The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: PeteD01 on May 30, 2014, 01:30:24 PM
-
I don't recall having been picked up at school even once in my life - times have changed....
http://news.yahoo.com/father-gets-probation-making-son-walk-home-school-180209763.html
-
I've been thinking about this a lot, recently, in the context of whether or not our own kids will walk or ride alone to/from school. We live close enough, and I want them to have that sense of independence.
They probably won't.
I really don't want to be overprotective, and I recognize that pervs have always been a threat (my Aunt was once briefly abducted, probably in the 60s, Granddad found out almost immediately, chased him down and scared the creep off, fortunately.) If things were like they were in the good ol' days, I'd tolerate the risk.
What has changed, and what influences my inclination here, is that it's now abnormal for kids to do this. So if my kids are walking home, they're much more likely to be targeted. Prey animals form herds for safety in numbers, and the first thing predators try to do is isolate. There are no herds of kids commuting to and from school without their kids any more, so my kids would be isolated by default. The creeps haven't changed, but parents have, in a way that would focus whatever risk there is on my own kids if I went in that direction.
Prosecuting parents for this is insane, in my view, but the world really has changed in a meaningful way. It's sad.
-
If things were like they were in the good ol' days, I'd tolerate the risk.
What good ol' days? Kids have never been safer: http://www.psmag.com/culture/the-kids-really-are-all-right-58651/
Almost all children are kidnapped by a parent or caregiver. The risk of a random stranger abducting your child is so rare it should barely even be thought about.
-
What I'm interested in is the subgroup study of kids who walk home from school alone, comparing 50 years ago to today, for example. I don't think it exists, but would happy to read it.
Lung cancer rates have also been dropping over the last 10-15 years, but that's no reason to recommend that someone pick up smoking. (The mechanics I'm positing are a little different, but the underlying problem with the argument is similar enough.)
To get concrete: if abductions on the way home from school drop 50%, but kids walking home from school drop 99%, your own child's personal risk walking home from school goes way up, even though the population got safer.
-
My main comment is that we explicitly don't know how old the kid was. If they were, say, 5 years old, then I could see it possibly (but not necessarily) being a problem. However, the judge seems to have been irrationally paranoid about child abduction; the risk of a traffic accident is a much better reason not to let a small child walk alone. Also, even if child abuse is the only danger to worry about, limiting contact with strangers is just not an effective way to reduce that danger.
http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html (http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html)
Perpetrators of child abuse or neglect are most often the child’s own parents. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 79.4 percent of perpetrators were parents and 6.8 percent were other relatives. The largest remaining categories of perpetrators were the unmarried partner of a child’s parent (3.8 percent) and other perpetrators (4.1 percent).
-
If things were like they were in the good ol' days, I'd tolerate the risk.
What good ol' days? Kids have never been safer: http://www.psmag.com/culture/the-kids-really-are-all-right-58651/
Almost all children are kidnapped by a parent or caregiver. The risk of a random stranger abducting your child is so rare it should barely even be thought about.
Cause and effect......maybe it is so rare because kids don't walk home from school anymore?
-
I've been thinking about this a lot, recently, in the context of whether or not our own kids will walk or ride alone to/from school. We live close enough, and I want them to have that sense of independence.
What has changed, and what influences my inclination here, is that it's now abnormal for kids to do this. So if my kids are walking home, they're much more likely to be targeted. Prey animals form herds for safety in numbers, and the first thing predators try to do is isolate. There are no herds of kids commuting to and from school without their kids any more, so my kids would be isolated by default. The creeps haven't changed, but parents have, in a way that would focus whatever risk there is on my own kids if I went in that direction.
Maybe there aren't many children walking in your neighborhood right now, but if you live close enough and the road conditions aren't egregiously dangerous, there's no reason not to start.
http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/walking_school_bus/
http://www.walkingschoolbus.org/
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/01/17/the-suburb-where-everybody-can-walk-to-school/
Plus, the health and mental health benefits of walking to school can not be overstated:
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/02/kids-who-walk-or-bike-school-concentrate-better-study-shows/4585/
Quote: "The survey looked at nearly 20,000 Danish kids between the ages of 5 and 19. It found that kids who cycled or walked to school, rather than traveling by car or public transportation, performed measurably better on tasks demanding concentration, such as solving puzzles, and that the effects lasted for up to four hours after they got to school."
Just because other people in your neighborhood drive clown cars doesn't mean you should, and just because you haven't noticed others walking to school doesn't mean there is any actual increased risk for your child to walk to school.
