Failings of feminism - real or not?

[snake]

I love this Leviathan I poster. Adds some spice to an otherwise drab and boring Gen Chat. We need more like ya kid. Got any more pals in the other forums point them this way!! :)

[Leviathan I]

Pay doesn't concern me too much, its the societal issues that lead to the pay discrepancy. Fix that and pay will resolve itself, in my opinion. (edit: OECD estimates that across OECD countries, ~30% of the wage differential is due to discrimination. In Australia, the national centre for social and economic modelling attributes the differential as being closer to 60%)

Alright, well then we agree, I don't give a fuck about the pay. Women have equal opportunity to work in whatever industry they want to in my opinion

Wlel, this is where the shifting goalpost argument comes in. You asked for evidence that women are systematically discriminated against in unconscious ways. You got it, but it wasn't "overwhelming" enough. What level of evidence DO you need to see? I don't see how much stronger you could get if you're trying to show that there is a bias against women in the sciences. Please, do show me studies that prove that women are socially favored in any situations relating to jobs that aren't shitty. (I think you'll find, speaking from experience, that even in jobs where women are nominally favored, men are promoted to management positions disproportionately more than women.)

No, I'm saying if this social favour existed there would overwhelming evidence, what you have instead is a few isolated situations where men and women are treated unfairly. Not overwhelming evidence to suggest men have overall social favour or that women have overall social favour

Well, unfortunately, I was speaking more specifically of a general US culture, as it is what I am familiar with. Tell me, do you all have a problem with racism towards Aborigines in your country?

No, I wouldn't say so. In our history we basically tried to kill them off so much that I think we all feel bad haha. The Aboriginal rights movement has been as successful as the women's rights movement here.

By bringing spousal abuse as a whole forward. It wasn't an issue at all until feminists started agitating for recognition. I have never met a feminist who isn't quick to say that yes, women can abuse men, though the opposite is far more common. And what is your opinion? Why is there such a stigma against males reporting being abused? And why is that stigma worse than the already very significant stigma against women reporting abuse?

It doesn't need to be an 'issue'. It matters if it's a crime or not. Feminists didn't make domestic abuse a crime. And if feminists did influence it why is it so prevalent that male cases are simply not treated as seriously as when the female is the one getting abused? The problem is simply gender roles and stereotypes that still exist when we're talking about man vs woman confrontation. 'The man is the stronger one, he couldn't get abused, that's silly.'

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Re: custody

One of the things I was surprised to see, though it makes sense, is that yes, women are granted custody more often than men. (That's not the surprising part.) however, in the cases where men actually pursue custody -- that is, a real "battle" -- men are granted custody 70% of the time.

The implication is that everyone (parents, lawyers, judges) assumes primary child care is the woman's job, so it falls to her sort of by default. Men don't get custody as often because they don't ask for it as often, for whatever reason. When they do ask, they tend to win.

Unfortunately I don't remember offhand whether that's full-time custody or primary custody (or maybe shared custody as well?), and I don't have the link here on my phone.

Re: the pay gap

The rigorous studies already take into account things like maternity leave and other obvious factors that might account for a difference in pay. There is still a significant gap.

Re: Ireland

There are certain things that are better than the US, and certain things that are worse. I wouldn't hold it up as some shining beacon, in any case.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Women have equal opportunity to work in whatever industry they want to in my opinion

The Aboriginal rights movement has been as successful as the women's rights movement here.

1. Find some studies to back that up, please. It's not as "common sense" a point as you think it is.

2. This might not be making the point you actually intended....

[Leviathan I]

1. Find some studies to back that up, please. It's not as "common sense" a point as you think it is.

2. This might not be making the point you actually intended....

1. Well, I don't have any. There's really no reason why they wouldn't, sure a woman could apply for a job for some guy who has some pre-conceived notions about a woman's ability to work, just like I could apply for a job for some guy with pre-conceived notions about colour blindness.

