Straight, White Males - No Longer the World Rulers?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Silvanus:

Gorfias:
Power is getting your way. Obama is the President of the United states, and I'm sure it's a fun job. But he was put there by women. If only men voted, he would not be President today.

Maybe not, but the only other option they had was another man. In fact, all the options in every election since the United States was founded have been men.

But they got their way. Men voted for the other guy and did not get their way.

The left courted women hard with their "war on women" platform. They won them, and they won the election.

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
Men, at least in the US, are not really running anything.

Well, apart from the government, military, religion and industry, which tend to be dominated by men.

Obama may have had lots of women vote for him. That doesn't mean women dominate him.

You are right and I am wrong. I way, way, way overstated things in that statement and I apologize.

Men still have plenty of power.

But to think men rule women because Obama is a man is equally silly.

Women are a powerful, monied political majority in the US and they're doing their fair share of ruling.

DevilWithaHalo:

...people aren't denied access to political positions. One may make an argument regarding voting results; but that is reflective of the desires of the society, which flies in the face of theories. We can wax poetic about a fair demographic representation all we want; but the votes determine the outcomes.

They don't determine the selection process, which is a massive part. They only determine who, from a severely limited and unrepresentative pair of options, is chosen.

DevilWithaHalo:
Nor are they denied access to working any other field. One *may* be able to make an argument regarding opportunity, but it's not a "realistic" argument to make. Not everyone gets a shot at being president. Not everyone gets a free ride through college on a scholarship. Not everyone should be given the opportunity to run a company, etc.

And it just so happens such opportunities far more often go to men?

It's not very "realistic" to say it's all fair and dandy, either, and that large discrepancies are just coincidental.

Gorfias:

But they got their way. Men voted for the other guy and did not get their way.

The left courted women hard with their "war on women" platform. They won them, and they won the election.

If I'm given a choice between two different kinds of dog, but I wanted a cat, you can't claim that I had an open choice of pet.

generals3:
And when it comes to those barriers, the only reason why people believe the majority are regarding women (at least in most western nations, countries like Saudi Arabia are a whole different matter) is because the only barriers that are being talked about are those women face. It's an illusion perpetuated by the media, opportunistic politicians and groups who claim to care about everyone.

Alright, which barriers do men face?

And do not say "child support/custody", "prison sentencing", "conscription", or the disparity between how seriously women's claims of sexual abuse are taken in comparison to men's claims of sexual abuse.. Not because those things don't exist, because they do and I recognize that. I'm asking you not to cite those because those exist on the implementation of the basis that "a man's role is this, a women's role is that". General patriarchy theory would do away with all of thos disparities if patriarchal establishment is done away with, although how its done[1] varies on the ideology of the speaker rather than patriarchy theory itself.

Gorfias:
But to think men rule women because Obama is a man is equally silly.

Is it?

Lets say, for hypothetical's sake, we genderswap Obama. Do you think he'd win? Because there's a lot of men who refuse to vote for women for various, if not all, positions of government.

I think the fact that there hasn't been a woman president yet is more significant than the fact that women vote more than men.

[1] ie everybody is viable for conscription or nobody is

Gorfias:
But they got their way. Men voted for the other guy and did not get their way.

The left courted women hard with their "war on women" platform. They won them, and they won the election.

No...the Democrats (not "the left", but whatever) got rather more female voters than the Republicans did, and not quite as many male voters.

Gorfias:
But to think men rule women because Obama is a man is equally silly.

Yes, but that's not the point. Obama and the majority of leaders in the military, government, industry and religion and other important institutions going back since time immemorial. Not just that one man today.

Obama is reflective of a larger issue, not the be all and end all.

Gorfias:
Women are a powerful, monied political majority in the US and they're doing their fair share of ruling.

They have their fair share of the vote. Not the same thing.

I expect that non-white men will more consistently appear amongst the worlds top powerful figures in future as non-Western nations gain more power and status. I expect though that the male bias will remain. Gender equality is largely a concern of Western nations, and isn't so rooted in upcoming developing ones. Similarly, homosexuals are always going to be in a minority because that's simple biology.

Basically, in future expect a few more Asian males alongside white one's and a few more white women in these Forbes Top 100 lists.

MarsAtlas:

generals3:
And when it comes to those barriers, the only reason why people believe the majority are regarding women (at least in most western nations, countries like Saudi Arabia are a whole different matter) is because the only barriers that are being talked about are those women face. It's an illusion perpetuated by the media, opportunistic politicians and groups who claim to care about everyone.

Alright, which barriers do men face?

And do not say "child support/custody", "prison sentencing", "conscription", or the disparity between how seriously women's claims of sexual abuse are taken in comparison to men's claims of sexual abuse.. Not because those things don't exist, because they do and I recognize that. I'm asking you not to cite those because those exist on the implementation of the basis that "a man's role is this, a women's role is that". General patriarchy theory would do away with all of thos disparities if patriarchal establishment is done away with, although how its done[1] varies on the ideology of the speaker rather than patriarchy theory itself.

The whole notion that certain issues shouldn't be brought up because X or Y seems quite convenient. It IS an issue. And it is harming men. Whether or not you believe that doing away with the patriarchy would get rid of it is irrelevant to it being an issue or not and thus worth mentioning.

I will also mention jobs involving caring and trust. Being a male nurse, housekeeper, teacher of small children, etc. is still being looked weird at. And sometimes the discrimination is extremely bad. I have had to hear quite a lot of it when i tell people i have a male housekeeper.

Let's also not forget that men are also more likely to be homeless, die earlier, take up more dangerous jobs and are assumed to be more dangerous. Let's also add the ironic element that we often hear about how women are only judged by their looks despite the beauty wage gap being MUCH larger among men than women.

Heck i guess the most glaring issue men face is: nobody gives a flying f*ck about our issues. And the alleged pro-equality people are the worst of them all. When I hear our fine Minister of "Anti-Male/Straight/white discrimination" (i refuse to call that corrupt piece of garbage the minister of "Equality") saying we should have a 0 tolerance towards violence towards women while saying nothing about violence against men i get pissed. When i hear her say that female victims of domestic violence should get a special treatment from police officers, i get pissed. And the list goes on. We can get hit, raped, murdered, nobody gives a shit. A woman gets her ass slapped and the entire world is raging. And nothing helps perpetuating this trend more than continuously repeating men are privileged oppressors while woman are victims for life.

If the so called "pro-equality" people want me to take them seriously and not see them as the biggest problem they better actually advocate for equal treatment and try to tear down harmful stereotypes instead of reinforcing them for one group.

[1] ie everybody is viable for conscription or nobody is

MarsAtlas:

Is it?

Lets say, for hypothetical's sake, we genderswap Obama. Do you think he'd win? Because there's a lot of men who refuse to vote for women for various, if not all, positions of government.

