|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A wise man and a fool argue in a meadow.
A stranger walks by and sees two fools.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| “Engaging in eating disorders’- not really knowledgeable on mental illness, are you- why don’t you read about them rather than make insulting assumptions on the topic. |
Here's what I find to be the basis for this discussion: is there a biological drive towards sexism that needs to be overcome or is it much more of a socialization issue? This sounds like biological determinism http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html#m. There’s a lot to it, but it is more or less a conservative argument. I selected the quote above because I've been pretty disgusted by the way the psychiatric industry has made it a PC rule that psychological problems are "diseases" in the physical/neurological sense when the attempts made to verify or even begin to identify actual biological mechanisms haven't come anywhere close to getting anywhere yet. This sounds like medicalization of social problems http://www.springerlink.com/content/r23882k668627174/ (peer reviewed journals= not free). There is a huge school of thought on this. It’s leftist and it seems right up your alley. If you aren’t interested in gender issues, there’s been a lot written on psychiatry as well. I’m not well versed, but what I liked a lot of the little I’ve read.
I'm not a Scientologist or some other religious nutjob who can't accept the possibility of brain disease-- I fully believe in the existence of Syphilis, Parkinson's Disease, Epilepsy, and Huntington's Disease, all of which can and do cause psychological symptoms. And I don't oppose the practice of misrepresenting psychological conditions as biological diseases because I don't think they're real problems for those suffering from them or because I oppose socialized benefits for those suffering from them. Instead, I'm disturbed by the promotion of incredibly harmful and dangerous psych pharmaceuticals as though they were actually akin to insulin for diabetics. I'm tempted to go on about why these drugs are so harmful or how they (in particular, dopamine blockers/neuroleptics/antipsychotics) are being forced on children and the elderly at ever increasing rates, but that's a separate topic. When the problem is social, medication cures the symptoms but not the disease. I heartily agree.
Back to the original point, if eating disorders are diseases or illnesses with little to no free will involved in their presence, what does this have to do with sexism? Alternatively, if sexism and socialization have everything to do with the cause and agitation of eating disorders, then why view them as biological? Just because the cause is social does not mean there aren’t biological effects. I think we see ‘free will’ a little differently as well.
On another nature vs. nurture type note, if socialization is the primary cause of sexism and the biological differences between the sexes are largely superficial, then why is it that women are so universally discriminated against and abused all over the world when they are never in the minority in the manner just about every other oppressed group of people have been throughout history? As far as I can tell, there is widespread cross-cultural sexism because the biological sex differences are actually significant. Socialization can be a separate (and very potent) aggravating factor in sexism, but unlike with racism, I think sexism is pretty significantly biological in its roots too. That is a gianormous question with a lot of different answers. What I go with is how we produce our means of survival. Economically speaking, our world is largely homogenously capitalist (not politically). Historically, there have been societies with a great deal of egalitarianism- horticultural production. That is where I come from in the smallest nutshell I could find, but there is a huge dialogue going on about this.
At this point, a major disclaimer would be helpful: I'm totally not saying (EDIT: harmful) sexist behavior is justified by virtue of it being in part or even entirely biological in its origins. For example, I think displays of rage, instances of physical abuse, and the following of the professional sports industry are all primal, biologically driven, and morally reprehensible acts not at all justified by their instinctual underpinnings (I know what I wrote). Instead, I think biologically fueled problems are pretty different from purely social constructs and should be acknowledged as such to avoid confusion over "double standards." The double standards problem complained about by Fox and others in this thread isn't a problem when you acknowledge that men and women are pretty different and as such will sometimes require different types of treatment. I personally don’t believe the existence of biological difference is significant in a species so dependent on culture. Since we can reason, we can define an equitable world. However, we are caught in a social system and unable to act and perceive outside it. In the framework I use, culture is the determining factor in deciding capability.
The professional sports industry is a perfect example of an institution that was blatantly socially discriminatory in its division of leagues on the basis of race and yet today is at the least arguably fair and realistic in its division of leagues on the basis of sex. Likewise, I think it's fair that everyone got all freaked out over some guy punching some girl in the face on that Jersey Shore show ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcd2u2gejeY ) when a guy getting punched in the face wouldn't have been noteworthy, although I welcome dissenting opinions. I didn’t follow the link, but it infuriates me when society deems it unacceptable for men to defend themselves against assault perpetrated by women. Assault is assault, and a person is violated, may be seriously injured, or may even die. Why do you think this is so?
As a last point, it would be pretty offensive if I were to invoke the slippery slope and claim the different kinds of treatment men and women receive is akin to the different kind of treatment adults and children receive, but why is that? Taking offense to that kind of statement implies an acceptance of the differences between adults and children at the expense of individual differences within either group. Are there not retarded, crippled, lightweight, or dwarf height adults who fail to demonstrate any of the criteria that make adults seem more deserving of adult type treatment than children? Are there not intellectually prodigious, able-bodied, heavyweight, or remarkably tall height children who fail to demonstrate any of the criteria that make children seem more deserving of child type treatment than adults? It would really depend on why you’re making the comparison. Never making comparisons seems to be an impractical idea (the idea of completely impartial doctors visits is particularly alarming- say no to pap smears, gentlemen), but a rule of thumb might be to examine why you are making a comparison and see just how useful it is.
If so, why do we bother to separate the two groups instead of, say, making everyone regardless of age potentially eligible to engage in sexual intercourse, obtain a driver's license, purchase a firearm, or have a drink at a bar with assessments for individual ability as the new measure? You could say that unlike with sex, children eventually become adults without the need for an operation in Thailand, but that tendency (tendency and not fact since plenty of children die before then and that Andy Milonakis guy had that hormonal condition) doesn't make an individual child any less deserving of anything an adult is seen as deserving of in your average developed nation. This might seem like a ridiculous issue to bring up, but I actually believed in treating everyone regardless of age both under the law and in informal interactions on the basis of individual merit alone when I was ten years old. Also interesting to note is that the primary difference between adults and children is a hormonal one, as demonstrated by that Andy Milonakis guy. Again, this comparison can only really be offensive if you view children as a group to be inferior somehow to adults. I personally would find being compared to children offensive, but someone who views people more by their individual merits than by any particular groups of biological distinction they might belong to ought not read any particular qualities or characteristics into the invocation of said groups. |
The rights of youths are another issue, and some things should definitely be examined in that area. I would remind you the issue of youth is they’re understood not to have the life experience to take on the responsibilities of adulthood. However, with very little personal power, children are frequently made victims. That is unacceptable, and deserving of a thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calicoe
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
1. Now let's consider things that aren't a matter of personal choice. One good example is college admission; you can't choose to be admitted, you can only request it. Women are admitted to colleges at a greater rate than men, and by a considerable margin.
