mother fucker
My own, possibly misinformed opinion, is that if women want to be treated equally, they take it all. They want to be payed the same as men? They can't bitch about sexism if they don't get the job and the get the same health benefits. Sexism in sports? Put male and female professional sports players to compete together.
These things will never happen though because men and women naturally are different in how we think and how our bodies function. As a result, we should be treated differently with regards to our differences. We should all have the same human rights though, as we all are human.
On February 21 2011 10:10 denzelz wrote: Dude, you are just nit-picking on these issues and making wide generalizations. How can you say that "most females don't want a well paying job if it costs them all them [sic] with their kids"? Even if you happen to survey all women in the world, how can you prove that this "preference" is not the result of societal pressure?
That list made many such generalizations as well. Also how can you prove that mens preference to sacrifice so much for their job doesn't come from the result of societal pressure? Maybe they just really want to stay home with the kids and fix the chores while some wife is out earning money for them? Women have more choice, men knows that they either fix their career or they are losers.
On February 21 2011 10:10 denzelz wrote: And your other point about menstrual cycles? I'm not saying that scientifically, women do not experience hormonal changes during certain parts of the month but to attribute every outward emotional expression to the fact that "it's that part of the month" is incredibly condescending.
Yup, but that is not a problem about sex but a problem about being condescending. It happens to everyone and not just women. I know that in general men are more condescending against women than men but that would then be a point on its own.
On February 21 2011 10:10 denzelz wrote: By the way, just for a historical trivia, black males did historically held rights (at least voting rights, which is one of the basis to citizenship) longer than white females in the United States. Blacks (and other people of color) were allowed to vote via the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 1870 while women in the US were allowed to vote in 1920. So...I'm not really sure what your statement at the end was trying to say. That Blacks should be even more inferior to women in terms of income? Oops, did I just reveal some kind of prejudice?
Do you even know what prejudice is? The deal is that blacks on average are coming from a much more social disadvantageous position than white women and still manage. They went to worse schools, are less educated and have less financial support from home. Also as some stated young women are currently out earning young men in many places, how do that fit your point? Women earn more and more for each new generation and considering that they on average are more educated than men it isn't hard to draw the conclusion that they will soon out earn males. Especially since the current generation is already on par and we still have some leftovers of the thinking that women are worth less which also disappears more and more.
The problem is that all of this takes time, the people in charge today grew up in the 60's, back then society had a completely different view on all of this and parts of that is still in them. But people growing up today don't have the same problems, we are constantly bombarded with slogans like "women can" and girls have way better scholastic results than boys and today people in general sees girls as more hardworking than guys. In 30 or so years those views will be ingrained all over society, males are lazy and females works hard while the females still have way better education etc. Then the roles are reversed.
It is happening right now and when people like you acknowledges this then it has garnered too much momentum to stop. I don't say that I really care about this development or so, I just say that ignoring the facts like most feminists do will lead to this. Instead they are focusing on statistics which proves that we had inequalities 40 years ago and continues to run more campaigns intended to empower women.
And I still stand by my view that it is just as much an inequality that men faces problems if they try to have a traditional female lifestyle. We have tons of campaigns trying to get women into the STEM fields, but where are the campaigns trying to get men to be teachers and nurses? Isn't it a huge problem that most teachers are female? Isn't the male view lost to the kids then? The last sentence is a joke btw, because that is roughly the argument feminists presents as to why it is important to have equal sex representation in jobs.
On February 16 2011 19:27 denzelz wrote: In just about every country, women, on average, gets paid less than men who work at the same jobs.
This is the most retarded myth I can think of. If this were actually true, I would be a successful billionaire by paying 20-30% less labor costs by only hiring women. If women were truly paid less for THE SAME work, nobody would hire men. There must be something men bring to the table that women don't.
I know you took a Microeconomics class once and know all about supply and demand curves but please review these articles. These are simply the first results that popped up on Google, but I think they suffice. Please let me know if I need to do more to convince you of this disparity.