-
Maybe you should try to get a "walking school bus" going at your school. They are (or were) common around here in primary schools. A parent is the bus driver, and as the children walk to school they gradually pick up other children along the way.
This has been promoted to reduce childhood obesity and to start to get children walking to school again. This seems to be working, and the "walking school buses" appear to be reducing in number, while I see lots more children walking to school than I did a few years ago.
-
To get concrete: if abductions on the way home from school drop 50%, but kids walking home from school drop 99%, your own child's personal risk walking home from school goes way up, even though the population got safer.
Maybe, but who cares? It's still several orders of magnitude less likely than anything truly dangerous, including things most people do daily without a second thought (like riding in a car).
The number of children abducted by strangers each year, as a fraction of total population, is so small my calculator displayed the answer in scientific notation when I tried to calculate it!
-
Re: walking schoolbusses: I would be a little surprised if anyone got prosecuted for sending their kids to school in a group with an adult. My own tentative plan was to go with them before work myself, but I don't see that as fostering independence. Organizing something with the neighborhood would be an improvement on what I was planning. Thanks for idea, and the linkage.
-
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
-
To get concrete: if abductions on the way home from school drop 50%, but kids walking home from school drop 99%, your own child's personal risk walking home from school goes way up, even though the population got safer.
Maybe, but who cares? It's still several orders of magnitude less likely than anything truly dangerous, including things most people do daily without a second thought (like riding in a car).
The number of children abducted by strangers each year, as a fraction of total population, is so small my calculator displayed the answer in scientific notation when I tried to calculate it!
This. And it's truly moronic how all the idling cars waiting outside the high school to drive Little Jimmy home less than a mile can clog up Main Street all across town. The net effect of children walking to/from school on both said children, and the population at large is very positive. Exercise and sunlight for kids, less car-riding for kids, less time (and money) spent driving for Mommy and Daddy, fewer carbon emissions, less traffic, etc. Not to mention the mental health benefits noted above. I walked to elementary school and high school, never less than about a mile, and there's no reason anyone else couldn't do the same. I did it in Illinois snow and rain, and my girlfriend did the same in 115F Phoenix summers. It's not hard.
To phrase it stereotypically and obnoxiously: I'd never deprive a child of mine from the ability to walk to school.
Oh, and I only graduated high school in 2009.
-
I have also never been brought to school in a car. When I was in kindergarden, my mum would walk me to school, only memory I have is me walking, with my granddad? to school, probably my bro and sis didn't go because of the snow. By age 5, my dad learned me to ride a bike, so that I could ride a bike to the new school (Elementary school). As it was a very bike friendly school I biked to home (1 km or just over half a mile). This was a very bike friendly school, and they used people stopping traffic at one place and a system most easily explained inhere as a school bus bike system. At age 9-10, I remember biking alone and having to break very hard for a toddler, hence the memory. Age 12 and above, I was allowed to bike/walk to the stores/school alone.
This sounds like a lot of stories you will here about the good old days... only I am just 26.
-
A comment on the original article in a local Hawaiian paper stated the kid was 8. Take that as you will. What really got me was the judge's statement that "Times are different now! Pedophiles and traffic!" When as has been mentioned, abductions are much *less* common now. Traffic however, could have been a problem; we don't really know what kind of road this kid was walking down.
Re: walking schoolbusses: I would be a little surprised if anyone got prosecuted for sending their kids to school in a group with an adult. My own tentative plan was to go with them before work myself, but I don't see that as fostering independence. Organizing something with the neighborhood would be an improvement on what I was planning. Thanks for idea, and the linkage.
My mom picked me up on foot until 4th grade, then I walked with a friend (alone only if she was sick or something). There were a lot of kids in the area that walked, though. My sisters were picked up by mom or me until 11 or so, but sometimes we'd just meet them halfway. There were lots of kids that walked, but we were on the outskirts and the "flow" petered out by then and like you say, we didn't want them to be a target.
