More Gender Wars

[Top12Gun]

When you say you are asking a genuine question, not trying to troll, you should probably avoid stating that what you are asking about is stupid (the bolded part). Aside from that yes, I disagree. Sexism is absolutely still a big deal in society today.

I'll break it down into different categories though, the old style sexism where men consciously believe men to be superior to women is a thing of the past and is dying as the people from those times die. This is the kind of sexism that has an old man calling a Helpdesk, being told a 100% correct answer from a female employee then asking to speak to a man because he doesn't believe the woman knows what she is talking about. The man then gives exactly the same answer and the caller happily accepts it now. (That's something that happened where I worked while I was in the US). I'm guessing this kind of thing is what you picture when you think sexism isn't an issue anymore.

However there are a bunch of ways in which subconscious sexism still takes place, such as the double standard around sexuality (a man who sleeps around is a stud, a woman is a slut) which ties in to rape culture, as it's used as an excuse to blame the victim for example. I know you wanted to avoid pay discrimination, but given you went on to then address it yourself I don't know how you can reject it. I've cited an example of it just a couple of posts back in this thread already, both anecdotally and statistically women still get paid less at times. I would argue it's not due to deliberate discrimination, just a subconscious perception that the woman is not as competent, so they think they are doing exactly what you say they do - paying based on skill.

Another example of it is the way that women are held to a higher standard when attempting to take top level jobs, and are criticised for things that typically would be irrelevant in a man, such as wardrobe details and other things about their appearance. You can say that men get criticised for this too, but it's the scale in which it's done with woman that sets it apart. If you go back to the previous version of this thread you will also see a bit of a discussion on how regardless of what they are doing, women are almost always judged on how attractive they are while doing whatever task it is that they are actually supposed to be doing.

As a man it's easy for you to say that sexism is a non-issue to you, because you don't see yourself as having to deal with the negative consequences of it. A large part of achieving full equality however is about addressing men as much as it is about addressing women however, as long as men are not expected to (and are not able to due to work leave entitlements etc) take an equal share of raising children, household tasks etc then those tasks will continue to be seen as womens jobs by some. While women are viewed as not being physically capable (not being allowed to serve in combat roles in the military etc) then from certain perspectives men can be viewed as more expendable. Men are told to bottle up their feelings, they aren't allowed to have them, the only acceptable emotion is anger. These things effect men and women, and they are changing over time but it's a long way from finished.

1. I was referring to sexism as a lens of stupidity, not my argument.

2. Interesting point about subconscious sexism, I can't speak to that since my only employer since 17 has been the military. To go off on a tangent: I will say about the debate about women in combat that I'm firmly on the side against it, for the reasons that men are faster and stronger (there's a reason why sports leagues are usually segregated by sex) and I want someone beside me who, in the event I'm shot, can drag my big ass out of the way. I can't see a woman fulfilling the physical requirements to do that. Any thoughts??

3. And yes, I already said that it was a non issue for me because I neither relate to or are viewed to that way.

[Tempra]

I will say about the debate about women in combat that I'm firmly on the side against it, for the reasons that men are faster and stronger (there's a reason why sports leagues are usually segregated by sex) and I want someone beside me who, in the event I'm shot, can drag my big ass out of the way. I can't see a woman fulfilling the physical requirements to do that. Any thoughts??

Oh boy. Time for some stories of women kicking ass. Datepalm? Raidne?

[Happy Ent]

And yet, "virgin" is a concept developed to commoditize females, no?

Yeah, sure. As already pointed out, using a slur originally designed for women is doubly insulting for men. Maybe by that measure, virgin is a worse insult than slut. There’s always “beta” or “omega” if you’re looking for an insult originally constructed for males.

Or have we had historical periods where a man was judged as more worthy and more moral based on his lack of sexual experience? I guess some religious orders that glorify abstinence may apply, but for society as a whole?

I would be very surprised if that were the case. As you say, it’s probably outliers in highly artificial or “cultured” mini-societies.

The point I want to make is that the observation that men and women are treated differently is trivial, and I remain baffled how intelligent and decent individuals can get so much mileage out of belabouring this. It is even more trivial when it‘s about issues related to reproduction. It’s predicted by pretty much any model for human behaviour I have seen, not matter which epistemological tradition you belong to. 145th wave feminism. Biologism. Most religions. Evo-psych. Pomo nonsense. Homeotoxic inverse Marxism in the late Brandenburger School. Take your pick.

