Anti-Feminist Anger

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But also, plenty of colleges, public and private, conduct outreach programs to bring in more female professors, and in the private sector, employers will often send recruiters to minority job fairs as part of their duty to ensure equal representation.

Outreach and recruiting candidates is a completely different thing because it does not constitute an employment decision. You can have whatever outreach you want, which is what the vast majority of AAP's are, but you cannot make the actual hiring decision based on race, gender, or age.

That's a completely different thing. The thing is, as I have said to everyone repeatedly, the rules are different for a reverse discrimination case. You can't just apply the regular discrimination rules and expect it to come out the same, although no doubt Ricci has permanently screwed up a lot of the disctinction.

I hate to get argumentative on this but that's not right. A plaintiff in a so-called reverse discrimination case may have to put out additional evidence to create the presumption that race/gender was a factor, but the "because of" legal prohibition against employment actions based on protected class is the exact same.

I haven't practiced in employment law for over a year or so now, but my husband still designs hiring proceses for the private and public sector, so I'm pretty sure I still know what I'm talking about here, although I'd Lev to jump in and confirm before I'd be sure.

Okay. As a practice, some employers may try to keep balanced workforces so as to help avoid discrimination claims, though that isn't a panacea either. But they can't admit to actually making employment decisions based on someone's race or gender.

I think you played fair, but that someone should go to HR and nip this in the bud right now before everyone gets sued.

Check your PM's. Heh. Oh, oddly, there is no legal prohibition on clients directing work outside their company based on gender. They can discriminate all they want because that's not an employment relationship. It's when work is assigned internally based on gender that there's a problem.

There is an incredibly fertile area of litigation out there, though, based on this stuff. There are a lot of companies who have diversity programs requiring a certain percentage of their outsourced work be done by females/minorities. As I said, that's legal. But if that particular outside vendor then assigns that work internally to comply with the client's race/gender-based request, that is illegal. And it is becoming incredibly common. We all know it, but nobody wants to blow the whistle because all you do is piss off the client. However, I do think a case like that will hit the fan at some point.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

I can sure as fuck disagree with her trying.

The only thing perfect about this timing is that it's allowing our fucknut of a PM to distract the entire country from the shitty budget he's proposing and from the whole "We sent people to be brutally tortured in Afghan prisons" thing. He already used the Olympics to escape that heat and now he's using this as cover.

I see. So, what you're saying is that the attempt to get equality just has to wait until there aren't fucknuts who can turn it into a campaign soundbite. Is that it?

[tzanth]

No I shouldn't. But you should read more carefully. I wrote one paragraph talking about how all the women participating in this thread seem to agree that defaulting to masculine pronouns in language is an important issue. See? It's right here.

Ah, my bad. That's what I get for drunk posting in a serious thread. :P

Anecdotal story about stereotyped feminist.

Meg, I'm sorry that your sister had a professor who did such a poor job at communicating her ideas. The fact is, however, that things like language, images and daily actions play a critical role in shaping the way we perceive gender. Sure, some of these things may seem "little," but when they are constantly repeated they become ingrained into our subconscious perception of how the world should be. This can make them even more important than "big button" issues in eliminating the casual sexism that permeates through our society.

I don't disagree at all with you, Raidne, about the wisdom of being able to do either. I'm simply talking about the apparent contradiction by some other women that 1) gender differences are all b.s. but 2) women have unique qualities that make them better suited than men to certain situations.

No one, that I know of, makes this argument. Yes, genders are cultural constructs, but that in no way makes them less real or important.

Think about nationality. That too is a cultural construct, but it plays a critical role in many peoples lives; just like gender does.

[Guest Raidne]

Outreach and recruiting candidates is a completely different thing because it does not constitute an employment decision. You can have whatever outreach you want, which is what the vast majority of AAP's are, but you cannot make the actual hiring decision based on race, gender, or age.

Honestly, I thought that's what you were talking about? I think we all know that networking only officially leads to referrals, not hiring decisions.