I say do it anyway--walk with them, because you'll get them used to the idea of getting themselves to school, because eventually something will come up and they'll walk alone and be fine, and you'll get less regular about it, and eventually transition to independent walking when you both are ready. :)
-
I live 0.4 of a mile from an above-average performing middle school in an upper middle class neighborhood. I rarely see more than a dozen or so kids walking to school but maybe double that walking home from school, probably due to being latchkey kids. The school has about 1100 students. Given the excellent neighborhood safety records and reasonable residential density in the area, those numbers should be much higher. When I bike in the other direction through a higher end neighborhood, I pass several cars idling around the bus stop--even with temps above 60 degrees, no rain, and plenty of morning sun. The average cost of a car sitting in that intersection is probably around $45K (Lexus is the cheapest model). These kids are pampered to the nth degree in every aspect of their lives and have no concept of struggle, hardship, or independent thought. Sometimes I think the cause of issues like this is the kid-centric mentality that pervades middle-class families. It would be hard to play the "safety card" in my neighborhood. If two moms take their Johnny and Susie to school in their shiny SUVs, then the other moms have to as well. Keeping up with the Joneses is as much about copying behavior as it is about buying similar trinkets. Nobody wants to hear "Oh, your children WAAALLK to school?" at the community picnic (Don't say "kids" around kid-centric parents. It's offensive. I found out the hard way, twice).
-
Of course most abductions are now family abductions -- because children are no longer unattended out in neighborhoods.
When I was a kid and everyone walked to school, back in the '60s, a friend of mine was abducted but got away by biting the kidnapper who was hauling her away into the woods. A couple of years later I was abducted. The man eventually let me go, but I wouldn't wish that experience on any kid. I will draw a veil over the details. A few years later, a girl at the next school over was abducted and murdered by a stranger.
Would I let a kid walk to school on their own? Not on your life.
-
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
-
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
Yes, let's continue to characterize women as dependent and helpless. Too good to pass up.
-
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
Yes, let's continue to characterize women as dependent and helpless. Too good to pass up.
Dude, don't be a dick. Oh, sorry guys ;)
-
Petition to switch the words around so that someone who has "balls" is vulnerable, and a "pussy" is resilient. That would make more sense.
(There was an article I read a few years ago which made this point, but I don't really feel like Googling these search terms...)
-
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
The misogynistic comments need to stop NOW.
-
Petition to switch the words around so that someone who has "balls" is vulnerable, and a "pussy" is resilient. That would make more sense.
(There was an article I read a few years ago which made this point, but I don't really feel like Googling these search terms...)
Betty White has a quote about that. It's pretty funny.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
The misogynistic comments need to stop NOW.
I don't see it as misogynistic. IMO, it's way too sophomoric to be taken in any serious way, which is partly why I think it's funny. You and Russ are implying very strong hidden meanings that are just not there. I guess I should've mentioned I wanted to use it in my personal life, not on here. Although I know women who may not find it funny, I don't know any women who would be offended by it. I am not offended when parts of the male anatomy are used in funny talk. I see nothing sexist about that use of that word. Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
-
Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
Well that's OK. They were fighting the patriarchy.
-
Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
Well that's OK. They were fighting the patriarchy.
Now that is sexist, haha. They were using the word in the same way people on here are objecting to, and they also reacted the same way when a guy used it. Growing up, it didn't matter which gender was saying it to which, it was always humorous and light-hearted.
I asked my lady what she thought about the term "pussification of America." She said it is not offensive, and then said jokingly "America is a big, fat pussy." Apparently my lady makes misogynistic comments and characterizes women as dependent and helpless too. Or, she is able to enjoy a sophomoric joke without trying to make it more serious than it is.
-
The judge, Kathleen Watanabe, ruled that the punishment was “old-fashioned” and inappropriate. She said that it is dangerous for children to walk alongside the road due to potential pedophiles.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
This is sad/wrong on so many levels, starting with the court's inappropriate interference in a father disciplining his child. He didn't hit the kid, he apparently didn't verbally abuse the kid. Is with-holding candy or voluntary "timeout" at home the only state-approved punishment that is properly contemporary?
-
I don't see it as misogynistic. IMO, it's way too sophomoric to be taken in any serious way, which is partly why I think it's funny. You and Russ are implying very strong hidden meanings that are just not there. I guess I should've mentioned I wanted to use it in my personal life, not on here. Although I know women who may not find it funny, I don't know any women who would be offended by it. I am not offended when parts of the male anatomy are used in funny talk. I see nothing sexist about that use of that word. Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
I agree that using the word "pussy" in that sense doesn't necessarily mean the speaker hates women, and so chose my words very carefully to avoid a possibly misplaced invocation of "misogyny!" (although Winston did decide to go down that path... I will leave him to explain his position). I fail, however, to see a difference between the harmful negative connotation of "pussy" and the harmful negative connotation (which I hope we can all agree exists, otherwise please ask and I will try to explain further) of "gay". "Dick" as well, although the inherent privelege (this is where everybody stops listening) of being born with a schlong (at least in N. America) makes that implication slightly less harmful. I suppose that's the difference, that women are more priveleged than homosexuals, and so it's less harmful to call something a "pussy". Still doesn't make it without harm.