2. I don't know what you mean by that, care to elaborate?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

1. Well, I don't have any. There's really no reason why they wouldn't, sure a woman could apply for a job for some guy who has some pre-conceived notions about a woman's ability to work, just like I could apply for a job for some guy with pre-conceived notions about colour blindness.

2. I don't know what you mean by that, care to elaborate?

1. So check it out. You've made an assertion, so see if it holds water in a statistical way.

2. Just that it's very obvious that you believe both have been successful, even to the point that maybe they're no longer needed. However, the quote might still hold even if both were only partially successful, or not at all - just that you think they've had the same 'amount' of success.

[callmedodge]

There are certain things that are better than the US, and certain things that are worse. I wouldn't hold it up as some shining beacon, in any case.

I wasn`t. I was merely stating that the case there might be better than it is in the States regarding this is all. I don`t actually know because I`ve never lived in the US.

I wouldn`t consider Ireland a model for anything to be honest.

Edit: And please don`t put words in my mouth. I never did hold it as a beacon.

[Leviathan I]

1. So check it out. You've made an assertion, so see if it holds water in a statistical way.

2. Just that it's very obvious that you believe both have been successful, even to the point that maybe they're no longer needed. However, the quote might still hold even if both were only partially successful, or not at all - just that you think they've had the same 'amount' of success.

If you believe something based off of a statistic I could prove a million things to you and then prove the opposite of those million things were in fact right. Statistics aren't a very reliable way of demonstrating whether something is true or not. Most statistics are plagued with bias and flawed methodology.

I think the women's rights movement is no longer needed but the Aboriginals are a different story, they've come very far from us trying to wipe them out with genocide and eugenics but they still have terrible literacy levels, way lower life expectancy etc.

[TerraPrime]

If you believe something based off of a statistic I could prove a million things to you and then prove the opposite of those million things were in fact right. Statistics aren't a very reliable way of demonstrating whether something is true or not. Most statistics are plagued with bias and flawed methodology.

:rofl:

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Edit: And please don`t put words in my mouth. I never did hold it as a beacon.

I didn't say you did. I'm just saying that I personally wouldn't hold it up as a society to emulate, on the whole as relating to gender equality, even if there are points/countries it does better than.

Leviathan I: yes, statistics can be poorly generated (sources and methodology) or interpreted (by writer and reader). However, science cannot be falsifiable by anecdote, so we all need to start somewhere. Unless you are begging the question, you cannot rule a study out a priori just because it comes to a conclusion you don't like. That's what meta-analysis and reproducing studies and all that is for.

Finally, be careful of both taking the exceptional as ordinary ( Gillard) and believing that if you don't see something, it doesn't exist or happen.

[TerraPrime]

Leviathan I: yes, statistics can be poorly generated (sources and methodology) or interpreted (by writer and reader). However, science cannot be falsifiable by anecdote, so we all need to start somewhere. Unless you are begging the question, you cannot rule a study out a priori just because it comes to a conclusion you don't like. That's what meta-analysis and reproducing studies and all that is for.

Finally, be careful of both taking the exceptional as ordinary ( Gillard) and believing that if you don't see something, it doesn't exist or happen.

Oh, eefa, you have the patience of a saint. What would we do without you. :D

[Horza]

:rofl:

The cackling mockery bites at first, but don't be discouraged Leviathan I, follow your dreams and just imagine the looks on their faces when your new epistemology based on anecdotes triumphs (in some non-statistically verifiable fashion, natch) over their feeble statistics.

[TerraPrime]

The cackling mockery bites at first, but don't be discouraged Leviathan I, follow your dreams and just imagine the looks on their faces when your new epistemology based on anecdotes triumphs (in some non-statistically verifiable fashion, natch) over their feeble statistics.

After he single-handedly overturns the disciplines of political science, behavioral economics, much of biology, much of psychology, almost all of sociology, the profession of actuary, and professional sports, I'm sure he'll find time to revel in his own glorious exuberance.