I hate to get argumentative on this but that's not right. A plaintiff in a so-called reverse discrimination case may have to put out additional evidence to create the presumption that race/gender was a factor, but the "because of" legal prohibition against employment actions based on protected class is the exact same.

Think about Ricci. The employer tossed a hiring test because it showed discrimination. If that test had showed overperformance by minorities, there wouldn't even be an argument that it could be tossed.

I think here, and in the next paragraph that I'm going to omit, you're thinking too much about disparate treatment and not enough about adverse impact. It's really not the same. I'm telling you people run the numbers on their tests and there is an entire industry that does this, and it's perfectly legal. They might not decide on an individual, but certainly individuals that would get hired under one test don't when the test gets tossed because of the demographic data.

Oh, oddly, there is no legal prohibition on clients directing work outside their company based on gender. They can discriminate all they want because that's not an employment relationship. It's when work is assigned internally based on gender that there's a problem.

Nope, there isn't. I know. But I've also read enough case files to know that's how it all starts - someone meets with clients on a disparate playing field, then they get the promotion based on that contract, then someone claims an adverse employment action.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No one, that I know of, makes this argument. Yes, genders are cultural constructs, but that in no way makes them less real or important.

Good point. I should have been specific in referring to people who claim there are no genetic differences that impact behavior other than reproduction.

But you still get into the problem of characterizing certain behaviors as "male or female", such as aggression, etc., while also arguing that we should stop referring to differences based on gender. Saying "men are more aggressive than women" and "quit ascribing some characteristics to one gender over another" are inconsistent, whether based on culture or genetics.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Think about Ricci. The employer tossed a hiring test because it showed discrimination. If that test had showed overperformance by minorities, there wouldn't even be an argument that it could be tossed

Well, that's correct because it goes to the believability of the inference of discriminatory intent under those facts. But the legal standard -- did you toss this test because of race -- would be the same.

I think here, and in the next paragraph that I'm going to omit, you're thinking too much about disparate treatment and not enough about adverse impact.

In a disparate impact case, intent is irrelevant. You can discriminate without meaning to. Ricci basically said that you can't engage in disparate treatment -- we don't want to hire these white guys -- because you're afraid of a disparate impact claim that you haven't hired enough minorities due to a facially neutral employment practice that has not been validated. The key issue there was that the test had been validated.

I'm telling you people run the numbers on their tests and there is an entire industry that does this, and it's perfectly legal. They might not decide on an individual, but certainly individuals that would get hired under one test don't when the test gets tossed because of the demographic data.

Ah, then we agree. My point is that decisions on particular individuals can't be based on a desire to have a more balanced workforce. But it is entirely possible that an employer will decide not to use a particular test because they might result in unbalanced hiring that could support with a disparate impact claim. But you better make that decision at the validation stage, or the Ricci police will get you.

[tzanth]

Good point. I should have been specific in referring to people who claim there are no genetic differences that impact behavior other than reproduction.

"No" is a big word, however; behavior is overwhelmingly influenced by gender, which is culturally rather than genetically determined. This is supported by the considerable cross-cultural difference in male-associated and female-associated gender tasks. In fact, to my knowledge there is only one behavioral task (deep see fishing) that is exclusively male-associated cross culturally, and no tasks that are exclusively female-associated. Additionally, seeing gender as binary is a very Western thing to do. Many cultures throughout the world have three or more genders, which seriously questions any sex-gender link.

But you still get into the problem of characterizing certain behaviors as "male or female", such as aggression, etc., while also arguing that we should stop referring to differences based on gender. Saying "men are more aggressive than women" and "quit ascribing some characteristics to one gender over another" are inconsistent, whether based on culture or genetics.

I think most feminists would argue that we should achieve equality in the way that genders are treated, not eliminate genders themselves. There is, of course, some difference of opinion on this issue, but I think the above statement is something of a straw-person.

[Guest Raidne]

FLOW: It's cute how judges and lawyers think validation is so cut and dry.

[potsherds]

Wow. Way to misrepresent what I said.

That's exactly how I took it too. Thanks for explaining your position more clearly.