That's worst case. Many women here (and some dudes) see that - whether it's meant as such or simply as a sophomoric turn of phrase - as evidenced by numerous PM's and mod reports. While it's not OP's responsibility to never offend anybody, it is their responsibility upon offending to reexamine their words and learn why what they said might be offensive. Here the opportunity presents itself.
Benefit of the doubt: at best it's still imprecise language, which is something I think we would all do well to avoid when having the intelligent discussions we strive for here. Unless you literally mean to say America is turning into a vagina.
-
I don't see it as misogynistic. IMO, it's way too sophomoric to be taken in any serious way, which is partly why I think it's funny. You and Russ are implying very strong hidden meanings that are just not there. I guess I should've mentioned I wanted to use it in my personal life, not on here. Although I know women who may not find it funny, I don't know any women who would be offended by it. I am not offended when parts of the male anatomy are used in funny talk. I see nothing sexist about that use of that word. Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
I agree that using the word "pussy" in that sense doesn't necessarily mean the speaker hates women, and so chose my words very carefully to avoid a possibly misplaced invocation of "misogyny!" (although Winston did decide to go down that path... I will leave him to explain his position). I fail, however, to see a difference between the harmful negative connotation of "pussy" and the harmful negative connotation (which I hope we can all agree exists, otherwise please ask and I will try to explain further) of "gay". "Dick" as well, although the inherent privelege (this is where everybody stops listening) of being born with a schlong (at least in N. America) makes that implication slightly less harmful. I suppose that's the difference, that women are more priveleged than homosexuals, and so it's less harmful to call something a "pussy". Still doesn't make it without harm.
That's worst case. Many women here (and some dudes) see that - whether it's meant as such or simply as a sophomoric turn of phrase - as evidenced by numerous PM's and mod reports. While it's not OP's responsibility to never offend anybody, it is their responsibility upon offending to reexamine their words and learn why what they said might be offensive. Here the opportunity presents itself.
Benefit of the doubt: at best it's still imprecise language, which is something I think we would all do well to avoid when having the intelligent discussions we strive for here. Unless you literally mean to say America is turning into a vagina.
OK, sounds good. I think your comment still had a misplaced invocation though. I see your point about who is more privileged. Although, I treat women with the same level of respect as I treat men (and every other group of people for that matter), so I don't see any reason to tip-toe around things like this. Even further, I think being too careful about this stuff somewhat re-enforces the ideas we are trying to avoid.
For the record, I didn't actually use that language in that way here, although I did express that I think it is funny and will use it in my personal life. I guess the important thing is to know the audience. I wouldn't have used it here since I didn't know if people would find it offensive, and I definitely won't now that I know people here do find it offensive. Most people I know personally would see it as a much funnier way to say "wussification of America" and nothing more.
-
What I'm interested in is the subgroup study of kids who walk home from school alone, comparing 50 years ago to today, for example. I don't think it exists, but would happy to read it.
Lung cancer rates have also been dropping over the last 10-15 years, but that's no reason to recommend that someone pick up smoking. (The mechanics I'm positing are a little different, but the underlying problem with the argument is similar enough.)
To get concrete: if abductions on the way home from school drop 50%, but kids walking home from school drop 99%, your own child's personal risk walking home from school goes way up, even though the population got safer.
My husband walked home for lunch when he was in elementary, including first grade, when he was six.
I don't think I'll ever let my kid walk to school by himself. It's only 0.7 miles, but it's a steep hill with a very narrow/ no sidewalk, and people drive their cars too fast up it. Sorry. Not happening.
-
My main comment is that we explicitly don't know how old the kid was. If they were, say, 5 years old, then I could see it possibly (but not necessarily) being a problem. However, the judge seems to have been irrationally paranoid about child abduction; the risk of a traffic accident is a much better reason not to let a small child walk alone. Also, even if child abuse is the only danger to worry about, limiting contact with strangers is just not an effective way to reduce that danger.
I can't imagine any scenario in which a 5-year old walking a mile home alone would not be problematic.
ETA: I assume the child in question walked home alone (vs. his father following behind him in the car), although it's not explicitly stated in the story. My impression wasn't that the judge was criticizing the walk itself, but the fact that it was unaccompanied. I could be wrong about that, though.
