SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
 Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 06:07 |
 
|
I was recently reminded of why some womens activists really annoy me when I read a forum post earlier today.
Women who campain for "equality" always, always complain about the jobs they have access to. Their complaints often have an element of truth, the so called Glass Celing is a very real fact.
On the other hand.... those women (nor any others) ever suggest that they have a right to work in a coal mine. They don't demand to be conscripted either... is anyone else noticing a disparity in "equality" here?
Worse... if you told any of those women (the activists) that they must agree to conscription (in times of need) they will tell you that they shouldn't have to. If they were given a choice between working in a coalmine and starving to death (like some men were) then theyed complain about sexism, no matter how many high paid women there were.
Anyway, I send this thought into the FUMBBL community. Discuss.
Note: I am not arguing that women should be treated as lesser beings, just as true equals. This is also a thread for debate although flame might be entertaining.
Edit: oh yeah, that "You can't hit women" trash. It should be "You can't hit other people" or just nothing.
Don't even get me started on the debate that womens only sports should be given as high a profile as "men only" sports. The fact that women are allowed to compete in the latter, but fail always seems to get missed out (as well as the fact that many women don't like watching sport). |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Pirog
Joined: Jul 13, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 08:09 |
|
There are plenty of feminists in Sweden that demands to be able to go through military service and that wouldn't react in a negative manner about the coal mine argument. (At least not worse than the average Swedish male that would likely refuse to work in a coal mine...)
The problem with some radical feminists in my opinion is that their view of equality is erasing the distinctions between men and women. I find that both an impossible task and a one that shouldn't even be attempted if it worked.
There are differences between men and women that can never be erased. There are biological reasons for why men tend to be more aggressive and the added muscle mass will make the standard male more suitable for hard labor than the standard female. Women in their turn of course have biological traits that make them excel in certain fields. Over a very long time scale evolution might change this, but until that changes we should work with what we got.
The gender theories have gone a bit out of hand. I definately agree that a lot of traits and characteristics that are defined as "male" and "female" are really only social constructions and over time that could of course be changed. Some probably should, but definately not all.
Comforming everyone would be very boring. I personally highly appreciate women with typically female traits. I would hate to end up with a woman that is like "one of the guys". Of couse I defend the right of women to be whatever they like though, but I will never force my hypothetical son to wear pink or light blue clothes or play with Barbie dolls just to break up the social constructs, because I don't want that kind of equality. My kids are going to dress and play with whatever they like.
I have been travelling much in Asia and one country with an interesting view of things is Thailand, with their "ladyboys". Although Thailand are far behind in many aspects when it comes to their view on women they are extremly tolerant towards gender identity. The ladyboys (various levels of gender transgressing males, some operated others not) are accepted as a third gender. You can see them working in nice stores, in restaurants etc. and the Thai population never seem to view them as weird. Although I must admit that I'm homophobic enough to feel quite uncomfortable when ladyboys were flirting with me I still think it's kind of cool that people can switch gender like that and be accepted on such a broad scale. |
|
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 12:25 |
|
Just to get Pirogs first point right: women are able to voluntarily go to through military service in Sweden, and it's a very common opinion among feminists here that the conscription should be made gender neutral as well. |
|
|
kpsycho
Joined: May 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 12:49 |
|
You are partly wrong pirog, modern psychology mostly states that men and women are comparably aggressive, the difference being that males tend more towards direct verbal or physical aggression while women are more prone to social aggression. men have more muscles and slight anatomical differences and better spatial processing. females are better at languages.
many indegenious peoples have 3rd and 4th genders (thailand is a good example for that), like the north american two-spirit-people or indian hijra which suggest that more available gender roles could benefit individiuals that would otherwise end up alienated in their society. and let's not forget, one in 2000 people is born without belonging to a specific sex (i.e. approx. 3,350,000 people in the world) and often surgically changed after birth to conformed to one specific sex with subsequent oftentimes severe emotional problems. |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 15:44 |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 15:45 |
|
| Pirog wrote: | There are plenty of feminists in Sweden that demands to be able to go through military service and that wouldn't react in a negative manner about the coal mine argument. (At least not worse than the average Swedish male that would likely refuse to work in a coal mine...)
|
I didn't know that. I shall remember it from now on, other examples would also be appreciated (if they are genuine).