It's somewhat disappointing that so many people disagree on how important language is in regards to marginalization, and attempting to correct such an ingrained and pernicious aspect of inequality in society. I'm at a loss on how else to present the argument than what's already been said.

[Guest Raidne]

Agreed. I threw my best effort out there on deep culture and all that, and nobody even responded. *sigh*

[Kelli Fury]

Raids, Pots, you don't understand. Sexism is over with already. Women got to vote, what more do you want?

[Lord Mord]

I also disagree that small issues are not worth fighting over.

I think it brings the bigger issues into even sharper relief. We should be fighting for it all, but if and when we finally win on the small issues, the bigger issues, where "discrimination is more apparent" only become the starker.

"Wait ... you could finally concede on something fairly base like the anthem, but now when it comes to greater pay equity, oh, now you're really going to dig in your heels like an utter douche?"

Wear the fuckers down on every single victory you can win.

What's the danger, after all? Attrition? Well, as disgusting as it may be to some of us, if feminists drop off in such radical numbers the movement disappears, then the democratic process has reached its limit for the moment, with women content with the place they have whenever we get to that point.

After all, while we may have our ideals, ultimately the movement has to serve the movers, and if they're satisfied, that's sort of the ballgame there.

But I don't think attrition will ever get to be that significant a problem. To the extent that it is, I think it's much less about the battles fought than about the sheer resistance met on every single one. You want to advance the movement? Get behind it on every single motion except those you find actually, literally wrong in of themselves.

I guess what it comes down to for me is: who are you holding out on the anthem issue for? For feminists? But feminists are pushing the anthem issue, so you can't really be of any help to them there. For the establishment? But you say that you don't care about the anthem one way or the other, so we know already it's not that.

If you really think there are bigger issues -- and I agree there are -- then don't say, "Why don't we spend time on something else," just talk about the bigger issues!

It is possible, you know, to work for feminism, to have no opinion on the anthem issue, and still to not get in the way.

[TerraPrime]

This is pretty OT, but what the hell. Recent research has shown that mathematical ability (and the oft-cited "variability") is strictly a function of the culture rather than inherent sex-based differences.

If a tree cries in a forest and nobody hears, is it sad?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I also disagree that small issues are not worth fighting over.

I think it brings the bigger issues into even sharper relief. We should be fighting for it all, but if and when we finally win on the small issues, the bigger issues, where "discrimination is more apparent" only become the starker.

"Wait ... you could finally concede on something fairly base like the anthem, but now when it comes to greater pay equity, oh, now you're really going to dig in your heels like an utter douche?"

Wear the fuckers down on every single victory you can win.

What's the danger, after all? Attrition? Well, as disgusting as it may be to some of us, if feminists drop off in such radical numbers the movement disappears, then the democratic process has reached its limit for the moment, with women content with the place they have whenever we get to that point.

After all, while we may have our ideals, ultimately the movement has to serve the movers, and if they're satisfied, that's sort of the ballgame there.

But I don't think attrition will ever get to be that significant a problem. To the extent that it is, I think it's much less about the battles fought than about the sheer resistance met on every single one. You want to advance the movement? Get behind it on every single motion except those you find actually, literally wrong in of themselves.

I guess what it comes down to for me is: who are you holding out on the anthem issue for? For feminists? But feminists are pushing the anthem issue, so you can't really be of any help to them there. For the establishment? But you say that you don't care about the anthem one way or the other, so we know already it's not that.

If you really think there are bigger issues -- and I agree there are -- then don't say, "Why don't we spend time on something else," just talk about the bigger issues!

It is possible, you know, to work for feminism, to have no opinion on the anthem issue, and still to not get in the way.

I'm not a feminist, but I actually get the complaint about the national anthem and wouldn't have a problem with it if I were Canadian. I mean, what's the harm in changing a couple of words if it doesn't wreck the rhyme or meter of the tune?

On the other hand, I still use "woman" and "girl" interchangeably in social situations, so I imagine I'd still be in a lot of gunsights.

[Guest Raidne]

If a tree cries in a forest and nobody hears, is it sad?