2. Another good example is being laid off. You can choose to quit if your wages aren't to your liking, but you certainly can't simply choose to not be laid off. These days, men are laid off at a rate substantially higher than women, and have suffered far worse in the face of the economic situation.
3.Other examples exist as well: the commonness of maternity leave vs the rarity of paternity leave, the fact that the average post-divorce settlement grossly favors the woman, the fact that in cases of reciprocal physical violence occuring between men and women, men are almost invariably by default considered the assailant. All things that fly in the face of your nonsense regarding male priviledge, and all things that are ignored.
4. If these things were happening to women, you'd be trumpetting it as proof of oppression, but when they happen to men, you don't bother to mention it, because it's harmful to the case you're trying to make. More hypocrisy, and of the worst sort.
5. Feminists -- at least in the West -- got what they wanted. They have social equality, and from a legal perspective they actually have more protections than a white male. But as with many social movements, once they've achieved the goal they don't want to simply vanish, so they move the goal-posts. And they'll keep moving the goal-posts. Right now the goal posts are "We should assume capability is equal between the genders," and that's what you're arguing here. And it's very clear why that's a desirable position for feminists to take, because if they can get us to believe that, then so long as there is any disparity -- even if it's a truly justified disparity -- between men and women, they'll have further grounds to campaign upon.
|
1. The higher female/male ratio in college attendance of recent years is quite simple to explain, really, with a word that you seem to hold dear: MERIT. Nothing has really changed for most white males gaining admission to university in recent years except that there are more women than ever before also seeking admisson. It's called competition, and get used to it, because it will increase for everyone as a normal stage of development as others from developing countries become more able to educate girls and sons to compete in a global market.
This seems to be quite a no-brainer, since there are/were many other options for males to seek high-paying employment without a college education, such as construction/union blue collar jobs, real estate and high paying sales jobs in insurance and the financial industries. Men traditionally follow the money, which is why during an economic boom the number of women medical students also outstripped men, because the males opted to join the more highly-compensated and male-dominated financial industries of Wall Street, where, by the way, in what is still by all accounts a "good 'ol boy's" network, a stockbroker does not need a college education.
Females have outstripped males in college education over the last several years in both attendance and achievement, due to the social progression and expectation that both women and men have for greater female economic independence, and delayed or declining marriage rates. It has NOTHING to do with "having more rights than men" or an admissions conspiracy, as you imply. In fact, there is now a civil rights probe and effort underway on campuses regarding the trend to FAVOR males over females in the admission process because of the gender imbalance.
Maybe Fox News can pony up a special scholarship for angry white men, since that seems to be the bulk of their viewership. 
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/.../AR2009121302922.html
Search under: College admission rates for women spur civil rights probe
Sex bias probe in colleges' selections, December 14, 2009
"Anecdotal evidence suggests that some schools are favoring men by admitting them at higher rates than women to try to preserve a male-female balance on campus ... William and Mary admitted 43 percent of its male applicants and 29 percent of its female applicants in fall 2008 ... "
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html
www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html MOre women admitted to college than men
"At Harvard, 55 percent of the women graduated with honors this spring, compared with barely half the men. And at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, a public university, women made up 64 percent of this year's graduates, and they got 75 percent of the honors degrees and 79 percent of the highest honors, summa cum laude."
2. Men are being laid off in greater numbers because they make up the share of the hardest hit industries and higher paid jobs with more expensive benefits. It's as simple as that. But, the boys on Wall Street are thriving, courtesy of the tax payers on boarded-up main street.
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html more men getting laid off
"Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts� income, according to the government data.
�A lot of jobs that men have lost in fields like manufacturing were good union jobs with great health care plans,� says Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. �The jobs women have � and are supporting their families with � are not necessarily as good.�
3. See point 2, about the uneven wage and benefits differentials. As for your other silly points about pregnancy leave (point 2), and domestic violence, news flash: MEN DO INFLICT THE MAJORITY OF SERIOUS ASSAULTS AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. However, there is no doubt that women can be violent and abusive, and that men also can suffer from domestic abuse and deserve due diligence from the law in that respect, whenever it is applicable.
4. Again, what "things" as outlined above are "happening" to men as a sign of oppression? It is a case of artifical social barriers being removed for women and market forces. The Wall Street boys got their big pay out and bonuses. What shall Fox News complain about now that there are university admission preferences for boys? You guys still get paid 20 cents more than women on the dollar, but I have to admit, times are a lot harder for you now since back from when it was 25.
5. As a feminist, I want the opportunity for all girls and boy children to have a decent education, nutrition, clean water, and have the same opportunity to reach their full potential as everyone else, by not being shortchanged for their skills, or sold into debt labor or sexual slavery. That's my "campaign."
We are still a long way from this goal, in our own country, and around the world, as FACTS will substantiate.
As a feminist, I have no problem with a fireman who is taller and stronger than me getting a job that depends on physical strength. However, there are tall, strong and physically fit women who should not be discriminated against for those jobs if they meet the requirements. Obviously, there will be less of them than men, which is why men dominate fields requiring physical strength. However, that DOES not explain all male-dominated blue collar trades.
It just so happens that women also have capabilities that generally make them better college and university students than men, and more adaptable "star players" on Wall Street, albeit numerically outnumbered. Our comparative advantages may be different, but don't get bleating-mad because we are smart enough to adapt them to our advantage. That is what all successful outsiders have done for millennia, and also happens to be how markets reward success. It's not about moving goal posts, my friend, it's about changing the game. White males are simply not the only ones calling the shots anymore. Get used to it.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5949.html
edit: links
edited again: typos
Last edited by calicoe on Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| Read a book, read a book, search the web, read a book, READ MY FEMINIST BLOGS YOU CAN FIND THEM ON GOOGLE |
Yes, chocolates, the entire top half of your post equates to that. Zero facts, zero data, zero argumentation. Just the inane internet discussion forum cliche of screaming, "Read a book," over and over again. So far you've engaged in three typical psychological ploys: "You're creepy," "You're missing my point," "Read a book." Fortunately, given the responses we've been seeing from other people commenting about our discussion, none of them have worked. No one's being fooled by your bullshit.