I think the fact that there hasn't been a woman president yet is more significant than the fact that women vote more than men.

considering Hilary is the current favorite to win the 2016 election (and she hasn't even declared that she wants to run!), im not sure what point you are trying to get at.

If Obama was female, she (?) would probably enjoy MORE votes. Now if Obama was transgendered, then you are going to have a problem.

generals3:
The whole notion that certain issues shouldn't be brought up because X or Y seems quite convenient. It IS an issue. And it is harming men. Whether or not you believe that doing away with the patriarchy would get rid of it is irrelevant to it being an issue or not and thus worth mentioning.

I did they're issues, and I did address them. I asked not to bring them up because those are issues that have been created by the patriarchy, and thus would only support the notion of a patriarchy. Patriarchy theory harms men as well.

I will also mention jobs involving caring and trust. Being a male nurse, housekeeper, teacher of small children, etc. is still being looked weird at. And sometimes the discrimination is extremely bad. I have had to hear quite a lot of it when i tell people i have a male housekeeper.

Let's also not forget that men are also more likely to be homeless, die earlier, take up more dangerous jobs and are assumed to be more dangerous.

1) There's a lot of reasons for homelessness. I can cite a few that are related to the patriarchy though - military veterans are more likely than the average citizen to be homeless [1], men being homeless due to losing their home in a divorce/separation [2], LGBT overall facing less advantages and significantly more likely to be homeless as a youth [3].

2) Health choices made by biological (read: non-societal) influences have a relevant portion to do with this. Its the same way that while women are more likely to cause a vehicular accident, men are more likely to cause a lethal vehicular accident. I will admit there are also things regarding men not seeking healthcare, probably the primary reason men die younger, and again, I cite patriarchy theory. Men are supposed tougher and ignore injury and trauma, whereas its somehow acceptable for women to seek physical and psychological health services. I'm paraphrasing my favourite comedian here when I say "Men can not go to the doctor unless they've been proven to be dead for at least four hours." Not to mention other specific health hazards men, even those who go to see the doctor, specifically avoid, ie most notably the reluctance to get a colonoscopy because "that'd look gay"[4]

3) Women have been historically been discouraged, or at least far more so than men, from taking dangerous jobs because they need to be "preserved", in a way from the harshness of the world. Its part of why they were (and still are) barred from many careers that deal with danger and/or seeing the uglier side of humanity. Meanwhile, some of the most dangerous professions, especially those in the realm of public service (military, law enforcement, emergency services) are glamourized in, at the very least, American society, and almost always portrayed as a boy's club.

4) There's a lot behind here, and while I think some of this is the offshoot result of other things (for example, look at bulletpooint number three), and that certainly a lot of it is due to scientific ignorance, I believe a lot of this falls upon not necessarily portraying men as violent, but women as significantly less violent. "Women are too fragile to blah blah blah" and such. That of course, is pretty much a crock of shit.

Let's also add the ironic element that we often hear about how women are only judged by their looks despite the beauty wage gap being MUCH larger among men than women.

I'd like to see some evidence of this, and not in the "show me so I can refute it" way, but more in genuine curiousity as to whether its actually the case. Regardless, valuation of somebody based on their appearance is a product of irrational biological impulses, which would, unfortunately, still exist regardless of any patriarchy, matriarchy, or any social structure with wide disparities between men and women.

Heck i guess the most glaring issue men face is: nobody gives a flying f*ck about our issues. And the alleged pro-equality people are the worst of them all. When I hear our fine Minister of "Anti-Male/Straight/white discrimination" (i refuse to call that corrupt piece of garbage the minister of "Equality") saying we should have a 0 tolerance towards violence towards women while saying nothing about violence against men i get pissed. When i hear her say that female victims of domestic violence should get a special treatment from police officers, i get pissed. And the list goes on. We can get hit, raped, murdered, nobody gives a shit. A woman gets her ass slapped and the entire world is raging. And nothing helps perpetuating this trend more than continuously repeating men are privileged oppressors while woman are victims for life.

And you'll hear none of that from me, and most other self-identifying I know. I think that with the onset of the internet, it provides a clear lense that cuts both ways - a lot of women's issues are becoming more visible, and a lot of men's issues are becoming more visible. Statistically, in the US, women (of all ages) are reportedly six times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than men (of all ages) are. However, given the massive stigma towards male victims of sexual assault, you never heard about that - until recently. For example, when that woman leading the crusade to reform the US military's policy regarding sexual assault, every interview I saw her partake in (where wasn't put up to a debate with an opponent) she went out of her way to specify that this happens to men just as well.

[1] men are much more encouraged to serve than women are, not to mention women are typically barred from combat positions, which are the ones which have the most PTSD occurance. PTSD is, IIRC, the leading reason for veteran homelessness.
[2] how divorces haved tended historically favour women for various, mostly sexist, reasons
[3] male homosexuality and non-gender conforming behaviors are less tolerated among men than women
[4] Yes, I realize somebody might have a problem with getting a hand put up their arse regardless of how it looks, but I think that excuse fails because its very common for colonoscopy patients to be numbed for the procedure.

DevilWithaHalo:

nyysjan:
What did these examples have to do with anything?

Because this...

nyysjan:
If large number of people are denied access to those positions solely due to gender/skin color, or discouraged from even seeking them, then yes, it is an injustice.

If the issue is that people simply don't want to have those positions, or are for some othe reasons not as able to handle the requirements of those positions, then not really.

...people aren't denied access to political positions. One may make an argument regarding voting results; but that is reflective of the desires of the society, which flies in the face of theories. We can wax poetic about a fair demographic representation all we want; but the votes determine the outcomes.

Nor are they denied access to working any other field. One *may* be able to make an argument regarding opportunity, but it's not a "realistic" argument to make. Not everyone gets a shot at being president. Not everyone gets a free ride through college on a scholarship. Not everyone should be given the opportunity to run a company, etc.

Arguments surrounding advantages and disadvantages for any given circumstance simply equate to special pleading. And I'm not about to support any structure set in place to "correct" an "injustice" that creates new ones, especially when someone can't explain why something is a problem to begin with.

Matters regarding discouragement are so contextual it would be idiotic to simply explain it away on any one thing; especially with a broad a brush as "social expectations".

You may want to take a look at the Maternal Leave thread.
There you shall find people arguing that it is totes ok to not hire and/or promote women, because they are women.
And while, legally, women are not banned from quite a lot of things, you will find that in many places those choosing who gets into the club are men, who are more likely to choose other men, be it in a corporate ladder (glass ceiling is still a thing), or in politics.
Also, in US military women are still banned from combat missions (though there are militaries where they are not), wage cap still exists (though i believe it is shrinking, not 100% sure on that though).