Observing that many insults against women will focus on their perceived disability to control her (and thereby “our”) gene pool is about as exciting as saying “things fall down when you let go of them.”

About what there can be no serious debate is that women, on the average are slightly better off than men in modern Western society in almost every variable you can conceive. There are interesting counterexamples, but they are few and relatively trivial. (This has not been the case for all societies, as far as I know. I may be wrong.) And conversely, that almost all highly successful individuals will be males, just as all catastrophically unsuccessful individuals will be males. (This probably is a human universal.) These observations are not equally well predicted by all theories I know. I find it useful to discriminate between explanatory models based on observations such as these, which is partly why I reject most social constructivist theories, among which I count several brands of feminism. (However, my mean reason to reject these theories is that I find them intellectually boring.)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

About what there can be no serious debate is that women, on the average are slightly better off than men in modern Western society in almost every variable you can conceive. There are interesting counterexamples, but they are few and relatively trivial. (This has not been the case for all societies, as far as I know. I may be wrong.)

Seriously? You and I live in very, very different worlds.

[TerraPrime]

2. Interesting point about subconscious sexism, I can't speak to that since my only employer since 17 has been the military.

I don't understand this sentence. Can you explain what about having a career in the military is related to subconscious sexism?

I can't see a woman fulfilling the physical requirements to do that.

So, obviously, the best way to go about it is to issue a ban on all women in direct combat positions based on this assumption of lack of ability, right?

[TerraPrime]

Seriously? You and I live in very, very different worlds.

If only you could carry out photosynthesis, you'd understand.

Silly woman.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

If only you could carry out photosynthesis, you'd understand.

Silly woman.

Good point. I'll stop being shrill now and go back to appreciating my status.

[Balefont]

But, you do realize how that statement can be read, tho, right? Fuck males, lets ride right over those bastards!

Uhhhh, okay? Pretty sure I clarified my tone and meaning with the rest of what I said.

I realize that's more than likely not what was meant, but it definitely skews the message in terms of tone, don't you think?

Uhhhh, nope.

People seem wired to respond to certain tones of statement as though it is an actual conflict, rather than an evolution of thought.

(and, actually, I read that quote as "we are going to achieve what we want to, because we are entitled to do so; and whether it makes males uncomfortable or angry isn't going to be a factor". Which, actually, I'm fine with.)

Uhhhhh, great?

[john]

Observing that many insults against women will focus on their perceived disability to control her (and thereby “our”) gene pool is about as exciting as saying “things fall down when you let go of them.”

You find the revelation that launched modern scientific thought to be intellectually boring? :P

edit - Do you also find it tiresome when you sit down in the bath and displace water? Sigh, how trite!

[Brienne the Beauty]

Seriously? You and I live in very, very different worlds.

Let's cancel the thread, since we apparently won the gender wars. :bang:

[sologdin]

the combat arguments are comical. i'd prefer an army that maximizes firepower and minimizes logistics. to the extent that firearms are the great equalizer, the largest adult and the smallest cognizant child can equally maximize firepower--but the logistics of outfitting and feeding the largest adults makes them prohibitively costly. i therefore enroll only lower denarians, until imprisoned for employing child soldiers in contravention of international criminal law. when released, i employ only the smallest adults. if women are on average smaller than men, then my smallest adult soldiers will tend to be more female than not. accordingly, sentiments such as

can drag my big ass out of the way. I can't see a woman fulfilling the physical requirements to do that

indicate not that female soldiers are insufficiently strong for combat, but merely the general who employs a strategy based on big-assed male soldiers is a losar.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Turning the table, virgin is used intentionally as a slur towards males in a way it’s never used against females.

Apparently someone has never been in a modern American high school.

[Brienne the Beauty]

If the reason why women shouldn't fight on the front lines is they can't carry big male soldiers out of harms way, maybe they should fight in all-female Amazon battalions. :)

[Guest Raidne]

Well, ladies, at least we've done well enough for some men to get defensive about it. You can't say that was the case in 1950.