Henceforth, any segment of text that is devoid of both facts and argumentation will be summarily ignored. I'm not interested in your claims that there is information out there, I'm interested in facts and argumentation. Yes, there is information out there, and there are also lies, distortions, and propaganda out there. The fact that something is written doesn't make it true. If you have a particular argument or a particular set of data, post it in the thread, and it will be analyzed. Given most of your claims are attempts to blame society for the dsyfunctions of individuals (e.g. eating disorders, "battered wife syndrome", etc), I don't think you'll get very far.
If you don't have facts, and you don't have argumentation, you're not posting anything. That's what you've posted so far in this thread: nothing. Moving on...
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| Enjoying your trip down that slippery slope? You are incapable of anticipating my next step, but your attempts to try are like a textbook roadmap of bigotry. I suggest we assume equality because it is the only just practice. |
No, it's not the only just practice. The only just practice is to determine the truth, and withhold judgment until we have the truth. This is the only argument you've made in this entire thread so far, it's a shame it's an obviously false one.
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Apple didn�t fall very far from the tree, I see. Most people outgrow the stage where they believe their daddy knows everything. It is a pretty good case example of how socialization produces sexism- you being the product, of course.
|
Inane, baseless personal attack. My father clearly doesn't know anything, it's simply one example -- no doubt among millions -- of women being unfairly benefitted rather than unfairly harmed. I also like the accusation that my father is sexist simply because he admits that these women aren't qualified. This demonstrates quite handily the true nature of feminism. Any attack on a woman, no matter how justified or accurate, is sexism. We saw it during the presidential elections; Clinton and Palin both got justifiably criticized (especially Palin), and women tried to construe it as sexism, and they were barely challenged despite the ridiculouness of their claims.
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
�I don't care about your personal life. I care about your claim that doors aren't open to you, something [byou/b] brought up. [bWhat is it that you'd like to do, but can't, because of these barriers? What are you being held back from?/b] So long as you can't answer this simple question, all your rhetoric is for naught.�
So long as you continue to ask this question you are demonstrating a disturbing sense of entitlement I mostly just read about in case studies. The internet is full of data, use it, and, once again, stay out of my house. |
Let's get real. Again and again and again you've tried to portray this as some sort of privacy issue, but it isn't. The fact is, there's nothing being denied to you. There's no barriers that are holding you back, and there's nothing you want to do, but can't. You're the one who said there are doors that aren't open to you, but when asked what those doors are, you clam up, because it was a lie. If you really don't feel comfortable talking about your actual aspirations, give me some hypotheticals. Play pretend. What position might you hypothetically want to engage in, but would not be able to because of barriers? See that term hypothetically? It means it's not about your real life. So there you go, no more excuses. What might you hypothetically want to do, but can't because of barriers?
You still won't have an answer, because this was never about your personal life. It was about the fact that there's nothing women can't do. Educated yourself to this fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| calicoe wrote: |
| 1. The higher female/male ratio in college attendance of recent years is quite simple to explain, really, with a word that you seem to hold dear: MERIT. |
I agree. When I see more women than men going to college, my first thought isn't unfair sexism (as chocolate's would be if she saw more men than women going to college), it's that women are more often better students. And you know what? I have no problem with that, and no problem admitting that. Women are, overall, better students than men. Anyone who has taught realizes this simple truth.
| calicoe wrote: |
| 2. Men are being laid off in greater numbers because they make up the share of the hardest hit industries and higher paid jobs with more expensive benefits. |
Again, yes. It's quickly becoming clear you didn't exactly understand my point. The point I was making here is that disparity does not equal oppression. There are almost invariably good reasons why disparity exists, and very rarely can it be simply explained as sexism.
| calicoe wrote: |
| "Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts� income, according to the government data. |
Someone else all ready talked about this, citing a study that said while men do earn more than women by around that, men also work longer hours than women, and when adjusted by the hour, women earn more than men per hour. If you think that statistic is false, take it up with him. You can see his post earlier in the thread.
But let's say that he's wrong, and really women do make less than men. How do you know it's not justified? If it were women earning more, I have very little doubt you'd write up a brief explanation as to why it was justified that had nothing to do with unfairness, and you'd probably be correct. Why can't you bring yourself to do the same in this case?
| calicoe wrote: |
| 3. See point 2, about the uneven wage and benefits differentials. As for your other silly points about domestic violence, news flash: MEN DO INFLICT THE MAJORITY OF SERIOUS ASSAULTS AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. However, there is no doubt that women can be violent and abusive, and that men also can suffer from domestic abuse and deserve due diligence from the law in that respect, whenever it is applicable. |
Men enact the majority of almost every type of crime, though, so to call this sexism or oppression of women is ridiculous. In fact, if I were chocolates, I'd be looking at that fact and saying, "Why are men so much more often criminal than women. Why is our society turning men into criminals? This is oppression!" Instead, I can see that it's not society's fault, and it's not a matter of oppression.
| calicoe wrote: |
| 4. Again, what "things" as outlined above are "happening" to men as a sign of oppression? |
Things that we can agree aren't really signs of oppression, because both of us are looking at men and the things that happen to them clearly and reasonably. If the same things were happening to women, though, chocolates -- and given your tone, quite possibly you -- would be using them as proof of oppression. That's my point; as soon as you decide anything that affects women negatively as a group is proof of oppression, of course you're going to conclude women are an oppressed group that need help. That doesn't make it true.
| calicoe wrote: |
| 5. As a feminist, I want the opportunity for all girls and boy children to have a decent education, nutrition, clean water, and have the same opportunity to reach their full potential as everyone else, by not being shortchanged for their skills, or sold into debt labor or sexual slavery. That's my "campaign." |
And I want the same thing. And in America, that's happened. As someone else intelligently said, there is still a lot of work for feminism to do in other parts of the world.