I walk my 8-year old a mile to school. Most parents in my city who live within walkable distance do the same. But I wouldn't let him go it alone. The streets are too busy and the drivers too distracted - and the cyclists as well, unfortunately. We nearly got mowed over by a guy on a bike who ran a red light and headed the wrong way down our one way street.
-
I can't imagine any scenario in which a 5-year old walking a mile home alone would not be problematic.
Depends on the parents, the neighbourhood, and the route, and how smart and confident the kid is. If it's a bright Summer's day in a low-traffic (except for a reasonable number of pedestrians) residential neighborhood, they know the route, there aren't many roads to cross, and the kid knows how to yell "HELP!" or ask "please can I use your phone?", and actually wants to walk, I don't see a problem. The most likely abductors in this scenario are probably the police (http://www.freerangekids.com/cops-detain-6-year-old-for-walking-around-neighborhood-and-it-gets-worse/).
-
I think there is some odd psychology going on when it comes to helicopter parenting. I used to think it was just about people not understanding risk assessment, but I think it goes deeper than that. IF, and I know the chance is small, your child gets abducted by a stranger walking home, public opinion would cast almost as much blame on the parent as the perp. Same with leaving your kids in the car for a minute while grabbing something in the car, or leaving your kids unsupervised outside. Parental judgement by your peers is a powerful force and can lead people to act in ways that might not be rational otherwise.
-
I think there is some odd psychology going on when it comes to helicopter parenting. I used to think it was just about people not understanding risk assessment, but I think it goes deeper than that. IF, and I know the chance is small, your child gets abducted by a stranger walking home, public opinion would cast almost as much blame on the parent as the perp. Same with leaving your kids in the car for a minute while grabbing something in the car, or leaving your kids unsupervised outside. Parental judgement by your peers is a powerful force and can lead people to act in ways that might not be rational otherwise.
An excellent point that's been largely overlooked so far.
-
Petition to switch the words around so that someone who has "balls" is vulnerable, and a "pussy" is resilient. That would make more sense.
(There was an article I read a few years ago which made this point, but I don't really feel like Googling these search terms...)
Betty White has a quote about that. It's pretty funny.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
The misogynistic comments need to stop NOW.
I don't see it as misogynistic. IMO, it's way too sophomoric to be taken in any serious way, which is partly why I think it's funny. You and Russ are implying very strong hidden meanings that are just not there. I guess I should've mentioned I wanted to use it in my personal life, not on here. Although I know women who may not find it funny, I don't know any women who would be offended by it. I am not offended when parts of the male anatomy are used in funny talk. I see nothing sexist about that use of that word. Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
It is an even sadder commentary on society that some women use gender specific language that is derogatory towards women; it's not a logical justification.
People who are privileged tend not to understand oppression and think that those who do understand it are being overly sensitive.
If you don't understand how powerful gender-specific language can be, then there isn't a whole lot the rest of us can do except ask you to be open-minded about challenging those beliefs.
-
I'd like more details. Having spent a decent amount of time in HI I can say that in many cases walking along the side of the road isn't particularly safe for an adult, let alone a child - so if he dropped his kid off on the side of a busy shoulder-less highway and sped away - yeah, that's not ok. If the route home was relatively safe, different story.
The *judge* was presumably not the one to call police, so at least one other person felt this guy was endangering his kid. That doesn't mean he was, but it does mean at least 2 other people thought so.
I'm guessing there is more to it than the click-bait headline (and article almost completely lacking in details).
-W
-
I don't think I'll ever let my kid walk to school by himself. It's only 0.7 miles, but it's a steep hill with a very narrow/ no sidewalk, and people drive their cars too fast up it. Sorry. Not happening.
I totally get this. I'm a grown up and have recently been commuting on foot to and from my work place. I'm not worried about other pedestrians or wildlife, but I do worry about all the cars--especially the many of them that are going too fast. One false move from a car whizzing by me at a speed of 45 miles an hour, and I'm done for. I'm getting to the point where I despise most drivers.
-
Petition to switch the words around so that someone who has "balls" is vulnerable, and a "pussy" is resilient. That would make more sense.
(There was an article I read a few years ago which made this point, but I don't really feel like Googling these search terms...)
Betty White has a quote about that. It's pretty funny.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
The misogynistic comments need to stop NOW.