Trouble is that (here in the UK) I have come across alot of women who complain about sexism. I have all kinds of problems with this including the fact that they sometimes actively refuse to promote men on the basis that men are sexist.
If there are some true feminists out there seeking genuine equality of choice (but not erasion of distinction) then it is good to know. I would wholeheartedly agreee with their principals and their cause.
And the Thailand thing... woa. Just woa. It is a huge step but that must be pretty uncomfortable being chatted up... I sure hope they take no for an answer.
Edit: awsome brownrob. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 17:42 |
|
SillySod... as always, I hate to ask it, but... what kind of feminists have you spoken to, personally? Your posts would suggest to me (flame me if I'm wrong) that they are, "because of me" types. That would put them on the same political awareness level as Vegetarians who don't eat meat because "animals are cute", and Those who want to legalize marijuana based on the fact that they smoke it a lot.
I consider myself a social feminist, meaning that I think a lot of societal institutions have been set up by men, for men, and women trying to advance through them are inherently disadvantaged, or else asked to sacrifice a portion of their womanhood (and be insulted for it) to succeed.
Two things to remember as you engage this issue:
1) Don't be on the personal level. It's not about you, and it's definitely not about howyou aren't one of the bad men who deos those bad things. The discussion is about how to correct those cirumstances and attitudes, not your involvement or inconvenience.
2) One of the most helpful ways of looking at it, rather than theoretical circumstances where I might be denied a job: http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
It's not perfect, but the idea is that even if you don't contribute, the attitudes do give you some privileges. Things that stood out for me (in case people can't be bothered to click a link):
I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
The list is longer, but read it yourself. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Pirog
Joined: Jul 13, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 18:29 |
|
| Quote: | | You are partly wrong pirog, modern psychology mostly states that men and women are comparably aggressive, the difference being that males tend more towards direct verbal or physical aggression while women are more prone to social aggression. men have more muscles and slight anatomical differences and better spatial processing. females are better at languages. |
I was mainly thinking of physical aggression. You are right to correct me  |
|
|
Natakutoo
Joined: Dec 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 18:29 |
|
One thing I find here is that organisations are more prepared to have open policies of pro-female sexual discrimination.
For example: The local universities Student Union has a Women's Officer, but no Men's Officer (despite several calls for this from the student body), and men are barred from standing for election as Women's Officer.
Likewise, a Women Only night bus has been organised (although so far has failed to materialize) and only in the past year or so have male students been able to claim free panic/rape alarms, a service which has been available to female students for considerably longer.
Outside of this both taxi and construction companies have been started with policies of only hiring women and there's a plethora of women only self-defence course in community centers up and down the country.
Now I know it's something of the same-old, same-old that always comes up in debates about sexism, but I think it's important to take note that sexual discrimination and gender-defined roles have an effect on both men and women. Even the word feminism allies itself to one gender, which doubtless makes it seem all that more distasteful to much of the male population. Sometimes I wish we had new words for the same old ideas.
Mac: If you stayed at home to look after the kids you'd be praised for your parenting? Funny, I suspect I'd be branded as anything from a 'lazy sod' to a 'queer' or just a blanket 'paedo'. Which is a shame, because when I have kids I really would like to be the primary carer. |
|
|
Pirog
Joined: Jul 13, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 18:45 |
|
Macavity>
Good post. Structural racism and gender inequality is in many ways worse than blunt traditional racism or sexism, because it's so very hard as a victim to point out specifics. In Sweden, which is a country with a pretty good reputation when it comes to countering these issues there are still plenty of it around. It's for example very tragic that many immigrants change their names to ethnical Swedish names because they know that they won't get a job with their foreign ones.