| calicoe wrote: |
| We are still a long way from this goal, in our own country, and around the world, as FACTS will substantiate. |
And there you go saying something stupid. We have this in America. You're just falsely assuming that the reason we have things like more men than women in government is because women are somehow being held back. The idea that men simply far more often possess the traits people seek in their political representatives doesn't enter your mind. Why can you look at a disparity in college admissions and say, "It's based on merit," but when you look at a disparity in admissions to the Senate, you say, "It must be sexism?" The same goes for big business. You're just assuming women should represent 50% of these fields, but that's not necessarily so, for the same reason we can agree that women aren't being overadmitted to college.
| calicoe wrote: |
| As a feminist, I have no problem with a fireman who is taller and stronger than me getting a job that depends on physical strength. However, there are tall, strong and physically fit women who should not be discriminated against for those jobs if they meet the requirements. |
I agree.
| calicoe wrote: |
| Obviously, there will be less of them than men, which is why men dominate fields requiring physical strength. However, that DOES not explain all male-dominated blue collar trades. |
No, it doesn't, but other psychological traits may very well, and yes, some psychological traits are gender-linked rather than sociological in nature.
| calicoe wrote: |
| It just so happens that women also have capabilities that generally make them better college and university students than men, and more adaptable "star players" on Wall Street, albeit numerically outnumbered. Our comparative advantages may be different, but don't get bleating-mad because we are smart enough to adapt them to our advantage. |
I don't get mad. I fully support it. I just wish feminists could be less hypocritical and understand that men have advantages too, and those advantages go beyond the physical. Said advantages are why there will probably always be more male Senators, more males at the heads of big business, and so forth.
So, I hope you understand more clearly now. No, I don't think men are being unfairly slighted when they're being locked up at far greater rates than women, being admitted to colleges less often than women, getting fired more often than women, and so forth. It just so happens women also aren't being unfairly slighted by things that go in men's favor either. Average capability and the focus of said capabilities varies between the genders, and we're going to see disparity as a result of it. If you're going to side with chocolate and consider any female disparity the sign of oppression while trying to explain any male disparity as justified, I don't think you're going to get very far. If you can accept that disparities which affect both genders are the result of differences in said genders, then I agree with you.
Like you, I want boys and girls to have equal opportunity. But equality of opportunity does not ensure equality of results. The natural traits of women will probably mean that, henceforth, there will always be more female than male college students. And the natural traits of men will probably always ensure more elected representatives and heads of industry are men. This isn't sexism, it isn't oppression, and it isn't unreasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I want to take a moment to discuss something very specific: eating disorders. Certain individuals in this thread have brought up eating disorders as examples of oppression. The idea is that if a given group engages in deviant behavior at an atypically high rate, it must be society's fault, and as such is a valid example of oppression. Under such logic, the fact that females suffer from more eating disorders than males could be used in feminist argumentation.
However, there is a type of deviant behavior men engage in at a greater rate than women: crime. Men turn to crime at a greater rate than women, and men are incarcerated for crime at a greater rate than women. This type of deviant behavior is far more damaging than eating disorders as well. If we were using boxofchocolates feminist logic, we would say, "Society is turning men into criminals, and this is a sign of oppression. Men are being oppressed, and it has to stop." But we don't do that; we recognize that this deviant behavior is both a matter of personal responsibility, and that this disparity is almost assuredly caused by gender-specific traits.
The same is true with regards to eating disorders. Women are more susceptible to eating disorders because of gender-specific traits, nothing more. Attempts to blame society for this are simply the ploys of individuals who turn any disparity which does not favor women into proof of oppression. It's time to stop pretending deviant behavior is proof of oppression - it's not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
A wise man and a fool argue in a meadow.
A stranger walks by and sees two fools.
|
Which fool is prettier? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| calicoe wrote: |
1. The higher female/male ratio in college attendance of recent years is quite simple to explain, really, with a word that you seem to hold dear: MERIT. Nothing has really changed for most white males gaining admission to university in recent years except that there are more women than ever before also seeking admisson. It's called competition, and get used to it, because it will increase for everyone as a normal stage of development as others from developing countries become more able to educate girls and sons to compete in a global market.
This seems to be quite a no-brainer, since there are/were many other options for males to seek high-paying employment without a college education, such as construction/union blue collar jobs, real estate and high paying sales jobs in insurance and the financial industries. Men traditionally follow the money, which is why during an economic boom the number of women medical students also outstripped men, because the males opted to join the more highly-compensated and male-dominated financial industries of Wall Street, where, by the way, in what is still by all accounts a "good 'ol boy's" network, a stockbroker does not need a college education.
Females have outstripped males in college education over the last several years in both attendance and achievement, due to the social progression and expectation that both women and men have for greater female economic independence, and delayed or declining marriage rates. It has NOTHING to do with "having more rights than men" or an admissions conspiracy, as you imply. In fact, there is now a civil rights probe and effort underway on campuses regarding the trend to FAVOR males over females in the admission process because of the gender imbalance.
Maybe Fox News can pony up a special scholarship for angry white men, since that seems to be the bulk of their viewership.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/.../AR2009121302922.html
Search under: College admission rates for women spur civil rights probe
Sex bias probe in colleges' selections, December 14, 2009
"Anecdotal evidence suggests that some schools are favoring men by admitting them at higher rates than women to try to preserve a male-female balance on campus ... William and Mary admitted 43 percent of its male applicants and 29 percent of its female applicants in fall 2008 ... "
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html
www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html MOre women admitted to college than men
"At Harvard, 55 percent of the women graduated with honors this spring, compared with barely half the men. And at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, a public university, women made up 64 percent of this year's graduates, and they got 75 percent of the honors degrees and 79 percent of the highest honors, summa cum laude."
2. Men are being laid off in greater numbers because they make up the share of the hardest hit industries and higher paid jobs with more expensive benefits. It's as simple as that. But, the boys on Wall Street are thriving, courtesy of the tax payers on boarded-up main street.
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html more men getting laid off
"Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income, according to the government data.
“A lot of jobs that men have lost in fields like manufacturing were good union jobs with great health care plans,” says Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. “The jobs women have — and are supporting their families with — are not necessarily as good.”