And while not everyone gets a scholarship, or gets to run a company, or be a president, gender should not be a deciding factor on whether or not you get any of those things.

So, i ask again, what was the point of your examples?
That gender imbalances exist?
That it's ok for them to exist?
That we should not bother about equality?
What?

Ryotknife:
considering Hilary is the current favorite to win the 2016 election (and she hasn't even declared that she wants to run!), im not sure what point you are trying to get at.

And every time I hear something negative about Hillary Clinton, it always boils down to being about how she's "an ugly dyke". Which, I should mention, was what all the conservative pundits were shouting when Obama nominated Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court justice.

If Obama was female, she (?) would probably enjoy MORE votes.

Except there are more men and women[1] have a stronger bias against a woman into office than women have a bias voting men into office.

Now if Obama was transgendered, then you are going to have a problem.

Which just goes to help solidy my point.

[1] The Bible states in many places that women are to be subservient to the will of men. Ephesians is the most well-known;

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

The King James version, not that there's any meaningful difference between versions.

Nickolai77:
I expect that non-white men will more consistently appear amongst the worlds top powerful figures in future as non-Western nations gain more power and status. I expect though that the male bias will remain. Gender equality is largely a concern of Western nations, and isn't so rooted in upcoming developing ones.

Yet many southamerican countries have females presidents.

(Many compared to allegdly "gender-equality concerned" western countries)

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
Women are a powerful, monied political majority in the US and they're doing their fair share of ruling.

They have their fair share of the vote. Not the same thing.

True, asking what is power is a huge and complex matter. Pat Nixon supposedly said, "I let my husband decide whether or not to recognize China. I choose where to live, what cars we drive and where we take our annual vacations." Of the two in that relationship, who has the power?

MarsAtlas:

Ryotknife:
considering Hilary is the current favorite to win the 2016 election (and she hasn't even declared that she wants to run!), im not sure what point you are trying to get at.

And every time I hear something negative about Hillary Clinton, it always boils down to being about how she's "an ugly dyke". Which, I should mention, was what all the conservative pundits were shouting when Obama nominated Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court justice.

If Obama was female, she (?) would probably enjoy MORE votes.

Except there are more men and women[1] have a stronger bias against a woman into office than women have a bias voting men into office.

Now if Obama was transgendered, then you are going to have a problem.

Which just goes to help solidy my point.

Okay, so what you meant by your hypothetical is what would happen if we swapped Obama's gender AND political affiliation. As a Democrat, however, changing his gender (to female) would be a massive boon to votes. The Bible belt wouldn't have voted for him regardless simply because he is a Democrat! In the same way that the Northeast and West Coast wouldn't vote for a republican. clearly, the northeast and west coast are biased because....reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Of course, if Obama was a white male Republican, he would also lose because he is not very right wing...or right wing enough. In fact, white Republican Obama would have never made it to the presidential race.

Let us not forget that it was the REPUBLICANS who had the last female running mate. Democrats haven't had a female running mate since...1984, so both sides have had exactly 1 female.

Granted, Palin certainly put women in politics back a few years....

P.S. Obama got more votes from the Bible belt more so than any other Democrat since CLINTON. More so than Al Gore and John Kerry, both of which were white males!

[1] The Bible states in many places that women are to be subservient to the will of men. Ephesians is the most well-known;

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

The King James version, not that there's any meaningful difference between versions.

MarsAtlas:
Snip.

You've demonstrated biases exist. Your solution to biases is to suggest an entirely new set of biases? I do get that you're *attempting* to suggest we examine these issues from an unbiased perspective. But arguing a demographical representation is inherently biased. You're still making the determination based on certain biases. That's my contention. You can't complain something is a problem then suggest we use the problem to solve the problem; that doesn't make any sense!

MarsAtlas:
*May* not? Surely you jest. Its not even a matter of having the resources bestowed upon them at childhood, its how people who have been demonstrated to have similar resources at birth can't attain the same success. Hell, we've had two presidents now that have grownup in single-parent households, both men, yet not even have had a serious female candidate yet.

People can't obtain the same level of success? Stop the presses! Success is a combination of multiple factors, including by not limited to; ambition, ability, luck, etc. It's not merely a matter of opportunity, as many proponents of "solving the demographic issue surround opportunity" seem to realize. And I'll say it again; it's unrealistic to insure that everyone has the same opportunities given the reality of the situation.

Silvanus:
They don't determine the selection process, which is a massive part. They only determine who, from a severely limited and unrepresentative pair of options, is chosen.

Only if we're talking about things like the Presidency. And that's a big issue with this discussion. What's to prevent them from obtaining lower ranks of office where popular vote is controlled by local populace? And to be fair, they could take steps to get into the governing bodies that determine the candidates. Or go for the hail marry and run outside the confines of the two party system. Voters are not restricted in voting for a mere two candidates either.

Silvanus:
And it just so happens such opportunities far more often go to men?

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Nor have I seen any reasonable argument surrounding the notions that having a penis dangling between your legs gets you more opportunities. It's simply not that simple, and I question the intellectual honesty and critical thinking of anyone who thinks otherwise. If that we're really the case, I could flop my cock out at job interviews and get hired on the spot.

Silvanus:
It's not very "realistic" to say it's all fair and dandy, either, and that large discrepancies are just coincidental.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It's a matter of reviewing all contributing factors, parties involved and all sort of varied circumstances. Not simply pointed at someone's genitals and saying; "They are going to have a better shot at a great life!"

nyysjan:
You may want to take a look at the Maternal Leave thread.
There you shall find people arguing that it is totes ok to not hire and/or promote women, because they are women.

Fine, I'll be the bad guy... from an economic perspective, I agree with it. It doesn't make financial sense to hire, train and invest in an employee that you know will take a massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications and may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat. Legally and morally I'd go a different way, but let's not kid ourselves that there are reason, legitimate or otherwise, to think that way.

nyysjan:
And while, legally, women are not banned from quite a lot of things, you will find that in many places those choosing who gets into the club are men, who are more likely to choose other men, be it in a corporate ladder (glass ceiling is still a thing), or in politics.

And women do the same with men; can we start harping on that shit too or are we just going to bitch about the apex of political power? You know what the glass ceiling is? An invisible problem designed to explain away professional circumstances.

nyysjan:
Also, in US military women are still banned from combat missions (though there are militaries where they are not),

If they have the ability, let them. You'll be happy to know the US military is already experimenting with this.

nyysjan:
wage cap still exists (though i believe it is shrinking, not 100% sure on that though).

Horse shit. Plain and utter horse shit. The wage gap is explainable by a host of factors. If it's demonstrateabley true by evidence, then said person will get a nice settlement in court and never have to work again.

nyysjan:
And while not everyone gets a scholarship, or gets to run a company, or be a president, gender should not be a deciding factor on whether or not you get any of those things.