[Winter's Knight]

If you believe something based off of a statistic I could prove a million things to you and then prove the opposite of those million things were in fact right. Statistics aren't a very reliable way of demonstrating whether something is true or not. Most statistics are plagued with bias and flawed methodology.

The facts have a liberal bias you mean.

[Ravenhair]

<snip> Fragile Bird's brilliant post

FB, I know others have said it, but this is an amazing post.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Terra - lots of practice, and the fine example of those who've gone before me / are still here. Besides, it's still less irritating than most of my work day. :P

Plus, well, he's in high school. And a man. For the most part, I wouldn't expect him to have run into most of the situations that don't directly affect him, so I'm trying to cut him some slack. No stupidity, maybe just normal teenage 'malice', and a dearth of exposure.

ETA: The insults are counter-productive, though, high school or not. None of us have to put up with that shit, so if you want have people continue to address you, I suggest curtailing them.

ETA2: No, that's the point. "Women are hired equally" or "Women have equal opportunity" are statements of (proposed) fact. They are going to be supported or undermined by data, somehow, somewhere. Since feminism isn't new, these studies have frankly already been done and published and reviewed and adjusted and so on. If you're going to make those statements, do everyone a favour and actually support the argument. Otherwise it's "there's a God because I believe it, but of course I can't support or falsify it."

ETA3: You do realise that your statements "The Aboriginal rights movement has been as successful as the women's rights movement here. " and "I think the women's rights movement is no longer needed but the Aboriginals are a different story" absolutely contradict each other, right?

[Leviathan I]

I'm sorry, those smiley face emoticons really piss me off

[karaddin]

Well I had hoped to catch up on this thread about 9 hours ago, it kept getting longer and I'm not in the best condition so if anything that follows doesn't make sense I'll try clarify later.

First off I'd like to thank all the feminists on the board that have the patience to keep fighting these fights, I would never have been in one of these threads arguing from a position of ignorance when I was younger, but I was certainly lurking in ignorance and learnt a lot from them. I'm sure there are others like me that have been educated by these threads.

Given Leviathan's dislike for statistics, and for dismissing examples from America as not relevant in Australia, I'd like to tender an anecdote of my own. My cousin works at a large IT company here in Sydney. When she was promoted to team manager, she was not given a pay raise as there "wasn't sufficient budget available at the time, we will do it later". About a year later the GFC hit, and to demonstrate it's goodwill this company cut the pay of all managers by 10%, including that of my cousin even though she was never given the pay bump for becoming a manager. About another year on from that she was shuffled into another position still having not received the pay raise that she should have been given in the first place, and a new person was hired to fill her old now vacant managers position. The new person was a man, and was hired at 40% higher salary than hers. Before you try and claim that the lower pay was due to her performance in the role vs a promising new recruit, the new position she was moved to was a promotion in the sense that it is a more important finance centric role. The culture of the company is that (or at least was, it's changing) of an old boys club, the boys used to get taken to a strip club for Christmas, drinking all year round etc and it was perfectly clear that her being a woman was the cause of the pay disparity.

Your claim that there is no racism against Aboriginals in Australia is quite simply utter bullshit, are you perhaps being raised on the North Shore? Because you sound awfully sheltered. There is still a ton of racism in Australia, against Aboriginals, against Asians, against Lebanese and more broadly Muslims, against Indians...it goes on. That's not to say that all Australians are racist, the majority are not, but there are definitely problems with racism here and I think they are more open than they are in the US.

On a more general note, as a transgender woman who has only realised that part of my identity and begun transition, I have lived my life until the last year failing to truly fit in as a man. I was being oppressed by the gender roles, and it made me miserable. But it's not feminists enforcing these gender roles, it's the patriarchy. Despite this oppression I also enjoyed male privilege for my entire life until last year. Sure I wasn't aware of it for a long time, just as you aren't aware of it, yet it is still very much real. And I'm keenly aware of losing it as I'm transitioning to being a woman.