Thanks for the link, x-ray, great stuff, but speaking of trees, I was trying to avoid baiting one. :leaving:

[john]

Um. Who, exactly, is suggesting that the anthem debate is the "whole of the problem"? Or that any debate over these minor increments in equality is the whole story?

I think agitating for changes within already exclusionary concepts is making that suggestion. Yeah, we want equality but as long as woman get mentioned as much as men that's ok.

Yes, it is a category that includes everyone who ought to be included in it, rather than just half of them. You are splitting hairs now.

It's less exclusionary. That's all. It still excludes nearly everyone.

I just think this kind of solution is wrongheaded. Like if you see a problem and then you counter it by doing exactly the same thing, but with the focus on a different gender. So you see that your daughter is expected to play with dolls and you start expecting her to play with a truck. Or you see that a national anthem is exclusionary, so you just add to the number of people who are participating in this exclusion.

I cannot tell what you're talking about here. Like, if Union Pacific hires less women than men to be railway mechanics because of a strength limitation, are you okay with that or against that? If women receive more parental leave than men, are you okay with that or against that? If a restaurant makes its female employees wear full make-up? If flight attendants have weight requirements? If colleges drop the entrance qualifications for men to keep the gender balance?

At any rate, in reality, I have to break it to you, but in the United States, whenever a major company institutes a hiring practice, they run the data to see if it hires disproportionately less women, minorities, etc. Because if it does, they could be sued. So if you mean what I think you mean, I figured it would be precisely employment law as it is generally practiced that you would have a problem with.

Yes, but i think those sorts of quota fixing in line with employment law or sexual discrimination law have the capicity to allow the system to change, in a way that simply adding women on to the pre-existing male biased structures doesn't.

But sure, it probably does often come down purely to numbers but I don't think of that as the intention of those kinds of laws.

Well, in the end, my plan is this: a heavy top down government-driven policy of eradicating discriminatory practices (and, yes, using exclusionary language is a discriminatory practice) combined with a grass roots efforts at societal transformation away from the essentialist notions of our thinking about sex and gender.

Good stuff. I agree. And yes it's difficult, practically , but that doesn't mean that you have to settle for what you can get.

[Mme Erzulie]

I don't have a problem with phallic symbols like the huge one I'm going to see when I walk outside in about 15 minutes either.

Sorry, I'm not currently in the DC area. Don't know what led you to believe I was.

And those commercials were horrible. I must admit I laughed at the beer one, though.

And if the Canadian anthem is such a silly little issue, why not just change it?

[turinturambar]

Yeah, we all know that a right-wing news source like the link in Post 10 will have a balanced and fair view of feminism.

And it does seem like the guys who hate feminism most are the ones who've been recently rejected by a girl.

I think that most women don't like feminism because of the femist label. At least

our culture, the "stereotypical feminist" has short hair, wears manly clothes, and is sometimes a lesbian. Few women are into that image. Maybe this is an exaggeration, but many feminists seem to think that masculinity is superior to femininity, and that all traditionally feminine things are bad.

Most women I know can't stand the majority of publicized feminists. They're all for fighting for equality and fighting injustices where they actually exist, but they get annoyed by the loud vocals who make a big deal out of nothing. My SO even dropped a class in college because she had a professor she referred to as a "feminazi"(a term I hate btw). The Professor basically called every woman in class wasn't pro-abortion, a traitor of her sex. Suggesting that if they were to become pregnant that they should seek abortion because otherwise they might jeopardize their careers. Extremists f*ck it up for everybody, but unfortunately extremists of ANY group are always the one who get play in the media. In the same way, I'm an atheist who gets annoyed as hell by fellow secular groups who raise a stink over every small mention of religion in any kind of public setting. They make the rest of us look bad. There are plenty of good vegans out there, but unfortunately the public sees too much PETA and gives them an unfair rep as well. This happens with most 'progressive' groups.

[DanteGabriel]

This happens with most 'progressive' groups.

Fixx0red.

[TrueMetis]

The anthem isn't changing.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/05/national-anthem.html