That's a little pie in the sky. Gender will play a factor, but it's highly unlikely to play the determining factor (unless it's regarding some gender-centric situation). Same goes with race, height, weight, religious affiliation, etc. Sure on paper we legally can't discriminate, but let's not kid ourselves that on some levels, often several, those will influence what opportunities are presented to us and the influence it plays on the various choices we make and the goals we set for ourselves.

nyysjan:
So, i ask again, what was the point of your examples?
That gender imbalances exist?
That it's ok for them to exist?
That we should not bother about equality?
What?

Yes, debatable, debatable. There are many reasons. Why only discuss this from political power? Why is it a problem to begin with? We aren't we doing anything about other obvious disparities? What are the reasons for the disparities to begin with? Why is one an injustice but the others are a matter of something else? Etc etc.

Qvar:

Nickolai77:
I expect that non-white men will more consistently appear amongst the worlds top powerful figures in future as non-Western nations gain more power and status. I expect though that the male bias will remain. Gender equality is largely a concern of Western nations, and isn't so rooted in upcoming developing ones.

Yet many southamerican countries have females presidents.

(Many compared to allegdly "gender-equality concerned" western countries)

Fair call, I was thinking of Asia-Africa nations.

No , but rich old people still do. Try genralizing at them, you would get a higher ratio. But in all seriousness, I am pretty sure that white guy settling in (insert imperialist colony, country, or territory had to deal with disease, death, homesickness, and countless more hazards unless if they were part of a 1 percent of power people.

DevilWithaHalo:

Only if we're talking about things like the Presidency. And that's a big issue with this discussion. What's to prevent them from obtaining lower ranks of office where popular vote is controlled by local populace? And to be fair, they could take steps to get into the governing bodies that determine the candidates. Or go for the hail marry and run outside the confines of the two party system. Voters are not restricted in voting for a mere two candidates either.

Well, run outside of the two-party system in the United States at the moment, and you simply won't be elected.

Taking steps to get into the governing bodies is indeed a viable method, and I'm all for it. So long as we're both looking for methods of mitigating the problem, then I'm happy.

DevilWithaHalo:

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Nor have I seen any reasonable argument surrounding the notions that having a penis dangling between your legs gets you more opportunities. It's simply not that simple, and I question the intellectual honesty and critical thinking of anyone who thinks otherwise. If that we're really the case, I could flop my cock out at job interviews and get hired on the spot.

Well, no, because biases are often unconscious or unthinking. Nobody claimed gender was the only factor in who gets chosen.

As for correlation and causation, of course one does not prove the other, that's true. But, equally, if you have a massive statistical discrepancy (and one that has remained throughout most of recorded history), it would be quite silly to assume there's no cause at all.

DevilWithaHalo:

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It's a matter of reviewing all contributing factors, parties involved and all sort of varied circumstances. Not simply pointed at someone's genitals and saying; "They are going to have a better shot at a great life!"

That's not what I've been doing.

Recognising that gender is a factor =/= ignoring all other factors.

DevilWithaHalo:
You've demonstrated biases exist. Your solution to biases is to suggest an entirely new set of biases? I do get that you're *attempting* to suggest we examine these issues from an unbiased perspective. But arguing a demographical representation is inherently biased. You're still making the determination based on certain biases. That's my contention. You can't complain something is a problem then suggest we use the problem to solve the problem; that doesn't make any sense!

Don't particularly care to get involved in what will likely continue on to be an amazingly fun thread, but this argument's kind of wrong in that it's very reasonable to use the problem to solve the problem, especially when the problem you're talking about is something as stupidly broad as "biases." If the biases are lesser and for the sole purpose of equalizing a world unfairly weighted to the advantage of people who sabotaged everyone in the past, is that the same thing as just arbitrarily deciding that women make worse engineers?

And then there's the idea that the biases you will be using are ones artificially crafted and known to be artificial, meaning that, unlike the more naturally formed biases that came out of the shitty past, these will be seen as tools, not as truths. No one advocating for a more diverse anything sees forcing diversity on everyone as the ultimate goal. The goal is to just have natural diversity and not need it to be forced, but they likely see the more forced measures as the fasted way to achieve that, because it probably is. And once diversity is actually achieved, do you think they'll keep these measures in place when they're no longer needed?

Revnak:
Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I support the former - changing laws that are clearly discriminatory. I self-identify as very progressive/liberal, though I will state that I oppose affirmative action in any way, shape, or form. I don't believe in throwing cash at people to counter inequality, much for the same reason Clarence Thomas the SCOTUS justice believes so:

It breeds resentment. It causes all your peers to whisper behind your back, "X got this job because she was a woman. Or black." Not "X got this job because X beat all the odds, or because X was the best qualified person for the job."

I'm a member of quite a few minority groups, though I really don't want affirmative action to be the reason for my success. I'd rather have it a bit harder and have to overcome a few more challenges than have people question my ability or skill because I had it easier than they did.

Men are underrepresented in nursing careers, for example. Do you support government grants to put male nurses through college? Women are underrepresented in the coal mining industry; do you support grants to cause more females to go into the dangerous, male-dominated industry of coal mining?

If not coal mining, why STEM programs?

evilthecat:

Yeah. There are plenty of people who have not read a single book on the topic but think they understand it.

I've taken a woman's studies course, it was interesting. I've read quite a few books on feminism and gender. I've a college degree, for chrissakes, and it's hard not to encounter at least five feminist professors when you spent as much time in the humanities/liberal arts departments as I have. (Political science was more forgiving in that aspect.)

So, many people might have these opinions without being well read on the subject but I humbly like to think I am not one of them. Just the other day I was referencing "The Gender Delusion" in a conversation. ;)

Often, these people imagine that linking to some kind of tangential topic which no relevance to the concept of patriarchy at all but which nonetheless contradicts whatever ludicrous image they have in their head should function as an appropriate criticism of the concept. They are then often disappointed when others point out (correctly) the lack of relevance, and often quick to resort to allegations of unfalsifiability.

Sounds rough.

I don't know what to say at this point. I've explained patriarchy hundreds of times on this forum. I've provided genuine counterarguments to the concept, both from my own reasoning and that of others. What do you want me to say to this? What do you imagine this says or "disproves" that I haven't heard before?

I've had hundreds of hours of reading on the subject not to mention class time and countless debates. You're not the main source of information on the subject for me, and I know your views, and I simply don't buy into all of them. It's called a "disagreement" and it's OK, it's why one of my best friends is a Greek Orthodox libertarian even though I find his social welfare views repugnant since I'm a flaming liberal. I'm able to do that wildly difficult thing of having polite discourse with a man or woman - even liking them - while disagreeing on a wide range of subjects. You should try to cultivate friendships with vastly different worldviews and opinions as you have, it's quite growth-inducing. If you're a liberal, educated white boy who majored in woman's studied and all your friends are liberal arts majors who vote Labor or whatever, perhaps your worldview is smaller because of that?