3. See point 2, about the uneven wage and benefits differentials. As for your other silly points about pregnancy leave (point 2), and domestic violence, news flash: MEN DO INFLICT THE MAJORITY OF SERIOUS ASSAULTS AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. However, there is no doubt that women can be violent and abusive, and that men also can suffer from domestic abuse and deserve due diligence from the law in that respect, whenever it is applicable.
4. Again, what "things" as outlined above are "happening" to men as a sign of oppression? It is a case of artifical social barriers being removed for women and market forces. The Wall Street boys got their big pay out and bonuses. What shall Fox News complain about now that there are university admission preferences for boys? You guys still get paid 20 cents more than women on the dollar, but I have to admit, times are a lot harder for you now since back from when it was 25.
5. As a feminist, I want the opportunity for all girls and boy children to have a decent education, nutrition, clean water, and have the same opportunity to reach their full potential as everyone else, by not being shortchanged for their skills, or sold into debt labor or sexual slavery. That's my "campaign."
We are still a long way from this goal, in our own country, and around the world, as FACTS will substantiate.
As a feminist, I have no problem with a fireman who is taller and stronger than me getting a job that depends on physical strength. However, there are tall, strong and physically fit women who should not be discriminated against for those jobs if they meet the requirements. Obviously, there will be less of them than men, which is why men dominate fields requiring physical strength. However, that DOES not explain all male-dominated blue collar trades.
It just so happens that women also have capabilities that generally make them better college and university students than men, and more adaptable "star players" on Wall Street, albeit numerically outnumbered. Our comparative advantages may be different, but don't get bleating-mad because we are smart enough to adapt them to our advantage. That is what all successful outsiders have done for millennia, and also happens to be how markets reward success. It's not about moving goal posts, my friend, it's about changing the game. White males are simply not the only ones calling the shots anymore. Get used to it.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5949.html
edit: links
edited again: typos |
Woa. That was awsome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calicoe
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"] Calicoe: My new comments on this post in blue.
| calicoe wrote: |
| 2. Men are being laid off in greater numbers because they make up the share of the hardest hit industries and higher paid jobs with more expensive benefits. |
Again, yes. It's quickly becoming clear you didn't exactly understand my point. The point I was making here is that disparity does not equal oppression. There are almost invariably good reasons why disparity exists, and very rarely can it be simply explained as sexism.
To be honest, I have not been following the entirety of this thread, because I find them tedious, time consuming and repetitive, so yes, I could've missed your initial point. I agree that disparity does not equal oppression, but have too much of a historical context regarding men and women to use the term "rarely." It depends on context.
| calicoe wrote: |
| "Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts� income, according to the government data. |
Someone else all ready talked about this, citing a study that said while men do earn more than women by around that, men also work longer hours than women, and when adjusted by the hour, women earn more than men per hour. If you think that statistic is false, take it up with him. You can see his post earlier in the thread.
Yes, on the whole, women work shorter hours because of child care obligations, and also miss work because of birth and child-rearing years. I do not know about "making more" when all is adjusted. I will have to look into it when I have time.
But let's say that he's wrong, and really women do make less than men. How do you know it's not justified? If it were women earning more, I have very little doubt you'd write up a brief explanation as to why it was justified that had nothing to do with unfairness, and you'd probably be correct. Why can't you bring yourself to do the same in this case?
It is not justified when women are hired for the same jobs or from the same skill sets, and earn less. I also speak out for men, especially concerning the cases of uneven compensation due to race.
| calicoe wrote: |
| 3. See point 2, about the uneven wage and benefits differentials. As for your other silly points about domestic violence, news flash: MEN DO INFLICT THE MAJORITY OF SERIOUS ASSAULTS AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. However, there is no doubt that women can be violent and abusive, and that men also can suffer from domestic abuse and deserve due diligence from the law in that respect, whenever it is applicable. |
Men enact the majority of almost every type of crime, though, so to call this sexism or oppression of women is ridiculous. In fact, if I were chocolates, I'd be looking at that fact and saying, "Why are men so much more often criminal than women. Why is our society turning men into criminals? This is oppression!" Instead, I can see that it's not society's fault, and it's not a matter of oppression.
I think this may be something that has seen positive changes in the West, as women's economic status and educational/professional opportunities started to change. However, in social, legal, and economic frameworks where women do earn less, have less professional and economic mobility, less legal protection and are socially stigmatized, it is oppression. The fact that we have only recently started to change this equation doesn't change it for millions of women around the world.
| calicoe wrote: |
| We are still a long way from this goal, in our own country, and around the world, as FACTS will substantiate. |
And there you go saying something stupid. We have this in America. You're just falsely assuming that the reason we have things like more men than women in government is because women are somehow being held back. The idea that men simply far more often possess the traits people seek in their political representatives doesn't enter your mind. Why can you look at a disparity in college admissions and say, "It's based on merit," but when you look at a disparity in admissions to the Senate, you say, "It must be sexism?"
Fox, please revisit the 2008 election campaign and all that was said about Hillary Clinton, by both the media and certain members of the electorate. Please look at how Pelosi has been portrayed by certain male-dominated media outlets. Enough said.
| calicoe wrote: |
| Obviously, there will be less of them than men, which is why men dominate fields requiring physical strength. However, that DOES not explain all male-dominated blue collar trades. |
No, it doesn't, but other psychological traits may very well, and yes, some psychological traits are gender-linked rather than sociological in nature.
As for the old, blue-collar trades, they were dominated by male "brotherhoods" of union members who would put their own friends on the top of the list for available jobs. The discrimination of women and people of color in the old, blue-collar trade syndicates is legendary and a matter of social and labor history, so I really don't need to go into it here. It is a matter of documented fact.: "United Brotherhood of Carpernters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al.
| calicoe wrote: |
| It just so happens that women also have capabilities that generally make them better college and university students than men, and more adaptable "star players" on Wall Street, albeit numerically outnumbered. Our comparative advantages may be different, but don't get bleating-mad because we are smart enough to adapt them to our advantage. |
I don't get mad. I fully support it. I just wish feminists could be less hypocritical and understand that men have advantages too, and those advantages go beyond the physical. Said advantages are why there will probably always be more male Senators, more males at the heads of big business, and so forth.
I know there are different comparative advantages, but how and why should that "naturally" advantage males over females for running and holding the highest and most influential political posts? What mysterious "advantage" could this be, that in your worldview, seems natural?