Are you shitting me? You're going to first patronize me then link me to a bunch of bullshit sources like wikipedia and about? The GAO one is the only remotely well reasoned and insightful, adn the very title of that one is "Work patterns partially explain the difference between men and women's earnings", which is exactly what I'm claiming. How about addressing the fact that men are willing to do more dangerous jobs, work more hours, and leave the workforce for extended periods of time less frequently? One look around a college campus and surveying the students going into majors like law, premed, engineering, and computer science vs sociology, political science, english also reveals the source of the mythical pay gap. Are you seriously trying to ignore those things and claim that people just like men more and are willing to forgo financial gain to hire them?
You failed to give me one good reason why firms would hire men at all if they carried a notable pay premium without any added benefit.
I also don't appreciate the ad-hominem attack, I'm starting my phd in economics in a few months.
edit: more on the GAO study:
The authors acknowledge that factors other than gender discrimination are at work and realize the limitations of attempting to quantify this variable. Most of the things they point out are things women choose, like more flexible but lower paying jobs, jobs more accommodating to family life, taking leave or going part time more often, hazard pay etc. The only reason they probably included gender discrimination as a major variable is that angry lesbian harpies would scream at them if they DARED to challenge feminist assumptions.
n = about 72,000. The average age of respondents was 40.2 for men and 40.4 for women. Average age in the U.S. is only 34/37 or so. In a country of a few hundred million where the average age is mid 30s, there's a lot of room for sampling error in this study. Like another posted pointed out, young and childless women outearn their male counterparts, yet it's unlikely this sample was able to include much of that demographic.
On February 22 2011 02:30 Drowsy wrote: One look around a college campus and surveying the students going into majors like law, premed, engineering, and computer science vs sociology, political science, english also reveals the source of the mythical pay gap.
The whole notion of gendered academic disciplines, thus drawing a false dichotomy between two characters of academia and the sexes, is absolute dogshit.
This topic gone far past usefulness by this point, but it is worth noting that feminism endorses women taking on dangerous jobs.
On February 22 2011 02:30 Drowsy wrote: One look around a college campus and surveying the students going into majors like law, premed, engineering, and computer science vs sociology, political science, english also reveals the source of the mythical pay gap.
The whole notion of gendered academic disciplines, thus drawing a false dichotomy between two characters of academia and the sexes, is absolute dogshit.
This topic gone far past usefulness by this point, but it is worth noting that feminism endorses women taking on dangerous jobs.
1. Why? It's an observation, more men go into more high paying and useful majors. It's not like we bar women from going into these feilds; we actively encourage them. Anecdotal, but my mom, dad, and even myself have been yelling at my sister to go into math/science/engineering or prelaw but she wants to be an international affairs major. 2. No it doesn't. Some egalitarian feminists (think Israel) do, but most want to legislate privilege.
Your spoonfed pc assumptions being challenged =/= topic gone past usefulness.
Lazy observation in counterpoint to lazy observation: I have met far more women going into Law school and Premed than men. In fact, I do not know a single male currently in Law school.
.: Women go into more high-paying and useful majors.
On February 22 2011 02:57 jon arbuckle wrote: Lazy observation in counterpoint to lazy observation: I have met far more women going into Law school and Premed than men. In fact, I do not know a single male currently in Law school.
.: Women go into more high-paying and useful majors.
I don't think there's anywhere it can be gotten for free, but it's well documented that there are way more men than women in STEM fields, which are of course higher paying because civilization depends on these fields.
I don't think this has to do with equality for women at all, just an easy way to make a bit more money. The people who are complaining would complain about anything so I wouldn't take what they say seriously. Those women on "fixed income" shouldn't be playing such an expensive sport then, or shouldn't be playing every week on the golfing grounds. There are alternatives and sometimes you can't have everything you want forever.
also @Drowsy do you have a reference for this? "Men happen to have more of the hormone correlated with drive, aggression, ignoring danger and discomfort, and leadership" I cannot believe this, or are you talking about something else?