Is your job to convince everyone that you are right, or to simply state your opinion, absorb the opinions of others, and occasionally agree to hold vastly differing opinions while still coexisting peacefully... and maybe even learning that we're not always right?

I'll say this much - I'm enough of a humanist (I won't use the word feminist because it's lost it's original meaning, in my view) - that I treat women as equals. I'd never dream of harming a woman, taking advantage of a woman, or not treating a woman who came into my hiring office as equal to any man were she equally qualified for the job. I quite fancy spending time with women, I'm married to a woman, I have many woman friends - etc. If you were to meet me in person, you would likely think I am the height of a gentleman.

However - I also treat other men like a gentleman. I'm equally polite to men. I have this strong inner desire to be a good person, and it's how I was raised.

We simply share different viewpoints on how oppressed women are now. A good article to read by a woman I consider a fellow humanist?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/the_end_of_men_why_feminists_won_t_accept_that_things_are_looking_up_for.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Gethsemani:
Evilthecat has already, rather eloquently, addressed this so I won't waste your time or mine repeating his arguments.

See my last response to Evil, I'm not going to re-type it here. I addressed his addressing.

I'd rather point out that patriarchy theory is completely disinterested in ethnicity.

Well, race and gender really have little to do with one another so, yes.

It is a sociological theory about how a majority of societies has historically been constructed in such a way as to reward masculine behavior in men while relegating women to positions of submission.

Sounds like the opening intro to my woman's studies text.

A take that which you failed to set up very well and which falls flat due to your own lack of understanding of the topic.

I can only hope that each day is a gift and I continue to become more enlightened until I reach your state of understanding, I suppose. All those idiotic debates I had in college, all the books on feminism and gender, I realize now - that was all a waste of time. All I needed to understand *everything* was the engagement of the feminist educators on the Escapist forums.

I stand chastised. ;)

Ryotknife:
Okay, so what you meant by your hypothetical is what would happen if we swapped Obama's gender AND political affiliation.

Gender, yes. Party affiliation, no, and where did you get that idea?

As a Democrat, however, changing his gender (to female) would be a massive boon to votes.

Seems unlikely.

Here's a study dissecting biases between hiring men and hiring women of equal qualifications. The kicker is that it was performed on scientists - one of the most educated professions with the most knowledge about things like cognitive bias. The study is simple, create a fake student with credentials, and send the apllication out to a bunch of labs, varying only the gender of the student, and see how favourably the faculty rate this student as a potential hire. Even they weren't immune to the effects, as men saw the male candidate more favourably than the female candidate. Contrary to what you're saying, even women who were given the resume to study generally rated the woman, with identical credentials, less favourably than the man with with the same credentials. Both sexes of evaluators tended to rate the woman as seeming more likable, but they separated that from a professional decision. So in short, no, being a female did not help, at all, even when being evaluated by female candidates, and contrary to that, it made things worse.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf

So no, it would not help.

The Bible belt wouldn't have voted for him regardless simply because he is a Democrat!

There's a lot of Christians outside the Bible Belt, you know. And you do not have to necessarily be religious to hold that sentiment that women are to be submissive to men.

In the same way that the Northeast and West Coast wouldn't vote for a republican. clearly, the northeast and west coast are biased because....reasons.

Yeah, not quite. Reagan won a lot of blue states, in both elections.

Of course, if Obama was a white male Republican, he would also lose because he is not very right wing...or right wing enough. In fact, white Republican Obama would have never made it to the presidential race.

I... don't know how to respond to this because "Republican" Obama doesn't really translate into anything, at least not to me.

Let us not forget that it was the REPUBLICANS who had the last female running mate.

Running mates are chosen by somebody who already was elected in the primary elections to be the party's candidate, so its a meaningless point, not at all reflective of the will of voters. People who voted for that candidate in the primary is almost certainly going to vote for them again because they'd have to be registered to that party to vote in the primary[1], people of the opposing party are, well, of the opposing party, so they're certainly not going to be swayed by a running mate.

P.S. Obama got more votes from the Bible belt more so than any other Democrat since CLINTON. More so than Al Gore and John Kerry, both of which were white males!

I'm well aware. Obama won a record percentage of the black vote, youth vote, and as you cited, women vote. Not to mention that religious tendency isn't necessarily directly tied to racist beliefs, despite stereotypes of southerners. Then there's still a large population of non-whites in the south as well - its not as white as many people believe.

DevilWithaHalo:
You've demonstrated biases exist. Your solution to biases is to suggest an entirely new set of biases? I do get that you're *attempting* to suggest we examine these issues from an unbiased perspective. But arguing a demographical representation is inherently biased. You're still making the determination based on certain biases. That's my contention. You can't complain something is a problem then suggest we use the problem to solve the problem; that doesn't make any sense!

I think you have me mistaken with somebody else. Although I assume you're talking about things like affirmative action. The difference between the standard societal biases and these artificial ones is that people know they're artificial. Trust me, I've heard enough bitching and moaning from my racist-as-hell family about affirmative action to be sure that most people recognize that they've been artificially created by the government. Its an action of artificial value, made with the notion of changing it in time when the value is no longer needed.

An example of this is an arms race. No president since FDR has been dumb enough to think that the United States serious needs an arsenal of over ten thousand nukes to defend itself. No president since the inception of the nuclear weapon has been ignorant of their capabilities, and the same goes for Russian leaders as well. Why did they build so many nuclear weapons though? The same reason both countries built enormous armies, bigger than they ever would have needed - deterrance. The action of stockpiling like that, when you're knowingly possessing far more weapons than you'll ever need, is done for the sake of deterrance. Whether or not it works as a deterrance is another conversation to be had, the group stockpiling is well aware of their actions, what they're doing with those actions, why they were doing it in the first place. Functions like affirmative action work with a similar concept in mind.

People can't obtain the same level of success? Stop the presses! Success is a combination of multiple factors, including by not limited to; ambition, ability, luck, etc. It's not merely a matter of opportunity, as many proponents of "solving the demographic issue surround opportunity" seem to realize. And I'll say it again; it's unrealistic to insure that everyone has the same opportunities given the reality of the situation.

I know plenty of people will argue its possibility, usually by advocating things like a more socialized educational and healthcare system (after all, look where the industrialized world went after the advent of public education), but even disregarding that, the point is giving people of equal merit an equal perception. Look at that study I directed towards ryotknife as an example of such biases hurting people of equal caliber.

[1] a registered Republican can't vote in the Democratic primary, and vice versa.