It just so happens women also aren't being unfairly slighted by things that go in men's favor either. Average capability and the focus of said capabilities varies between the genders, and we're going to see disparity as a result of it.
Not always, like in the case of firemen, and other physical trades. I wouldn't want men to be discriminated against in the fashion editorial industry, or as nurses or school teachers. But, exactly how do male senators and politicians and heads of industry have a "natural" capability advantage over women, especially when you factor in the necessary historical context that greately aided these divides?
edit: My comments in blue.
Last edited by calicoe on Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the links.
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
That is a gianormous question with a lot of different answers. What I go with is how we produce our means of survival. Economically speaking, our world is largely homogenously capitalist (not politically). Historically, there have been societies with a great deal of egalitarianism- horticultural production. That is where I come from in the smallest nutshell I could find, but there is a huge dialogue going on about this.
There have been efforts to identify and rectify sexist biases in history and even in biological science in recent years, one specific example off the top of my head being the assumption that ancient humans and their pre-human ancestors were violent hunters or apex predator apes when it now seems more likely they were the prey and subsisted primarily on whatever they could scavenge for, which would overturn the notion of the caveman providing for his wife and kids.
On the other hand, I tend to suspect a lot of those supposedly egalitarian societies have been romanticized as better than they were, sort of like the opposite of all those anthropological cannibalism claims. I've heard a number of anecdotes about societies where women had a superior status to men, like with certain Native American tribes. It's hard to separate "status" from "objectification" sometimes though. Arguably, women in general have always had a better status than men in general given that something like twice as many of our ancestors have been female and most men throughout history have died without reproducing.
If that were the standard to look at, it might be more accurate to say that the average woman has a better status than the average man, but an elite few of men have a better status than everyone else of either gender. That'd be interesting in that it would be the perfect recipe for members of either gender thinking they were getting shafted and yet getting blamed for it at the same time.
Despite that, I think women are generally objectified in any given culture you can come up with, which gives them an elevated status in the sense that people tend to treat their prized commodities well, but at the end of the day most people don't want to be treated as though they were commodities. This is also the hardest kind of discrimination to demonstrate to nonbelievers since it's so easy to claim any example of said discrimination is actually a form of respect and privilege
I personally don�t believe the existence of biological difference is significant in a species so dependent on culture. Since we can reason, we can define an equitable world. However, we are caught in a social system and unable to act and perceive outside it. In the framework I use, culture is the determining factor in deciding capability.
As an anecdotal example of why I think biology still matters a lot, I've never had a strictly platonic female friend and I don't think socialization's to blame.
I didn�t follow the link, but it infuriates me when society deems it unacceptable for men to defend themselves against assault perpetrated by women. Assault is assault, and a person is violated, may be seriously injured, or may even die. Why do you think this is so?
I think the average guy is pretty well equipped to take a punch to the face or otherwise engage in bar room scuffles without it being a major issue. If you look at the linked video, it's pretty shocking (or it is to me anyway) because the woman just doesn't look like someone who should be taking a punch. He clocks her out of the blue (ostensibly because she was accusing him of stealing a shot) and it looks wrong. That's the best I can explain it I guess without going into average strength differences or other biological claims. I guess my layman's attempt at objectively supporting this double standard would be to point out that most of the major performance enhancing drugs for pro athletes actually work by increasing male hormones. Being male and being physically strong and aggressive are pretty intimately connected phenomena.
t would really depend on why you�re making the comparison. Never making comparisons seems to be an impractical idea (the idea of completely impartial doctors visits is particularly alarming- say no to pap smears, gentlemen), but a rule of thumb might be to examine why you are making a comparison and see just how useful it is.
Yeah. I don't think you and Fox are all that far off from one another on what you're arguing. The big difference I see left between you two is the acknowledgment of modern sexism as something more than some academic contrivance.
Also, I knew a guy who had to sign forms saying he wouldn't get pregnant while taking some heavy duty acne drug because of some no tolerance law put in place in response to the drug's penchant for producing horrible birth defects in the offspring of pregnant drug consumers.
The rights of youths are another issue, and some things should definitely be examined in that area. I would remind you the issue of youth is they�re understood not to have the life experience to take on the responsibilities of adulthood. However, with very little personal power, children are frequently made victims. That is unacceptable, and deserving of a thread.
Right on. The idea of reincarnation always disturbed me given all the children who are born into starvation, beatings, druggings, etc. with no real recourse available to them in their immediate futures. I almost think all parents ought to be condemned just for forcing life on those who had no way of consenting to it. Being born is the prerequisite for all suffering. |
EDIT: Just wanted to add that this is a really good point:
| Fox wrote: |
| However, there is a type of deviant behavior men engage in at a greater rate than women: crime. Men turn to crime at a greater rate than women, and men are incarcerated for crime at a greater rate than women. This type of deviant behavior is far more damaging than eating disorders as well. If we were using boxofchocolates feminist logic, we would say, "Society is turning men into criminals, and this is a sign of oppression. Men are being oppressed, and it has to stop." But we don't do that; we recognize that this deviant behavior is both a matter of personal responsibility, and that this disparity is almost assuredly caused by gender-specific traits. |
I have a hard time believing biology has nothing to do with men committing crimes far more often than women do. There's a definite male sex linked propensity for impulsiveness and aggression.
Last edited by Street Magic on Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calicoe
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="aboxofchocolates"]
| calicoe wrote: |
Woa. That was awsome. |
Hey chocolates  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| However, there is a type of deviant behavior men engage in at a greater rate than women: crime. Men turn to crime at a greater rate than women, and men are incarcerated for crime at a greater rate than women. This type of deviant behavior is far more damaging than eating disorders as well. If we were using boxofchocolates feminist logic, we would say, "Society is turning men into criminals, and this is a sign of oppression. Men are being oppressed, and it has to stop." But we don't do that; we recognize that this deviant behavior is both a matter of personal responsibility, and that this disparity is almost assuredly caused by gender-specific traits. |
I have a hard time believing biology has nothing to do with men committing crimes far more often than women do. There's a definite male sex linked propensity for impulsiveness and aggression. |
I agree. My point is that I have an equally hard time believing biology has nothing to do with females being more prone to things like eating disorders. I was saying it's ridiculous to blame societal oppression for either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I agree. My point is that I have an equally hard time believing biology has nothing to do with females being more prone to things like eating disorders. I was saying it's ridiculous to blame societal oppression for either. |
Yeah. I think regardless of where you stand in this debate, the introduction of the male violence skew complicates the notion of sex discrimination. You're kind of stuck either suggesting that sexism is significantly biological or claiming that there's some major socialized discrimination against men.