Sadly a lot of radical feminists have slipped over into promoting ideologies that are no longer focusing on equality, but rather as some form of revenge. Feminism has a bad rumor because of them. It won't stop me from calling myself a feminist, but I think it's tragic that the "feminist community" is so poor at criticising their own when they go too far.
In the last election in Sweden there was a feminist party trying to break in, but it was quickly hijacked by the radical feminists which lead to the "moderate" feminists dropping out. The party ended up being somewhat of a tabloid joke and made a bad election, and I bet the chauvinist population cheered when they (in their view) got a receipt on that women can't cooperate or handle power. Of course the tabloids huge coverage of their internal scandals is another sign of how the system tends to keep women down. No other minor parties got even half as much as media coverage and I doubt it would have been as much attention to them if there was nothing negative to focus on.
I also think a lot of practices that are carried out in well meaning end up hurting womens chances later in life. I remember when I was in school. There was an open policy that the girls didn't have to take part in the discussions as much as the boys, because "girls are shy". That means that a lot of girls stay quiet and never gets to practice discussing and negotiating. They end up with good grades and get into nice educations (women dominate the Swedish universities), but when it comes to making a good job interview or negotiating a pay rise they often fall flat.
Well, this all kind of ended up being a rant, hehe... |
|
|
Pirog
Joined: Jul 13, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 18:57 |
|
| Quote: | | Now I know it's something of the same-old, same-old that always comes up in debates about sexism, but I think it's important to take note that sexual discrimination and gender-defined roles have an effect on both men and women. Even the word feminism allies itself to one gender, which doubtless makes it seem all that more distasteful to much of the male population. Sometimes I wish we had new words for the same old ideas. |
In Sweden there was an effort to introduce the term "equalist" instead of feminist, but it never really caught on. Old labels tend to stick.
And you are of course right that discrimination goes both ways. In many perspectives women have it easier than men nowdays, but their advantages tend to be in social environments while men get advantages on the job market.
There are also many other factors that has effect. One thing is good looks for example. A stunning woman probably doesn't feel many of the downsides of the gender inequality (although they of course have their share as well, like a difficulty to be taken seriously), which of course makes the unattractive women feel it even worse.
The benifits for women is another example of how I find the feminist movement making a tactical mistake. They would earn more sympathy and support if they spoke out against some of the things that are clearly discriminating men. I'm sure it would change some men from being sceptical about feminists. |
|
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 19:19 |
|
| Pirog wrote: | | Sadly a lot of radical feminists have slipped over into promoting ideologies that are no longer focusing on equality, but rather as some form of revenge. |
As a guy who've hanged around lots of feminist activists for the last 10 years or so, I've hardly ever encountered anything like that. People who spend some time trying to do something about the worst of mens behaviour against women do get angry, of course they do. Any sane person would. But they're not angry at you - though they might wonder if you do anything with your responsibility.
Rather, it's a lot like some people instinctively believe they've been insulted when someone questions the actions of their government. I've seen a lot of men reacting to however carefully worded feminist arguments like their whole world is threathened. And historically, it's always been the same - every wave of progress has had their histories of mad, spiteful women devoid of "true femininity". Then they won, and became praised as moderate, insightful women compared to the new wave. |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 19:38 |
|
| Natakutoo wrote: |
Mac: If you stayed at home to look after the kids you'd be praised for your parenting? Funny, I suspect I'd be branded as anything from a 'lazy sod' to a 'queer' or just a blanket 'paedo'. Which is a shame, because when I have kids I really would like to be the primary carer. |
Actually, this has been shown in a few studies in a variety of ways. Posed actors in restaurants with obnoxious kid who purposefully ignore them are seen much differently, based on comments of observers, and camera footage. Women are "supposed" to be better caregivers and are criticized. Men are assumed to be divorced (why else would they be alone with the kids?) or helping out while mom is out of town or something, and are viewed with sympathy, and sometimes out-right helped.