To go off on a tangent: I will say about the debate about women in combat that I'm firmly on the side against it, for the reasons that men are faster and stronger (there's a reason why sports leagues are usually segregated by sex) and I want someone beside me who, in the event I'm shot, can drag my big ass out of the way. I can't see a woman fulfilling the physical requirements to do that. Any thoughts??

Standards should be set, and not compromised on, that accurately measure the ability of an individual man and/or individual woman to do this. You will have to set a weight requirement, however, as Datepalm noted. If you set it very, very high, you will disqualify many men who are currently in combat positions. To say how many women and/or men could drag you out of harm's way, I would need to know how much you weigh. If it's equivalent to the weight they make people carry to be a fire fighter, it is likely that very, very few women would meet that standard, yes.

I would never expect to see 50/50 percentages, or anything all that close to it, in combat roles.

Honestly, seeing what walking around with body armor on nearly all day everyday for even just a year does to you guys doesn't really make me envious of anyone in that position - your spine just doesn't withstand that stuff. I know TBI is the signature injury of this conflict and all, but you guys have much worse backs, knees, etc., too.

Seriously? You and I live in very, very different worlds.

Ent tends to have different priorities on measures than most of us. They certainly don't include (1) what you get paid or (2) how much domestic work you do, for instance. For Ent, I think, if the average married woman lived to be 73 and the average married man lived to be 71, than the average woman would be better off than the average man, even if the average single woman had a life span of 80 and the average single man lived to be 68.

[Guest Raidne]

I got six months paid maternity, for instance. It has not affected my prospects (at all).

That's fantastic - this does not appear to be the case in my office. While we have great female representation at the top, I believe they are all childless.

The point I want to make is that the observation that men and women are treated differently is trivial, and I remain baffled how intelligent and decent individuals can get so much mileage out of belabouring this.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean here. Do you mean that if an attorney takes a pay discrimination case, you think, how boring, why are they bothering, of course she is going to up end being paid less?

I mean, I can't say I find all aspects of this inherently fascinating either, particularly in the areas with the greatest demonstrable effects, like time spent on domestic chores. I just don't have the option of deciding not to care about it because it's not interesting or I'll end up living a life that is even less interesting than the one that requires a constant low-level awareness of sexism and its influence because of, you know, sexism.

Try thinking of these threads that way - the purpose is for women who get together and engage in the necessary task of talking about how to not get stuck doing all the shit work (at home and in our careers) with participation from the men who care enough to help us out, and some naysayers.

[Elder Sister]

The point I want to make is that the observation that men and women are treated differently is trivial, and I remain baffled how intelligent and decent individuals can get so much mileage out of belabouring this. It is even more trivial when it‘s about issues related to reproduction. It’s predicted by pretty much any model for human behaviour I have seen, not matter which epistemological tradition you belong to. 145th wave feminism. Biologism. Most religions. Evo-psych. Pomo nonsense. Homeotoxic inverse Marxism in the late Brandenburger School. Take your pick.

Observing that many insults against women will focus on their perceived disability to control her (and thereby “our”) gene pool is about as exciting as saying “things fall down when you let go of them.”

About what there can be no serious debate is that women, on the average are slightly better off than men in modern Western society in almost every variable you can conceive. There are interesting counterexamples, but they are few and relatively trivial. (This has not been the case for all societies, as far as I know. I may be wrong.) And conversely, that almost all highly successful individuals will be males, just as all catastrophically unsuccessful individuals will be males. (This probably is a human universal.) These observations are not equally well predicted by all theories I know. I find it useful to discriminate between explanatory models based on observations such as these, which is partly why I reject most social constructivist theories, among which I count several brands of feminism. (However, my mean reason to reject these theories is that I find them intellectually boring.)

Happy Ent, I have no idea what forest you live in, but I would love to move there. And I am not as articulate as you are, therefore my statements are going to be very elementary. Please forgive me for this.

• regarding your first statement that I have bolded - it is not trivial when it's affecting my paycheck. Or let me just say, maybe it's trivial to you. It's a huge damn deal to me.
  
• I have personally known many women who's reputations were ruined because of the label 'slut' or 'whore' being applied to them. This adversely affected them in pretty much every way you can imagine. Those women who moved and started over fared much better than those who stayed in their hometowns. Words are extremely harmful. They can alter a life.
  
• Would you give me some examples of your second bolded statement, if you don't mind?
  