Regarding eating disorders, I actually do think they're more socially driven, but I wouldn't blame sexist discrimination for it. I think most of the pressure or weird ideologies that go into generating eating disorders come from girls'/women's in-group acquaintances or role models i.e. other women. Most men I know (myself included) wouldn't be too concerned with a potential romantic interest's weight short of her falling in the blatantly obese range. I'd even be willing to bet the average hefty woman will be more romantically successful than the average hefty man. The generalization I'll contribute to this thread is that most guys have pretty low standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In interest of brevity -- which some people have agitated for -- I'm limiting my response to things you attempted to rebutt.
| calicoe wrote: |
But let's say that he's wrong, and really women do make less than men. How do you know it's not justified? If it were women earning more, I have very little doubt you'd write up a brief explanation as to why it was justified that had nothing to do with unfairness, and you'd probably be correct. Why can't you bring yourself to do the same in this case?
It is not justified when women are hired for the same jobs or from the same skill sets, and earn less. I also speak out for men, especially concerning the cases of uneven compensation due to race. |
Except, we very regularly accept two individuals of the same gender who work a job of the same title and description earning different wages. A variety of things enter into how much you earn for your job, and your job title and description is only one of those things. Actual hours worked, effort put in during working hours, experience previous to beginning the job, and so forth. Anyone who has ever worked at a job where they got period reviews that had a role in determining their pay advancement knows it's not a simple thing. It's entirely possible that, on average, these factors simply fall in favor of men, especially as you've all ready admitted, the part about working more hours. But these considerations are not taken into account in figures like "Women earn .80 per dollar men earn." Said statistic is deliberately grossly simplified (so much so as to actually be misleading if that previous poster is to be believed). If we can accept it's plausible that women are admitted into college more frequently than men due to merit, I think we can at least hypothetically accept the possibility of a merit-driven wage gap as well.
Equality of opportunity does not ensure equality of result. If we can accept this when it favors women, we need to be able to accept it when it favors men. It's not fair to turn any disparity that favors women into, "A case of merit," and any disparity that favors men into, "An instance of oppression."
| calicoe wrote: |
| calicoe wrote: |
| 3. See point 2, about the uneven wage and benefits differentials. As for your other silly points about domestic violence, news flash: MEN DO INFLICT THE MAJORITY OF SERIOUS ASSAULTS AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. However, there is no doubt that women can be violent and abusive, and that men also can suffer from domestic abuse and deserve due diligence from the law in that respect, whenever it is applicable. |
Men enact the majority of almost every type of crime, though, so to call this sexism or oppression of women is ridiculous. In fact, if I were chocolates, I'd be looking at that fact and saying, "Why are men so much more often criminal than women. Why is our society turning men into criminals? This is oppression!" Instead, I can see that it's not society's fault, and it's not a matter of oppression.
I think this may be something that has seen positive changes in the West, as women's economic status and educational/professional opportunities started to change. However, in social, legal, and economic frameworks where women do earn less, have less professional and economic mobility, less legal protection and are socially stigmatized, it is oppression. The fact that we have only recently started to change this equation doesn't change it for millions of women around the world. |
I'll say again: my comments regarding feminism's success are only relevent to the West. I fully agree that in many parts of the world, feminism still has a valuable contribution to make. But, that has little to do with the doors aboxofchocolates claims are closed to her (doors she still refuses to name, even though she herself brought them up).
| calicoe wrote: |
| calicoe wrote: |
| We are still a long way from this goal, in our own country, and around the world, as FACTS will substantiate. |
And there you go saying something stupid. We have this in America. You're just falsely assuming that the reason we have things like more men than women in government is because women are somehow being held back. The idea that men simply far more often possess the traits people seek in their political representatives doesn't enter your mind. Why can you look at a disparity in college admissions and say, "It's based on merit," but when you look at a disparity in admissions to the Senate, you say, "It must be sexism?"
Fox, please revisit the 2008 election campaign and all that was said about Hillary Clinton, by both the media and certain members of the electorate. Please look at how Pelosi has been portrayed by certain male-dominated media outlets. Enough said. |
Please recognize that despite a few juvenille comments, these are two of the most powerful women in the world. This is a discussion about opportunity, after all, and these women have highlighted that women have the opportunity to go quite far in our society. I don't think that can be taken away from simply because a few idiots made some inane sexist comments. Inane comments are never going to go away.
These women are proof of feminism's success, not proof of it still having a long way to go.
| calicoe wrote: |
| calicoe wrote: |
| Obviously, there will be less of them than men, which is why men dominate fields requiring physical strength. However, that DOES not explain all male-dominated blue collar trades. |
No, it doesn't, but other psychological traits may very well, and yes, some psychological traits are gender-linked rather than sociological in nature.
As for the old, blue-collar trades, they were dominated by male "brotherhoods" of union members who would put their own friends on the top of the list for available jobs. The discrimination of women and people of color in the old, blue-collar trade syndicates is legendary and a matter of social and labor history, so I really don't need to go into it here. It is a matter of documented fact.: "United Brotherhood of Carpernters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. |
First, let's emphasize a word you used here: history. And I'm not going to argue the history with you: America has a sexist past. However, in the present things have largely changed. Indeed, so much so that even the dictionary definition of brotherhood has been updated:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
| 4. all those engaged in a particular trade or profession or sharing a common interest or quality. |
Brotherhood has gained a gender-neutral definition on it's list specifically because of feminine inclusion in what were once traditionally male groups. If you want to be a member of one of these organizations, and you're competent enough, I believe you can do it. But I don't think you do want to be a member, and I don't think most women want to be members. This is the cause of any modern disparity in membership in these professions.
| calicoe wrote: |
| calicoe wrote: |
| It just so happens that women also have capabilities that generally make them better college and university students than men, and more adaptable "star players" on Wall Street, albeit numerically outnumbered. Our comparative advantages may be different, but don't get bleating-mad because we are smart enough to adapt them to our advantage. |
I don't get mad. I fully support it. I just wish feminists could be less hypocritical and understand that men have advantages too, and those advantages go beyond the physical. Said advantages are why there will probably always be more male Senators, more males at the heads of big business, and so forth.