The Gnome King:

Revnak:
Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I support the former - changing laws that are clearly discriminatory. I self-identify as very progressive/liberal, though I will state that I oppose affirmative action in any way, shape, or form. I don't believe in throwing cash at people to counter inequality, much for the same reason Clarence Thomas the SCOTUS justice believes so:

It breeds resentment. It causes all your peers to whisper behind your back, "X got this job because she was a woman. Or black." Not "X got this job because X beat all the odds, or because X was the best qualified person for the job."

I'm a member of quite a few minority groups, though I really don't want affirmative action to be the reason for my success. I'd rather have it a bit harder and have to overcome a few more challenges than have people question my ability or skill because I had it easier than they did.

Men are underrepresented in nursing careers, for example. Do you support government grants to put male nurses through college? Women are underrepresented in the coal mining industry; do you support grants to cause more females to go into the dangerous, male-dominated industry of coal mining?

If not coal mining, why STEM programs?

I don't think anyone should ever be ashamed of affirmative action. In a world full of rich white dudes getting everything they want, you got what they wanted too, even if it was with a good deal of help. Everybody has somebody pushing them forward from behind, and there really isn't any shame in that. In the end, everybody got where they did for reason related both to their own character and the resources available to them. There really aren't a lot of truly self-made millionaires.

In hindsight, I don't know how much I like my example though. I just threw it out there as something I'd heard of before, but I ultimately don't know how fond of it I am. Generally I feel that women don't take those jobs not because they are thought to be incapable, but because it is a generally male space, which means that other methods are probably better (or at the very least a more significant part of the solution), like conventions for female engineers. I suppose that state scholarships may be a bit out of hand, though maybe not. I think it's kinda at a tipping point really. Still, not the best example. Maybe increased grant money and scholarships for any disadvantaged group, be they the poor, ethnic minorities, or sexual minorities, though that last one is probably where things get complicated.

Gorfias:
True, asking what is power is a huge and complex matter. Pat Nixon supposedly said, "I let my husband decide whether or not to recognize China. I choose where to live, what cars we drive and where we take our annual vacations." Of the two in that relationship, who has the power?

He does.

She doesn't "let him" decide whether or not to recognise China, she gets no say in that (other than her vote).

He can buy his own cars if he wants, he doesn't have to put up with her decisions on that.

Any power she has in that relationship is power that the two of them have decided to give her, he does not have to abide by anything she does, because, in that respect, they are both free citizens.

The Gnome King:

I can only hope that each day is a gift and I continue to become more enlightened until I reach your state of understanding, I suppose. All those idiotic debates I had in college, all the books on feminism and gender, I realize now - that was all a waste of time. All I needed to understand *everything* was the engagement of the feminist educators on the Escapist forums.

I stand chastised. ;)

Honestly, making an appeal to personal knowledge or education makes no difference when the arguments you make display a stunning lack of said knowledge or education. I'll take your word for having taken those courses, but I'll also suggest taking them again, because apparently you don't remember enough of them for that knowledge to reflect in your discussions here.

Because as of right now, you've still not addressed my main point: You mixed up normativity theory and patriarchy theory and used them interchangeably. That's a poor reflection on your understanding of gender studies and the theoretical underpinnings of feminism. Flourishing college courses doesn't matter if you can't or won't engage in the arguments being made.

MarsAtlas:
snippage

1st: I still don't see how explaining problems through the patriarchy theory is any way relevant to the point i was trying to make. You said women faced most of the barriers and i questioned that. We could have a whole discussion about the patriarchy theory but that would actually be addressing a different assertion than the one i was addressing. If we can at least agree men also face a lot of issues and that when it comes to facing issue it's not as one sided as your initial claim implied than that's already something.

2nd: It's an economist who made a study regarding wage and beauty. http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/good-looks-bring-a-handsome-return--32000-a-year-20130106-2cb65.html

3rd: It depends on which statements you're referring to. if you're referring to what our Minister of "Discrimination" said, than yes i've yet to see anyone around here make such demands. But when it comes to presenting the whole gender situation as being black and white than i beg to differ. When people continuously repeat women are being oppressed and men are privileged that tends to say "it sucks to be a woman and it's awesome to be a man" and this while totally ignoring the fact being a man or a woman actually comes with pro's and con's.

And what is also quite funny is that when we bring up things where women are advantage it directly becomes "yes but that's because of stereotype X which disadvantages them in Y and advantages men in Z". Which not only does not contradict the assertion there are advantages but also conveniently ignores the disadvantages it causes for men. An obvious attempt at trying to misrepresent things as being black and white. Take for instance the "men are stronger and tougher" stereotype.

Sure that means that for certain jobs men may be favored which is positive for them and negative for women. BUT on the other hand there is also the stereotype men are more dangerous (strongly linked) which results in them being jailed longer, being less trusted for other types of jobs and also results in people being much less likely to go to their aid in the case of a male vs female conflict. And this all disadvantages men while advantaging women. But that's not something i ever see certain people bring up. Which can be expected because that would weaken the whole "women have it bad and men great" assertion.

DevilWithaHalo:

nyysjan:
You may want to take a look at the Maternal Leave thread.
There you shall find people arguing that it is totes ok to not hire and/or promote women, because they are women.

Fine, I'll be the bad guy... from an economic perspective, I agree with it. It doesn't make financial sense to hire, train and invest in an employee that you know will take a massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications and may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat. Legally and morally I'd go a different way, but let's not kid ourselves that there are reason, legitimate or otherwise, to think that way.

Nobody "knows" that women are going to take massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications or may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat.
And even lot of those that do, do so because society expects them to, even demands it, because of course it is the women who take care of the children, of course it is the men who need to keep working to feed the family.

In your comments you not only fail to justify what is being done, but actually point to one of the several hurdles women are given, just because they are women.

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
True, asking what is power is a huge and complex matter. Pat Nixon supposedly said, "I let my husband decide whether or not to recognize China. I choose where to live, what cars we drive and where we take our annual vacations." Of the two in that relationship, who has the power?

He does.

She doesn't "let him" decide whether or not to recognise China, she gets no say in that (other than her vote).

He can buy his own cars if he wants, he doesn't have to put up with her decisions on that.

Any power she has in that relationship is power that the two of them have decided to give her, he does not have to abide by anything she does, because, in that respect, they are both free citizens.

Really? Suppose she doesn't want him to recognize China. He says he is going to do so anyway. She tells him he is going sleep on the couch then. He relents.

I think you may be confusing law with power? Law is about authority. Power is the means to get what you want. Woman tend to have that effect on men. Hence the saying, "I rule Athens but my wife rules me."

Gorfias:
I think you may be confusing law with power? Law is about authority. Power is the means to get what you want. Woman tend to have that effect on men. Hence the saying, "I rule Athens but my wife rules me."

Which is bullshit, it's used to draw a false equivalency, or worse, pretend that women are secretly in power. In Athens, women were very much second class citizens. Men would lock them up in the women's part of the house to stop them interacting with others.