1. I was referring to sexism as a lens of stupidity, not my argument.

2. Interesting point about subconscious sexism, I can't speak to that since my only employer since 17 has been the military. To go off on a tangent: I will say about the debate about women in combat that I'm firmly on the side against it, for the reasons that men are faster and stronger (there's a reason why sports leagues are usually segregated by sex) and I want someone beside me who, in the event I'm shot, can drag my big ass out of the way. I can't see a woman fulfilling the physical requirements to do that. Any thoughts??

3. And yes, I already said that it was a non issue for me because I neither relate to or are viewed to that way.

I would think your experience in the military would give you a better grasp of sexism since it has one of the worst records with regards to treatment of women and homosexuals of any organization I can think of. Also, your statement about women in combat is absolutely ludicrous. I work with a woman who was a fireman(person! that's awkward.), and can out lift most men in the gym. If a woman can fulfill the physical requirements, then I don't see the problem.

I appreciate that you're attempting to show you're an enlightened guy, but you've sort of dug yourself a hole here.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Well, ladies, at least we've done well enough for some men to get defensive about it. You can't say that was the case in 1950.

I acknowledge the progress and am happy I live now, rather than in a prior time.

That's fantastic - this does not appear to be the case in my office. While we have great female representation at the top, I believe they are all childless.

Probably unsurprisingly, at least anecdotally, I've found that companies actively trying to recruit more women have better policies than those that already have a lot of women. I'm not complaining, for sure :)

[Guest Raidne]

I would think your experience in the military would give you a better grasp of sexism since it has one of the worst records with regards to treatment of women and homosexuals of any organization I can think of. Also, your statement about women in combat is absolutely ludicrous. I work with a woman who was a fireman(person! that's awkward.), and can out lift most men in the gym. If a woman can fulfill the physical requirements, then I don't see the problem.

Ha, awesome! I think we can probably agree that there are very few women this strong though, right? Which is why that's totally not the point. If the individual woman can do it, who fucking cares if most women can or not?

Zabz - that makes sense. In the future, I'll keep an eye out for lots of binders.

[Järv]

Happy Ent, (...) .

• Would you give me some examples of your second bolded statement, if you don't mind?
  

HE cannot be bothered, obviously. Here some points he might have had in his mind when writing that statement:

young men getting less university degrees than young women, unemployment rates higher for men, State-based retirement schemes biased in favor of women, more male than female homeless people, death penalty almost exclusively for men, 90% prison inmates male, men more often victims of violent crimes then women, suicide rates higher among men, average life expectancy five years lower for men although studies with monks and nuns, i.e. persons who life really comparable lives show that the natural difference between the sexes is only one year etc.

[Nukelavee]

Uhhhh, okay? Pretty sure I clarified my tone and meaning with the rest of what I said.

Uhhhh, nope.

Uhhhhh, great?

Oh dear, don't like the tone? How odd.

Thing is, I didn't read the rest of your post, simply because that was the line that caught my attention, and triggered a response. You might not like my response...but you caused it. That's my point. You can't even argue about how the tone was or could be perceived, because, well, you're teh wrong gender to be able to judge how that could come across to a male.

And, it is great I think like I do about the actual message you gave, because the alternative would be to say "fuck you, i'll do what it takes to improve my lot, regardless of any effect on women's goals".

It's far better I worry about the details I do, than actually resist changes for the better, believe it or not.

Mlle Zabzie - yeah, cohort is a better term. And, you managed to actually articulate better what I was trying to say. The society a cohort is trying to change is based on the previous groups actions, but the changes we want to make may already be seen as unimportant to a younger cohort.

It's like a military still building battleships when carriers already exist, or preparing to fight other super powers when the conflicts are all on teh level of terrorism, while the rank and file are already aware those models aren't realistic anymore.

In other words, are the tactics and models of this "gender war" being used today, valid for how sexism exists now, as opposed to 20years ago?

eta - omg. Helping a friend out with an essay this week, where she had to discuss an article she insists is real (published), that I insist is made up. Basically, said article stated the best way to handle Canada's aging population and declining birthrate was to encourage teen girls to have more babies, because society is so past judging that, and these days they should have no problem getting an education and career later...by Bertha Goodchild.

That name has to mean it's a joke, right?