I know there are different comparative advantages, but how and why should that "naturally" advantage males over females for running and holding the highest and most influential political posts? What mysterious "advantage" could this be, that in your worldview, seems natural? |
Honestly, it's probably in part related to the male tendency towards aggression. People find aggressive leaders more inspiring, and an aggressive person is more likely to attempt to become a leader in the first place. Even the women who do well in politics -- like Clinton and Pelosi, who you previously mentioned -- tend to be quite aggressive individuals. There's a fairly obvious psychological link betweens aggression and authority. There may be other masculine traits which also play a role, but this one was by far the most obvious.
| calicoe wrote: |
It just so happens women also aren't being unfairly slighted by things that go in men's favor either. Average capability and the focus of said capabilities varies between the genders, and we're going to see disparity as a result of it.
Not always, like in the case of firemen, and other physical trades. I wouldn't want men to be discriminated against in the fashion editorial industry, or as nurses or school teachers. But, exactly how do male senators and politicians and heads of industry have a "natural" capability advantage over women, especially when you factor in the necessary historical context that greately aided these divides? |
Explained above. I strongly suspect more men will always run for office than women, and more men will always be elected than women, unless laws are put into place forcing unnatural equality of result in this regard. In fact, interestingly, the qualities that make a good student and the qualities that make an inspiring political leader are almost inverses of one another. The good student listens quietly, does the work assigned them, and absorbs wisdom from another source. An inspiring political leader is expected to speak their mind loudly, assign tasks to others, and dispense wisdom. Is it any surprise then, that the very traits that make women more likely to succeed as students make them less likely to even attempt to run for office, much less actually get elected? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calicoe
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
In interest of brevity -- which some people have agitated for -- I'm limiting my response to things you attempted to rebutt.
Fox, please revisit the 2008 election campaign and all that was said about Hillary Clinton, by both the media and certain members of the electorate. Please look at how Pelosi has been portrayed by certain male-dominated media outlets. Enough said. |
Please recognize that despite a few juvenille comments, these are two of the most powerful women in the world. This is a discussion about opportunity, after all, and these women have highlighted that women have the opportunity to go quite far in our society. I don't think that can be taken away from simply because a few idiots made some inane sexist comments. Inane comments are never going to go away.
These women are proof of feminism's success, not proof of it still having a long way to go.
That's right, so please remember that even the most powerful women in the world can be affected by it. Both of these women, despite their obvious intelligence and competencies, have largely benefitted from being the spouses and or daughter/sister/friend of powerful men. Also, those "few juvenille comments" came from the most powerful corners of the GOP, who easily manipulated the other component - voters.
I am not questioning the progress or their status as powerful women, but merely showing you a glaring example when you wonder aloud as to why there are not more elected female politicians.
| calicoe wrote: |
| calicoe wrote: |
| Obviously, there will be less of them than men, which is why men dominate fields requiring physical strength. However, that DOES not explain all male-dominated blue collar trades. |
No, it doesn't, but other psychological traits may very well, and yes, some psychological traits are gender-linked rather than sociological in nature.
As for the old, blue-collar trades, they were dominated by male "brotherhoods" of union members who would put their own friends on the top of the list for available jobs. The discrimination of women and people of color in the old, blue-collar trade syndicates is legendary and a matter of social and labor history, so I really don't need to go into it here. It is a matter of documented fact.: "United Brotherhood of Carpernters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. |
First, let's emphasize a word you used here: history. And I'm not going to argue the history with you: America has a sexist past. However, in the present things have largely changed. Indeed, so much so that even the dictionary definition of brotherhood has been updated:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
| 4. all those engaged in a particular trade or profession or sharing a common interest or quality. |
Brotherhood has gained a gender-neutral definition on it's list specifically because of feminine inclusion in what were once traditionally male groups. If you want to be a member of one of these organizations, and you're competent enough, I believe you can do it. But I don't think you do want to be a member, and I don't think most women want to be members. This is the cause of any modern disparity in membership in these professions.
Things have changed. There are more women now in traditionally male trades. However, that was because of feminists calling out the historical male-dominated clubbiness and discrimination that I described above. It was because we called out the discrimination and oppression which you back then may or may not have claimed existed. Again, these historic disparities are still relevant today, because it will take women longer to catch up to the aggregate work experience, networks and wealth accumulation that males in that field took as a given for a century. A new tradeswoman may still encounter quite a few supervisors and long-timers who believe she shouldn't be there.
Honestly, it's probably in part related to the male tendency towards aggression. People find aggressive leaders more inspiring, and an aggressive person is more likely to attempt to become a leader in the first place ... There may be other masculine traits which also play a role, but this one was by far the most obvious.
Explained above. I strongly suspect more men will always run for office than women, and more men will always be elected than women, unless laws are put into place forcing unnatural equality of result in this regard. In fact, interestingly, the qualities that make a good student and the qualities that make an inspiring political leader are almost inverses of one another. The good student listens quietly, does the work assigned them, and absorbs wisdom from another source. An inspiring political leader is expected to speak their mind loudly, assign tasks to others, and dispense wisdom. Is it any surprise then, that the very traits that make women more likely to succeed as students make them less likely to even attempt to run for office, much less actually get elected?[/quote]
I think you really assume too much here. The negative aggression of violent crimes is completely different than the kind of assertive qualities necessary in a leader. Secondly, your analysis of females as students assumes that being quiet and docile is part of being a good student. I have news for you: thinking brains challenge by asking questions, adding a point of view, and dissenting. At least, that's how I was as a female student, but I'm not sure where you went to school. Females are also generally better with language and communication, two traits essential to being a good student and a good leader. BTW, a politician is not necessarily a leader in the true sense, as you probably know.
If we took the inane "testosterone/biology/sexism" argument stated previously a little further, we could then argue that males are ill-suited for public office, since their testostorne and/or propensity for aggression heightens their vulnerability for embarassing and compromising public situations. That's just another roundabout way of saying that women shouldn't be world leaders because they get their periods, but if they are leaders who are successful and can hold their own, they're just masculine
edit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