I don't see it as misogynistic. IMO, it's way too sophomoric to be taken in any serious way, which is partly why I think it's funny. You and Russ are implying very strong hidden meanings that are just not there. I guess I should've mentioned I wanted to use it in my personal life, not on here. Although I know women who may not find it funny, I don't know any women who would be offended by it. I am not offended when parts of the male anatomy are used in funny talk. I see nothing sexist about that use of that word. Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
It is an even sadder commentary on society that some women use gender specific language that is derogatory towards women; it's not a logical justification.
People who are privileged tend not to understand oppression and think that those who do understand it are being overly sensitive.
If you don't understand how powerful gender-specific language can be, then there isn't a whole lot the rest of us can do except ask you to be open-minded about challenging those beliefs.
My point was I and the people I know, including the women, do not see it as derogatory or sexist, and therefore it is not when we are using it amongst ourselves. Is it harmful when black people say to each other, "What's up, my n-----?" How about when non-religious people jokingly call each other "infidels" or "heathens"? I think it actually redefines the words and removes the sting they once carried. Some people may not like it, but people are free to talk to each other the way they choose to. We don't have the right to never be offended. If we all never say anything that someone may be offended by, we won't have much that is interesting to talk about, and we'll miss out on a lot of good jokes.
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it. Hopefully that will not start a side debate. I do recognize it has not always been that way in this country, and is still not that way in some other countries. I think the best way to work towards or preserve equality is to treat everyone as equals, which is what I do. I see tip-toeing as an acknowledgement of the view that we are not equals.
I am open-minded to the challenge, which is why I take the time to explain my side. I have already pointed out that I didn't use this language in the way we are talking about it here, and will not in the future on here. If anyone wants to try to convince me why I should not use it around other people who see it as nothing more than a joke, I am open-minded to that.
-
Our town has not had a stranger abduction but we have had two fatalities in school parking lots involving parent drivers. One backed over a child, a few years later, another backed over another parent. In our older, North East town, there are plenty of sidewalks, and the schools (each built over 75 years ago) served generations who walked.
-
Bikebum, your examples aren't parallel. Black friends saying, "What's up, my n----?" is not implying that the n-word means something derogatory. But when you talk about "the pussification of America" or say "He's such a pussy," it's saying that "pussy" means something shameful and to be avoided. A better parallel is saying "That's so gay." In both cases the word means something bad. I would argue that using derogatory words associated with certain attributes of people, even among joky like-minded friends, keeps those words in circulation. It implies that you think the words are harmless, as in fact you do. Like saying just to your friends, "He's such a retard." Why not, if none of your friends are going to care? If they all think it's an equally funny insulting term? My question always is: if someone would be offended if they overheard you, why say it? Aren't there enough insulting words, without associating them with categories of people?
-
Every morning on my way to work I see groups of children scooting down the hill to their school (thankfully they seem to have learned enough about steering that they never hit anyone), makes me really grateful to live in an area where that is accepted practice ( I also pass a lot of parents walking or biking their kids to the local playcentre and that's good too).
P.s. If you can't find more imaginative insulting language than pussy then you're going to sound like one of those creepy douche-nozzles that women are constantly warned to steer clear of.
p.p.s Equality at the moment would mean that men were constantly on their guard around strange women, were told they were courting danger if they walked alone after dark and never left their drinks alone...I'd rather those things weren't true of either gender but that is currently not the case).
-
Petition to switch the words around so that someone who has "balls" is vulnerable, and a "pussy" is resilient. That would make more sense.
(There was an article I read a few years ago which made this point, but I don't really feel like Googling these search terms...)
Betty White has a quote about that. It's pretty funny.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
The puss-if-i-cation of America in full view. This is pathetic.
This is awesome, I'm using it! The ladies may not like it, but it's too good to pass up!
The misogynistic comments need to stop NOW.
I don't see it as misogynistic. IMO, it's way too sophomoric to be taken in any serious way, which is partly why I think it's funny. You and Russ are implying very strong hidden meanings that are just not there. I guess I should've mentioned I wanted to use it in my personal life, not on here. Although I know women who may not find it funny, I don't know any women who would be offended by it. I am not offended when parts of the male anatomy are used in funny talk. I see nothing sexist about that use of that word. Maybe it's a cultural thing; growing up I had a fair number of girls jokingly call me and other guys a pussy.
It is an even sadder commentary on society that some women use gender specific language that is derogatory towards women; it's not a logical justification.
People who are privileged tend not to understand oppression and think that those who do understand it are being overly sensitive.