On February 17 2011 00:05 Haemonculus wrote: Privilege may be blind to those who have it, but some of the replies here are just depressing.
QFT.
I think most people replying to this thread think that women are the ONLY one who believe that gender equality and feminism is right, but that's not true. I am a guy and I fully support the feminist movement. The thing is, many people will point to specific examples where feminists are radical, but in reality, most feminist ideas are quite palatable and make a lot of sense.
If you want to learn more, this is a pretty helpful list that illustrates the advantages of being male in a patriarchal society.
While I'm all for equal rights, I completely disagree with many of the points stated in that document, and is more of a case of 'the grass is greener'. Some of these incidences also occur because of competition between other women, not because of men. Some of them are just plain ridiculous, and are something only women would fuss over.
Example: "I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity."
What kind of guy goes out of his way to look at a womens wardrobe to find out what person they are? Sorry, this is something that only a woman would think about. Likewise, how many guys tell women not to wear half-naked clothes so they don't get called sluts.
"The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time."
That is a choice, not a requirement. Plenty of guys spend hours on their hair. A lot of guys also don't care about girls wearing make up.
"As a [male] child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters."
People should start making a site for asian equality.
"As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often."
This is false, I always remembered it either was the other way around. Grass is greener.
"I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch."
Lol? Ok here's one "I can punch a male, with no fear of being punched back"
Are you seriously stating you want rights to be loud and aggressive, and not be called a bitch? Did you forget everything society has taught you?
"On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men."
Do you even listen to yourself? You put a bunch of women together at a table and they will constantly talk over each other. Genetically women are better at talking and listening at the same time, that's why they do it.
Sorry there are 50 complaints, and probably 45 of them are just plain ridiculous. I wish the person who wrote this had half a brain. I always thought women equality was about equal pay and equal laws.
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Maybe women on average just possess less of the interest and analytical intelligence required to succeed in hard science fields? And while average gender IQ distribution is relatively equal, men vastly over represent women on the high and low extremes.
I'm an Compsci major, I've met women who way smarter and more proficient at CS then I am. I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the average statistical discrepancies between genders?
Of course I understand concepts like stereotype threats, etc. But I find it really hard to believe that thats the sole factor that accounts for the statistical psychological differences between men and women.
Eh man idk. There's two sides to every story. You guys can take every generalization about men vs women and do point vs. counterpoint to pretty much every one of them. I think you guys should ask yourselves these questions: Is gender equality perfect? No Will it ever be perfect? No Has it gotten better in the past 100, 500, 1000 years? Yes Will it continue to improve in the next 100, 500, 1000 years? Hard to make accurate predictions based that far in the future, but I'm going to guess... Probably
In regards to the actual article... aren't there ways to circumvent the problem of higher course fees? Like why not have Wednesdays be "Ladies Day" at the golf club where women are offered discount rates and Saturdays be "Gentlemen's Day" where men are offered discount rates to golf that day? I realize that they are probably talking about monthly fees, but certainly there are ways to find loopholes to this situation aren't there? Women could always take their game to a different golf course with lower rates couldn't they (unless British laws mandate that all golf course have the same rates, which idk if they do, but it would be ridiculous if they did)?
If these retired ladies all have a problem with the course fees being too high, couldn't they sacrifice something else in their lives in return to help compensate for their raised course fees?
IE: Say the ladies now carpool to their golf course rather then all take their own individual cars everyday. The money they all save individually in gas they can now use to apply to their higher membership fees.
IDK, there are TONS of solutions to this problem that don't have to be gender related. This whole article is BS, seems like people are just finding a way to BS having costs being raised for them. Guess what, costs are raised for people in everything in their lives whether they like it or not, and people complain about it.
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Maybe women on average just possess less of the interest and analytical intelligence required to succeed in hard science fields? And while average gender IQ distribution is relatively equal, men vastly over represent women on the high and low extremes.
I'm an Compsci major, I've met women who way smarter and more proficient at CS then I am. I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the average statistical discrepancies between genders?