One other thing, the verbal abuse and negative backlash to Julia Gillard is absolutely sexist in nature, unfortunately there are a loooot of people with their head in the ground who are blind to this and can't see the different nature of the attacks to those faced by our previous PMs.

That's all I wanted to say in response to Leviathan, because I wanted to steer the conversation into a more on topic direction.

I've just started reading Whipping Girl by Julia Serano, who is a transexual feminist, and is an examination of sexism and the scape goating of femininity, which I think is part of this discussion. I'm only at the introduction stage, but I have already seen that her ideas are quite similar to some I already had, and have brought up before in the Gender Wars threads. For example one of these is that even when the patriarchy is oppressing men, it's reason for doing so is caused by misogyny - a man who transgresses stereotypical male behaviour is in trouble not because he is not being a man, but because he is being like a woman which is of course the worst thing you can do. This is also seen in some of the attitudes towards FtM transsexuals vs MtF, it is utterly understandable for a woman to want to become a man, that is climbing the social status ladder and while still not great as they are stepping outside their place it's at least understandable. FtM however is the abomination that is either ridiculed, hated or fetishized...but never understood. We give up our male privilege thats just incomprehensible. It's even seen just at the level of cross dressing. It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to wear mens clothes, and in fact a lot of mens clothes are really unisex clothes outside of suits, but it's extremely transgressive for a man to wear womens clothes.

The argument that I believe Julia Serano goes on to make from there is that while feminists have been relatively successful in empowering women, it has failed to empower femininity. Whether it is by a deliberate choice to throw femininity under the bus and embrace masculine behaviour as a means to gain accept, or just as an oversight in methodology, or even a deliberate choice that we can't empower femininity yet, that's a fight for a more equal time I still think that counts as a failure of feminism on some level.

I certainly think that this along with a lack of inclusiveness is a problem with some prominent second wave feminists which is why you also see some very transphobic comments from the likes of Germaine Greer, someone my mother used to really look up to and I certainly respected until some petty remarks she made about our PM, along with becoming aware of some comments she's made abouts trans folk soured me on her.

Even though I've only just started the book, I'm very receptive to this argument that femininity has not been empowered, because I very much agree with the point that feminine is very much viewed as inferior to masculine. A lot of the women that manage to rise to high positions do it by either being like men, or by being strong in traits that are considered masculine. Displays of femininity are considered a negative, a sign of weakness - as seen in the Sansa and dresses example from near the start of this thread.

The other argument that Julia Serano has is that in addition to traditional sexism, true equality requires the ending of oppositional sexism - that is the positioning of male and female, masculine and feminine as opposites when they don't have to be. This positioning means that any time the masculine is seen as a good thing, by definition the feminine is going to be a negative. If masculine is strong, feminine is weak etc. I can't really do any more credit to this argument yet, but hopefully I can do better once I have read more of it. I have not seen this brought up as a goal of feminism before, however it's more than possible that's just my ignorance on this side of things. I can comment on femininity not being empowered because I see that all around me, but I need to be more well read to comment on the actual goals of feminism.

ETA: Ok I missed a couple of posts as I was writing this, nvm the thing about the emoticons.

[Shryke]

:rofl:

Look TP, facts would get in the way of holding opinions. It's only rational.

[Seli]

Don't worry, as someone who frequently debates Christians I can say it is a very common response after having a logical fallacy pointed out in your argument...

In that case you might be familiar with the discussion pattern where one side is bringing in loads of evidence, models, interpretations, logical proofs all pointing to A, while another side keeps asking for more and more detail because they need to be really really sure that this tiny bit of A is really true.

And I am sorry to say in this discussion in my opinion you take the position of a creationist asking for more and more transitional forms because if they are not there evolution simply cannot be true.

Re Gillard and in her own words bringing the evidence:

(AFAIK all her statements about Abbott's actions and remarks were sourced)