If that saying true, it would become reflected in law. It hasn't. Women have had to fight long and hard to gain any semblance of equality.

...

Googling that saying brings back two results. Both from this forum. Both written by you.

thaluikhain:

Googling that saying brings back two results. Both from this forum. Both written by you.

I replicated your results by pasting the phrase including the quotation marks and the period, that's how you get only two results. Excluding the full stop you get 3 pages of results, no link to the Escapist, searching for the phrase without quotation gives 20+ pages of results, no link to the Escapist in the first 10.

The phrase seems to be from Plutarch's Life of Themistocles, the full quote:
"Of his son, who lorded it over his mother, and through her over himself, he said, jestingly, that the boy was the most powerful of all the Hellenes; for the Hellenes were commanded by the Athenians, the Athenians by himself, himself by the boy's mother, and the mother by her boy."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Themistocles*.html#p53

Ah, ok, yeah, I should done that better.

The Gnome King:
I've had hundreds of hours of reading on the subject not to mention class time and countless debates.

Then this is not good enough.

The Gnome King:
Is your job to convince everyone that you are right, or to simply state your opinion, absorb the opinions of others, and occasionally agree to hold vastly differing opinions while still coexisting peacefully... and maybe even learning that we're not always right?

I don't like playing the cultural capital card, I know it's kind of a dick move and at other times I have been only too happy to engage in detailed discussion. But right now I'm really kind of sick of having to constantly elevate these discussions out of the shit.

Gender studies is my job. It is both my career path and what I spend the vast, vast majority of my life doing. That is why, despite having absolutely zero dislike for you and despite my personal feelings on the concept of patriarchy, I'm still not going to let you shit all over what I do without letting you know how I feel about that.

And don't play the tolerance card to me when you're basically claiming that a handful of employees at Forbes have the sole authoritative perspective on power.

The Gnome King:
I'll say this much - I'm enough of a humanist (I won't use the word feminist because it's lost it's original meaning, in my view) - that I treat women as equals.

And what was its "original" meaning?

The Gnome King:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/the_end_of_men_why_feminists_won_t_accept_that_things_are_looking_up_for.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Can I ask for some context here, so that I'm not just debating with a third party.

1) What do you think the definition of patriarchy used in the article is?
2) Why do you think that is an acceptable or accurate definition?
3) What about the article's argument is particularly convincing to you?

Because basically, the article you just linked to not only fails to demonstrate the irrelevance of patriarchy, it actually affirms the continuing relevance of the concept to the author's own experience. Other than latent anti-intellectualism, the real point which is being made there has nothing to do with patriarchy and is actually an extremely tired, oft-repeated point about feminist politics which feminists themselves were making two decades ago.

Silvanus:
If I'm given a choice between two different kinds of dog, but I wanted a cat, you can't claim that I had an open choice of pet.

Of course, if you're given a choice between two dogs when you really wanted a cat, because those two dogs were chosen to have the prominent shelf positions through a market survey that you were also given a choice in which included the cat...

MarsAtlas:
Is it?

Lets say, for hypothetical's sake, we genderswap Obama. Do you think he'd win? Because there's a lot of men who refuse to vote for women for various, if not all, positions of government.

I think the fact that there hasn't been a woman president yet is more significant than the fact that women vote more than men.

That depends. Are there more men and women that would refuse to vote for Lady!Obama because she is female than men and women who would swing the other way for the same reason? Women are a majority of voters, so unless the women's vote would be unchanged or negatively impacted (or we expect a large majority of Democrat men to jump ship and vote Republican) then I'd say yes, Lady!Obama would still win.

This doesn't even have to be that hypothetical -- there's a decent chance we'll see Hillary Clinton next time around. Assuming she doesn't seriously screw things up and there's not a lot of swing voters who feel that the previous 8 years were terrible and were so because Democrats, her odds aren't terrible.

MarsAtlas:
I did they're issues, and I did address them. I asked not to bring them up because those are issues that have been created by the patriarchy, and thus would only support the notion of a patriarchy. Patriarchy theory harms men as well.

Neat trick you pull in this post, y the way, wherein you want examples of men's issues but want them not to be due to "patriarchy", but then define any of them related to any kind of sexism as being due to "patriarchy", thus making the question functionally impossible. I'd ask this, aside from the tendency to argue that a given men's issue is due to patriarchy and thus if we spend effort to fix some vaguely related women's issue it will magically fix itself (which assumes that societies are wholly incapable of hypocrisy, also note how the answer is *always* to solve it from the side that harms women and never to solve it from the side that harms men, even if that side would be simpler to tackle [I wonder why? Could it be that it's primarily a silencing tactic?]) -- aside from that, does it matter, and why should it matter to anyone if you want to claim any such issue to fall under the umbrella of "patriarchy" or not?

MarsAtlas:

3) Women have been historically been discouraged, or at least far more so than men, from taking dangerous jobs because they need to be "preserved", in a way from the harshness of the world. Its part of why they were (and still are) barred from many careers that deal with danger and/or seeing the uglier side of humanity. Meanwhile, some of the most dangerous professions, especially those in the realm of public service (military, law enforcement, emergency services) are glamourized in, at the very least, American society, and almost always portrayed as a boy's club.

Two points here:

1. There's a pretty common thread I've noticed that most people take the stance that there's no good reason to keep women out of any position they want to go into, presuming they are held to (and can meet) the same standards that are applied to the men (this includes military, public service, what have you). Sometimes that doesn't happen, it's ridiculous, and it's usually the result of a policy the values diversity for it's own sake above efficacy.

MarsAtlas:

4) There's a lot behind here, and while I think some of this is the offshoot result of other things (for example, look at bulletpooint number three), and that certainly a lot of it is due to scientific ignorance, I believe a lot of this falls upon not necessarily portraying men as violent, but women as significantly less violent. "Women are too fragile to blah blah blah" and such. That of course, is pretty much a crock of shit.

I have said it before and will say it again -- women are people too, and being people are capable of all manner of terrible things because being terrible is a human thing, not a male of female thing.

nyysjan:

You may want to take a look at the Maternal Leave thread.
There you shall find people arguing that it is totes ok to not hire and/or promote women, because they are women.

nyysjan:

Nobody "knows" that women are going to take massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications or may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat.
And even lot of those that do, do so because society expects them to, even demands it, because of course it is the women who take care of the children, of course it is the men who need to keep working to feed the family.

In your comments you not only fail to justify what is being done, but actually point to one of the several hurdles women are given, just because they are women.