Of course I understand concepts like stereotype threats, etc. But I find it really hard to believe that thats the sole factor that accounts for psychological differences between men and women.
Biological differences can account for why not all things should be unisex (like, again, basketball and hockey), but to argue that women possess less of an interest or analytical intelligence biologically is ludicrous. The probability for one's being interested in a certain field and subsequent analytical intelligence is conditioned - a baby is not born solving Hilbert problems any more than that baby is born reciting sonnets, and one's ability for abstract thought or deductive reasoning is not innate, but learned and grasped through practice.
i.e., when attempting to ask why there aren't more women in these fields, we should be concerned with what society tells a young girl she should be.
Women and men are different, but they are not essentially different. A woman is different from a man the way that woman is different from another woman who is similar to a man who is different from a man who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman, etc. - and the tendency for society to presume on essentialist genders, woman are like this all the time and men are like that all the time, is the contested point.
On February 22 2011 03:32 Half wrote: I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the statistical discrepancies between genders?
No not at all, but we aren't allowed to make that assumption since it could easily be used to hide injustices. You can keep it in the back of your head but never rely on it in any situation.
I'd argue that the biggest reason women don't go into stem fields, why they are paid less etc is risk aversion. Going into stem fields is a risk since you never know if you are smart enough to manage or so, much safer to go into a field where work ethics matters the most. Men are much more likely to take risks than women, taking risks is really important if you want to get anywhere especially if you want top positions in anything. You don't get a big pay increase if you don't take the risk asking for it, you don't get to lead the new juicy project if you don't take the risk embarrassing yourself by failing to run it and you wont major in a stem field if you don't want to take the risk to flunk the courses.
Women wants the same benefits without the risks, that will never happen. What happens instead is women seeing less qualified men going past them and they blame that on the system instead of looking at what makes those men walk past them. In general well qualified women who have a behavior more like men's will reach top positions. Well qualified women who just sits and wait for someone to notice how good they are will sit there for a really long time.
School is very straightforward so it fits them perfectly. Do your work and we give you good grades. In the real world things don't work that way. Insecure men gets pushed around at least as much as insecure women. It is common for extremely qualified men to sit in low paid positions basically doing everything. No one comes around to save these people. Women however thinks that this only happens to them for some reason, complaining that the only way to get further is to become more like men. Well, men at top positions have dominant personalities with a ton of confidence for a reason, because that is what is required by those positions! Women tends to lack those qualities.
What you should do is to teach women to be more dominant, assertive and less scared of risks. Men gets that from the boy culture where those characteristics are the key to determine status.
On February 22 2011 03:32 Half wrote: I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the statistical discrepancies between genders?
No not at all, but we aren't allowed to make that assumption since it could easily be used to hide injustices. You can keep it in the back of your head but never rely on it in any situation.
I'd argue that the biggest reason women don't go into stem fields, why they are paid less etc is risk aversion. Going into stem fields is a risk since you never know if you are smart enough to manage or so, much safer to go into a field where work ethics matters the most. Men are much more likely to take risks than women, taking risks is really important if you want to get anywhere especially if you want top positions in anything. You don't get a big pay increase if you don't take the risk asking for it, you don't get to lead the new juicy project if you don't take the risk embarrassing yourself by failing to run it and you wont major in a stem field if you don't want to take the risk to flunk the courses.
Women wants the same benefits without the risks, that will never happen. What happens instead is women seeing less qualified men going past them and they blame that on the system instead of looking at what makes those men walk past them. In general well qualified women who have a behavior more like men's will reach top positions. Well qualified women who just sits and wait for someone to notice how good they are will sit there for a really long time.
School is very straightforward so it fits them perfectly. Do your work and we give you good grades. In the real world things don't work that way. Insecure men gets pushed around at least as much as insecure women. It is common for extremely qualified men to sit in low paid positions basically doing everything. No one comes around to save these people. Women however thinks that this only happens to them for some reason, complaining that the only way to get further is to become more like men. Well, men at top positions have dominant personalities with a ton of confidence for a reason, because that is what is required by those positions! Women tends to lack those qualities.
What you should do is to teach women to be more dominant, assertive and less scared of risks. Men gets that from the boy culture where those characteristics are the key to determine status.
Boy does this man have women all figured out. I was thinking that there weren't as many women in high posts as men because it hasn't even been a century since the world has started to give women fairer opportunities. But turns out that it's because women aren't as ambitious!
Haven't read that book (but thanks), although from the "glass ceiling" language, I'm unsure as to whether this proves that women just don't go into these fields or rather that the women who do meet with sexism that bars them from advancement. In which case we're confirming the concerns quoted in that PDF posted a while back; the issues become societal rather than raw economic.
Assuming that Medicine and Law and Compsci (and less certainly Engineering) do not require the backbreaking labour that only a strong, gruff man can deal with, something many in this thread have complained about (oddly, because nobody is arguing for unisex basketball or hockey leagues), the "glass ceiling" and how it manifests itself is far more complicated than some scatterbrained sexist argument.
Maybe women on average just possess less of the interest and analytical intelligence required to succeed in hard science fields? And while average gender IQ distribution is relatively equal, men vastly over represent women on the high and low extremes.
I'm an Compsci major, I've met women who way smarter and more proficient at CS then I am. I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the average statistical discrepancies between genders?
Of course I understand concepts like stereotype threats, etc. But I find it really hard to believe that thats the sole factor that accounts for psychological differences between men and women.
Biological differences can account for why not all things should be unisex (like, again, basketball and hockey), but to argue that women possess less of an interest or analytical intelligence biologically is ludicrous. The probability for one's being interested in a certain field and subsequent analytical intelligence is conditioned - a baby is not born solving Hilbert problems any more than that baby is born reciting sonnets, and one's ability for abstract thought or deductive reasoning is not innate, but learned and grasped through practice.
i.e., when attempting to ask why there aren't more women in these fields, we should be concerned with what society tells a young girl she should be.
Women and men are different, but they are not essentially different. A woman is different from a man the way that woman is different from another woman who is similar to a man who is different from a man who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman who is different from a woman, etc. - and the tendency for society to presume on essentialist genders, woman are like this all the time and men are like that all the time, is the contested point.
You're arguing that who we are as people is 100% nurture and 0% nature, and gender has no effect on our behavior on a genetic level?
Thats 100% verifiable false. Women do intrinsically behave different from men on several accounts (in terms of statistics) that are independent of society, and our genes have more influence then nurture when nurture is "adequate" (All basic needs are met). Twin studies prove this.
woman are like this all the time and men are like that all the time
We are talking statistics. Obviously, we should maintain a society where individuals can pursue whatever they wish.
The roles between the females and males are going to switch, it is just the matter of when. Reigal-Crumb suggests that more american females are attending universities than their male counterparts. + Show Spoiler +
Personally, I can't wait for females and males roles to switch, where the females go work for the family and the males stay at home and take care for the kids. This means that while my wife is pumping out the cash, I'll be in a starcraft game pumping out the zerglings. A win-win situation I believe.
On February 22 2011 03:15 Terrakin wrote: I don't think this has to do with equality for women at all, just an easy way to make a bit more money. The people who are complaining would complain about anything so I wouldn't take what they say seriously. Those women on "fixed income" shouldn't be playing such an expensive sport then, or shouldn't be playing every week on the golfing grounds. There are alternatives and sometimes you can't have everything you want forever.
also @Drowsy do you have a reference for this? "Men happen to have more of the hormone correlated with drive, aggression, ignoring danger and discomfort, and leadership" I cannot believe this, or are you talking about something else?
Ah man didn't even see someone said what I wrote before me lol. The moral of this story is: IF YOU RAISE PRICES FOR A PRODUCT/SERVICE, PEOPLE WILL COMPLAIN
The author of this article is using the Retiree Female Golfers as a scapegoat for the Equality Act being ineffective. Seriously do you guys think Retiree Female Golfers are the majority of the people who are affected by this act?