I also have two questions for you:
1) Why did you only respond to one item on my list? Did you think the concept of privelege is wrong, or were you looking for an easy jumping-on point to criticize feminism because that is your position in the argument?
2) Your University has a Women's Officer. How many other positions are there on the union leadership, and how many of them are occupied by women? |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 19:45 |
|
Well, all the replies so far have been fairly profound (bar brownrob, but his was awsome anyway). I'm impressed.
Macavity:
I wasn't arguing that women arent discriminated against in various ways (mostly institutional). Your points are excellent. The feminists I am talking about arent necessarily the hardcore ones, but some of the mediocre members of society (sorry) who would describe themselves as feminists. I have only experienced the feeling of imediate refusal twice* but mostly I am refering to women I have heard complaining not at me but either to me or within my viscinity (and some on TV).
*when handing in an application form to a manager, they look at me as if dirt and tell me something negative, I then look round the shop and realise there are only female members of staff
| Natakutoo wrote: | One thing I find here is that organisations are more prepared to have open policies of pro-female sexual discrimination.
For example: The local universities Student Union has a Women's Officer, but no Men's Officer (despite several calls for this from the student body), and men are barred from standing for election as Women's Officer. |
This is one of the things my original post was trying to address (though it may well have failed). This is blatent and straight wrong.
| Natakutoo wrote: |
When I have kids I really would like to be the primary carer. |
Queer. Your are right though, the institutional stuff works both ways, but maybe to a greater or lesser extent.
One argument I can see to rationalise "positive" sexism is the following:
"Women are institutionally disadvantaged, therefore they should have extra benefits built into the system to counter this."
This argument has merits but I don't agree with it. I believe that it is wrong because it is not curing the problem at the source, merely trying to paper over it. I also dislike the way that it seeks equality by disadvantaging others to bring them back into line. I guess it I'd say:
"Don't do unto others because the system does unto you"
The communist system wasn't great because it generally ended up making people by bringing the wealthy down to the level of the poor (helping no one).
Off Topic: Talk of some of the radical feminism stuff reminded me about slavery debates. I completely fail to see why I should feel sorry for something I did not do. Obviously it is most regretable and I'd hate to see it happen today but the fact remains: I am not responsible, therefore I should not be sorry. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2007 - 20:13 |
|
To SillySod
Well, one of my profs used this example:
You are running a race with someone else. A long race. Half-way through, you are both asked to stop, as someone realized your opponent had large weights strapped to their legs. Now, how do we make it fair?
A) Move you to the same place in the race, and go from there. Either requires you to lose ground, or give them ground "for free", but you still have the advantage of not having had the wieghts on.
B) Put weights on you for the same amount of time. Might be the best bet for the integrity of the race, but you didn't put the weights on your opponent in the first place, so not "fair" by any means.
C) Just keep running. At least we took the weights off.
The real answer of course is D) It can't be fair. Too late.
If we carry the analogy into the realm of feminism, I think you are supporting the A option. Don't discriminate at all, equal ground from here on out. You are opposed to B. You didn't put the "weights" on, why should you be punished? Regrettably, at least in my country, the time already run with weights on is so significant that A starts looking like C very quickly, the lead is so well established, the systems so Pro-male, the people in power so over-whelmingly male, that this 'race' would need to go on for 100s of more years to even approach actual equality.
In many ways, the question is one of personal Justice vs. Societal Justice, and I can't really fault you for picking one over the other. The reason the Privilege idea was so important to me (and I mentioned it here), is that it changed my personal thinking by showing that I benefited from prejudice, even if I did not perpetuate it.
As an odd side note, I am much more of a feminist than my darling wife. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