If you don't understand how powerful gender-specific language can be, then there isn't a whole lot the rest of us can do except ask you to be open-minded about challenging those beliefs.
My point was I and the people I know, including the women, do not see it as derogatory or sexist, and therefore it is not when we are using it amongst ourselves. Is it harmful when black people say to each other, "What's up, my n-----?" How about when non-religious people jokingly call each other "infidels" or "heathens"? I think it actually redefines the words and removes the sting they once carried. Some people may not like it, but people are free to talk to each other the way they choose to. We don't have the right to never be offended. If we all never say anything that someone may be offended by, we won't have much that is interesting to talk about, and we'll miss out on a lot of good jokes.
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it. Hopefully that will not start a side debate. I do recognize it has not always been that way in this country, and is still not that way in some other countries. I think the best way to work towards or preserve equality is to treat everyone as equals, which is what I do. I see tip-toeing as an acknowledgement of the view that we are not equals.
I am open-minded to the challenge, which is why I take the time to explain my side. I have already pointed out that I didn't use this language in the way we are talking about it here, and will not in the future on here. If anyone wants to try to convince me why I should not use it around other people who see it as nothing more than a joke, I am open-minded to that.
The same reason you should not do a rape joke around those who would see it as no more than a joke. It tells people, one, that you find sexism amusing, two, not everyone who would be bothered will speak up and it may make some people worry about what other things you might find acceptable and three, it encourages a culture in which misogyny is a norm.
-
I have this friend at work and we tell some pretty bad jokes when no one else can hear, jokes that you guys and gals would not like. But the reason we think they are funny is because they highlight the absurdities in the views you think they are re-enforcing. Neither of us are sexist, racist, or anything like that. We are gentlemen who respect women the same as men, despite what you may think after reading all this. There is a strong distinction between what is simply a joke and what can be taken seriously. Maybe that distinction is hard to convey over the internet.
I don't agree with all the points being made, but I don't think it would take the argument in a useful direction to address them. By now, you probably can guess what my response would be.
Someone is gonna be offended about almost anything you might talk about. Some examples are early retirement, being green, eating meat, and choosing to not drive so much. We could draw the line to cut out sophomoric jokes and name-calling, but don't we think movies like "The 40 Year Old Virgin" are funny? Maybe that's a good test. Do you think movies like that are harmful to society? Those are the kinds of jokes I'm talking about. If your answer is yes, we probably won't agree on this no matter how much we talk.
-
I have this friend at work and we tell some pretty bad jokes when no one else can hear, jokes that you guys and gals would not like. But the reason we think they are funny is because they highlight the absurdities in the views you think they are re-enforcing. Neither of us are sexist, racist, or anything like that. We are gentlemen who respect women the same as men, despite what you may think after reading all this. There is a strong distinction between what is simply a joke and what can be taken seriously. Maybe that distinction is hard to convey over the internet.
I don't agree with all the points being made, but I don't think it would take the argument in a useful direction to address them. By now, you probably can guess what my response would be.
Someone is gonna be offended about almost anything you might talk about. Some examples are early retirement, being green, eating meat, and choosing to not drive so much. We could draw the line to cut out sophomoric jokes and name-calling, but don't we think movies like "The 40 Year Old Virgin" are funny? Maybe that's a good test. Do you think movies like that are harmful to society? Those are the kinds of jokes I'm talking about. If your answer is yes, we probably won't agree on this no matter how much we talk.
Given that many of those jokes can indicate a person willing to harm another, they are not EVER funny even if you put them in a joke formate.
-
I don't think "there's someone who'll take offense at anything you might say" is a valid argument against the fact that some remarks are more liable to offend than others. You know what those are already. They're not about eating meat or driving. What I do keep hearing is that people who are not the target of these jokes often don't think they're offensive. I get that. That's predictable. But I think it behooves us to listen to people who are the target of these jokes. That goes for me too. If a certain group says "We find X jokes offensive," it behooves me to say, "Well, I never thought about it that way, and it wasn't on my radar. I don't have experience with being an X. But I don't want to be offensive, so I'm going to cool it on the X jokes. It's not like there's any shortage of ridiculous things left."
-
Without more context around the story, there really isn't much worth commenting on here. Maybe the judge was wrong about the community not accepting this form of punishment anymore? Maybe it will be overturned on appeal? Maybe the road in question was really a 4 lane highway without a proper sidewalk, in which case walking really IS unacceptably dangerous for a child? Impossible to know.