Is the Equality Act in Great Britain that great? I don't know, I don't live in GB, ask someone who lives there. I'm sure you'll get different answers from different people there. We have similar laws in the USA (sup Affirmative Action) and everyone has a host of different opinions on it...
And the hormone Drowsy is talking? Testosterone. Manly Men have it, pussy men don'! (lol jk jk)
On February 17 2011 03:41 PetitCrabe wrote: Next time, I will wait for a girl to open the door for me.
Fair enough. Just spend every morning after you take a shower an hour and a half putting on make up, doing your hair, getting dressed, etc.
So many ignorant posts here, its pretty disgusting.
Lol, that's all a females fault. She can choose to do that and choose not to, just because someone is a female doesn't mean I'm going to waste time out of my day to help her.
Every specific group organization or ideology serves to benefit its members- whether they're based on gender, race, religion, etc. Of course, for groups which have been disadvantaged in the past, pursuing equality IS beneficial, and is a much more effective way of marketing one's goals than claiming that they want preferential treatment to the exclusion of others. I'm not saying that these groups don't do good work and help build a better, more equitable society (they often do), but each of these groups supports their own demographic to the exclusion of others, and this often fragments society further than it already is. I would like to see the moderate proponents of womens rights, black rights, muslim's rights, etc. band together under a common association which recognizes that all of their differences are irrelevant when it comes to how they should be treated among each other and under the law.
On February 22 2011 03:32 Half wrote: I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the statistical discrepancies between genders?
No not at all, but we aren't allowed to make that assumption since it could easily be used to hide injustices. You can keep it in the back of your head but never rely on it in any situation.
I'd argue that the biggest reason women don't go into stem fields, why they are paid less etc is risk aversion. Going into stem fields is a risk since you never know if you are smart enough to manage or so, much safer to go into a field where work ethics matters the most. Men are much more likely to take risks than women, taking risks is really important if you want to get anywhere especially if you want top positions in anything. You don't get a big pay increase if you don't take the risk asking for it, you don't get to lead the new juicy project if you don't take the risk embarrassing yourself by failing to run it and you wont major in a stem field if you don't want to take the risk to flunk the courses.
Women wants the same benefits without the risks, that will never happen. What happens instead is women seeing less qualified men going past them and they blame that on the system instead of looking at what makes those men walk past them. In general well qualified women who have a behavior more like men's will reach top positions. Well qualified women who just sits and wait for someone to notice how good they are will sit there for a really long time.
School is very straightforward so it fits them perfectly. Do your work and we give you good grades. In the real world things don't work that way. Insecure men gets pushed around at least as much as insecure women. It is common for extremely qualified men to sit in low paid positions basically doing everything. No one comes around to save these people. Women however thinks that this only happens to them for some reason, complaining that the only way to get further is to become more like men. Well, men at top positions have dominant personalities with a ton of confidence for a reason, because that is what is required by those positions! Women tends to lack those qualities.
What you should do is to teach women to be more dominant, assertive and less scared of risks. Men gets that from the boy culture where those characteristics are the key to determine status.
Boy does this man have women all figured out. I was thinking that there weren't as many women in high posts as men because it hasn't even been a century since the world has started to give women fairer opportunities. But turns out that it's because women aren't as ambitious!
I didn't say that they aren't ambitious, stop reading things that aren't there. It doesn't matter if it is nature or nurture that makes them more risk aversive, the fact is that they are.
Read this for example, it goes through a lot of examples of women being more risk aversive throughout society and then show that according to their data female executives are less risk aversive than their fellow males, which is quite in line with I want to say. Risk aversive women don't climb the status ladder. I didn't say that it was the only reason but I said that I think that it is the main reason today, since executive women were less risk aversive than their fellow males it shows that there is something more to it than just that but I never said that this was the only thing. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/167979586.html
Risk aversion is not a bad trait per se, it is just that if you want to get to top positions it is in the way.