To be fair, a majority of them do exactly that. I'd love to see how society demands it of them, since I've known families where (since the woman was making more money than her husband) went back to work after she recovered and he took care of the kids. It's uncommon (and he had an ugly road ahead of him because a man who spends time around kids is so obviously a pedophile and all), but no one demands that you do it one specific way (at least no one with any actual influence on the situation).

nyysjan:

Also, in US military women are still banned from combat missions (though there are militaries where they are not),

Have always disagreed with this practice, will continue to do so until they change it. Any woman who can meet the same requirements men are held to should have the right to do any job men do. Period. No exceptions (and I mean no exceptions on either the jobs or the requirements).

nyysjan:
wage cap still exists (though i believe it is shrinking, not 100% sure on that though).

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

It's an analysis of the wage gap and the various confounding variables that make (total lifetime female earnings)/(total lifetime male earnings) an effectively meaningless number. They end up with an ~5% gap unexplained by the factors they could isolate, and another list of factors that they didn't include in that because they lacked the right sorts of data to properly isolate their effects from each other.

nyysjan:

That gender imbalances exist?
That it's ok for them to exist?
That we should not bother about equality?
What?

They certainly appear to, their existing is not necessarily a problem, and that we should work on removing actual discrimination rather than applying a form of explicit systemic discrimination as a counter to alleged and implied discrimination that cannot be measured or in some cases even proven to exist, because measuring a difference in outcomes is not measuring the same thing.

LifeCharacter:
And once diversity is actually achieved, do you think they'll keep these measures in place when they're no longer needed?

Women make up a majority of college students and graduates. We still have women-only scholarships (and instead decide the appropriate response is to draw attention is the only fields where there's still a male majority, and declare those the only thing that matters).

Revnak:
Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I never see anyone pushing for larger college grants for men pursuing anything outside of science, engineering, or math -- despite the fact that women are a majority of college students and graduates in essentially every other major.

The Gnome King:

Men are underrepresented in nursing careers, for example. Do you support government grants to put male nurses through college? Women are underrepresented in the coal mining industry; do you support grants to cause more females to go into the dangerous, male-dominated industry of coal mining?

If not coal mining, why STEM programs?

I've seen people talk about getting more women in the mining industry, and in fact I've had to deal with a few. What you absolutely never see though, is people trying to push more women to be *miners*. There's more to the industry than the people who do the dangerous and dirty work.

MarsAtlas:

P.S. Obama got more votes from the Bible belt more so than any other Democrat since CLINTON. More so than Al Gore and John Kerry, both of which were white males!

I'm well aware. Obama won a record percentage of the black vote, youth vote, and as you cited, women vote. Not to mention that religious tendency isn't necessarily directly tied to racist beliefs, despite stereotypes of southerners. Then there's still a large population of non-whites in the south as well - its not as white as many people believe.

Yeah, the south isn't as white as a lot of people believe, only the northern edge of the bible belt is especially white (it's also mostly rural). My state didn't go to Obama despite being 2/3 registered Democrat, but then we haven't gone to a Democrat president since Clinton (yet we put mostly Democrats in Congress (both senators and 1/3 representatives)).

MarsAtlas:

Its an action of artificial value, made with the notion of changing it in time when the value is no longer needed.

Mentioned earlier in this post, but women's scholarships are no longer needed by the same measurements we used to decide they were needed in the first place, and they aren't going anywhere.

Revnak:
Generally I feel that women don't take those jobs not because they are thought to be incapable, but because it is a generally male space, which means that other methods are probably better (or at the very least a more significant part of the solution), like conventions for female engineers.

Remember, women are excluded from things if not enough effort is made to be inclusive and supportive of them; while men are only excluded from things if they explicitly aren't allowed (and sometimes not even then).

Schadrach:

Of course, if you're given a choice between two dogs when you really wanted a cat, because those two dogs were chosen to have the prominent shelf positions through a market survey that you were also given a choice in which included the cat...

A (limited) market survey will have had some impact on the selection of candidate, yes. One in which respondents may endorse a woman, but other respondents will not consider them because they're a woman.

And, of course, the candidate surveys will still be populated primarily by men, and even when the responses are returned, they are only one factor, to be considered alongside lobbyists, fundraisers, the party, business and politician endorsements, any of which may consider a woman too much of a risk.

Gorfias:

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
True, asking what is power is a huge and complex matter. Pat Nixon supposedly said, "I let my husband decide whether or not to recognize China. I choose where to live, what cars we drive and where we take our annual vacations." Of the two in that relationship, who has the power?

He does.
She doesn't "let him" decide whether or not to recognise China, she gets no say in that (other than her vote).
He can buy his own cars if he wants, he doesn't have to put up with her decisions on that.
Any power she has in that relationship is power that the two of them have decided to give her, he does not have to abide by anything she does, because, in that respect, they are both free citizens.

Really? Suppose she doesn't want him to recognize China. He says he is going to do so anyway. She tells him he is going sleep on the couch then. He relents.

I think you may be confusing law with power? Law is about authority. Power is the means to get what you want. Woman tend to have that effect on men. Hence the saying, "I rule Athens but my wife rules me."

Well then he's being a terrible leader for letting something as trivial as a domestic dispute affect the fate of the entire nation he's supposed to be responsible for. He's the one making a decision to potentially shaft his country in order to have somewhere comfortable to sleep. She doesn't have power, it's a soft form of influence that he willingly considers when making his decision.
I'm sure that no-one is denying that people consider their partner's opinions (and yes, I'm being intentionally gender neutral in using the words 'people' and 'partner' rather than 'men' and 'wife'), but to characterise that as some shadowy women's cabal or as 'dishonest puppeteering of righteous male leaders' would be absurd. Particularly when such forms of influence has been the only tool at women's disposal in a great many societies throughout history precisely because men held most of the actual, practical power, legislative and otherwise.

And women have exactly the same voting rights as men. That's something that can't fairly be begrudged or considered a 'concession', no matter whether they tend to vote liberal or conservative or for the Monster Raving Loony Party. It isn't 'a powerful, monied majority', it's basic enfranchisement for which women owe no-one anything.

As for Athens, they were outright misogynistic by our standards, much like the Romans. An offhand example; the grand and heroic Athenians being portrayed in that probably dreadful 300 film about the Battle of Salamis in reality issued a bounty for Artemisia because they viewed her, as a woman sailing against Athens, to be a grave insult. She was particularly singled out for the 'temerity' of fighting for her city instead of silently ceding the fates of war to men. Had she been captured she'd probably have been raped, enslaved, and sold as a concubine as a matter of course. And that's if they didn't come up with some even more degrading treatment in light of her unladylike behaviour.
The quote may have been common, but it's also complete crap. Just like all those quotes about greeks fighting for freedom against the nasty persians while probably owning proportionally more slaves than any other society in history.
It says a lot that a significant factor in the rise of Christianity (that notorious bastion of women's rights) was that by comparison it was progressive and encouraged a respect of women hitherto unknown.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked