Korean Job Discussion Forums

[calicoe]

[calicoe]

[quote="Fox"][quote="calicoe"]

[Fox]

[calicoe]

[Fox]

[calicoe]

[Fox]

[Street Magic]

[calicoe]

[aboxofchocolates]

Calicoe,

Hugely informative. Here's hoping you don't get bored and keep posting!

[Fox]

I thought you were done here, calicoe? Why do people always lie about leaving? It is, of course, another psychological ploy. You hope that by insisting you are done with the conversation, the other person won't rebutt. Won't work, and it's a shame you'd resort to such tactics.

[Fox]

I think now is a good time for me to speak once again to the actual point we're discussing, because the discussion is getting excessively focused on the SAT rather than the larger social issue.

Certain parties in this thread have insisted that women are oppressed. Barriers exist, and doors are not open to them (they refuse to say which doors, but let's assume they're important ones). Let's consider their evidence. It falls into three major categories: representation in business and politics, wage gaps, and behavioral problems. I'll address each in turn.

Representation in Business and Politics

Certain parties have correctly pointed out that men are far more represented in business and politics than women are. They assert that this is because women are oppressed, and suffer from an unfair and artificial disadvantage. But, business and politics are evidently to be considered fields which are "biased towards men" according to our feminists, and I'm certainly willing to agree with them. Men do have natural advantages in these fields. The reasoning abilities which cause them to do better at mathematics and physical sciences give them a strong edge right out of the gate. The high pressure, high risk/reward nature of these fields -- similar to the high pressure high risk/reward nature of college entrance exams -- causes them to perform at their full level rather than slacking off. Male aggression also plays a role. Finally, the fields themselves are evidently inherently biased towards men, so much so that simply asking questions about them on entrance exams causes male critical reading scores to go up.

Clearly, we have enough here to see that one could reasonably expect men to be more present in these fields than women. There's nothing out there stopping more women from running from office, or more women from starting their own businesses. The people of our nation are clearly willing to trust women in our highest offices, both in politics and in business. Occasionally sexism from individual sources does rear it's head, but this is to a female candidate's advantage, not disadvantage, as it allows her an unimpeachable position from which to attack her opponents, and increases activity in the female voting base. The only reason that we don't see more women at the heads of businesses and politics is that more qualified women have not come forward.

Just as it's totally acceptable for more women to be admitted to colleges because of traits women are more likely to possess, it's totally acceptable for more men to be political and business leaders because of traits men are more likely to possess. Neither is proof of oppression, and neither is a problem. If you want there to be more female politicians or business leaders, run for politics or start a business! But you probably won't, because you don't want to. Guess what? Neither do a lot of other women. That's not sexism, it's just reality. Different natural dispositions and different priorities leads to different results.

Wage Gaps

Certain parties have insisted that the alleged wage gap of .80 cents for women on the dollar that men earn is proof of oppression. With even a casual consideration, however, we can dismiss that fairly easily. These statistics are grossly oversimplified and hand crafted to specifically prove a point. They don't take into account actual ability, hours worked, or senority. They do nothing more than compare people with similar job titles. And even more saliently, as someone pointed out in this thread, when instead of considering yearly wages themselves we consider actual earnings per hour, results have been found that favor women over men. Needless to say, there's a reason the wage gap quickly stopped being discussed by feminists in this thread.

Behavioral Problems

Here is the most insidious -- and honestly, most ludicrious -- basis for an attempt to prove oppression exists. Certain parties have claimed that factors like women suffering from more eating disorders than men, or women being raped or abused, consistutes proof of oppression. I'm going to deal with this in two subsections.

Practice of Deviant Behavior

Saying women are clearly oppressed because they suffer from eating disorders is an interesting approach. After all, why would women suffer from them at a greater rate than men if society weren't somehow making it so, right? Casual consideration proves this to be nonsense, because it not only ignores another possibility, but the most likely possibility: that women are simply naturally more prone to eating disorders. Saying women suffering from eating disorders more often than men is proof of anti-female oppression is like saying men becoming criminals more often than women, or boys suffering from ADHD more often than girls is proof of anti-male oppression. I could easily lament, "Why is society turning our men into criminals? Why is our society destroying our boys' ability to concentrate?" But I don't, because that would be ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is any claim that it's society that makes girls have eating disorders.

Being the Target of Criminal Behavior

Women are more likely than men to be physically abused, be it raped, attacked, or what have you. Some parties want to construe this as proof of oppression. In reality, it's simply inevitable. Imagine if you have two groups, A and B. Group A is predisposed to be physically stronger, and also more predisposed towards criminal activity, including assault. Group B is predisposed to be physically weaker. Of course group B will be victimized more often than group A. Before anyone straw mans me, no, this is not acceptable; criminal behavior is never acceptable. But it's not gender-based oppression.

Children of either gender are also more likely to be molested than adults, because they're vulnerable to it. A group that is more vulnerable to a given crime will of course be the victim of that crime more often than a group that is less vulnerable to it. Crime should be opposed because it's criminal, regardless of who the victim is. We all want less rape, less violence, less theft, less fraud, and so forth. That's why these things are outlawed.

Overview

Women have equality of opportunity. Not only do laws protect this equality of opportunity, but most people really do consider women equal to men in terms of their importance and value to society. Women fill many important roles in our society, and there's very few positions which a woman could not enter into if she was both interested in doing so and competent to do so. Equality of opportunity, however, does not necessarily lead to equality of result, and lack of equality of result does not prove lack of equality of opportunity. When asked what they wanted to do, but could not because of supposed barriers or "doors being closed", not a single feminist in this thread could give an answer, and with good reason: there are no doors closed. Sexism still occurs at times on an individual level, but society decries it rather than applauds it.

In short, feminism has succeeded in the West. It still has important work to do in other parts of the world, and that's where real feminists will be putting their attention now. It's only individuals who only really care about their own self-interest who will continue to demand, "More concessions! More protections! More changes!" in our society. People who, despite not being able to give a single example of something they'd like to do but can't, insist that they're being held back at some societal level. Footsoldiers in an army that defeated it's enemy long ago, but decided to keep fighting none the less in hopes of some unjustified plunder.