-
This is a subject that's been niggling at the back of my mind since we had our child. I walked to both elementary, and high-school (my last two years of high-school me moved, so I had to walk to the bus stop and then bussed the rest of the way) alone from the time I was in grade two onwards. I don't think that it did me any harm, or that I was really ever in danger. That said, I am leery for some reason about letting my child do the same in our neighbourhood. Somehow deep in my gut things feel less safe.
-
It was a two-lane highway on the island of Kauai with 10-20 feet shoulders connected to large areas of grass. No sidewalks, but the child could walk 10-20 feet away from the road if he so chose because there's space to do it. We don't know how familiar this child was with the road, although familiar enough to walk back to school, which he did. It was somebody at his school who called the police, although his father turned around 5 minutes later (probably to see how he was doing and/or pick him up). Too late by then.
Kauai is not heavily populated. Moreover, it has very little crime. What it does have is primarily property crime. In fact, although Kauai makes up about 5% of the population of Hawaii, it only makes up 2% or so of the state's violent crimes.
Would I let my child (if I had one) walk a mile home from school? Probably not. I'm overprotective of my dogs. But this happened in a very low-crime area, with wide-set shoulders and grassy open land to walk along. The father wasn't forcing his son to walk along a freeway in Detroit, Chicago or Los Angeles.
-
Motion to replace "pussification" with "pusillanimousificiation"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pusillanimous
Because if you're going to make insulting statements, you might as well use refined vocabulary that was 8x more popular in the 1800's. :P
-
I think there is some odd psychology going on when it comes to helicopter parenting. I used to think it was just about people not understanding risk assessment, but I think it goes deeper than that. IF, and I know the chance is small, your child gets abducted by a stranger walking home, public opinion would cast almost as much blame on the parent as the perp. Same with leaving your kids in the car for a minute while grabbing something in the car, or leaving your kids unsupervised outside. Parental judgement by your peers is a powerful force and can lead people to act in ways that might not be rational otherwise.
An excellent point that's been largely overlooked so far.
Totally agree. When my son was in middle school (age 11 to 14) and AFTER he took the Red Cross class for certification as a babysitter, I let him stay home alone during daylight hours while I went grocery shopping (for example). I took it on the chin from several people who thought that was too risky and my judgment as a parent was questioned. Note, we live in a very quiet, safe suburban community; he had a neighbor he could call on; the store was 2 miles away; I had a cell phone. Never mind, I was a terrible parent. What if the house caught on fire!!
I kept doing it anyway. As he demonstrated the ability to handle the responsibility, I gradually increased the scope of his "home alone" time.
-
OK, I won't defend this anymore. If people feel it is offensive, then it is. I don't intend to argue with anyone about their feelings. I explained why I thought it was harmless, but you are telling me it hurts people and I won't argue.
I'm still going to tell my jokes with my friends, but you won't hear or read any of this language from me, and I will try not to express support for language that people find offensive on this forum. Honestly, I did not know.
I have a request. If you want to make people like me aware of this, maybe try an approach more like this article written to Jon Stewart about his same use of the word in question: http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2012/03/dear-jon-stewart-stop-using-the-word-pussy-thanks/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2012/03/dear-jon-stewart-stop-using-the-word-pussy-thanks/)
Telling people they are being misogynistic, demeaning to women, that willingness to use this language implies they have bad morals, or anything like that will probably just make them defensive, because people who have this sense of humor don't see it that way. If you want to do it anyway, go ahead, but they probably won't understand. I recognize not all of you said things like that, but those were the comments that stood out to me.
So, are we cool? If no, let me know what would make you feel better. I like you guys and gals, and I want things to be cool between us. I genuinely believe we are all equals. To those who I have offended: I am sorry :)
-
OK, I won't defend this anymore. If people feel it is offensive, then it is. I don't intend to argue with anyone about their feelings. I explained why I thought it was harmless, but you are telling me it hurts people and I won't argue.
I'm still going to tell my jokes with my friends, but you won't hear or read any of this language from me, and I will try not to express support for language that people find offensive on this forum. Honestly, I did not know.
I have a request. If you want to make people like me aware of this, maybe try an approach more like this article written to Jon Stewart about his same use of the word in question: http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2012/03/dear-jon-stewart-stop-using-the-word-pussy-thanks/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2012/03/dear-jon-stewart-stop-using-the-word-pussy-thanks/)
Telling people they are being misogynistic, demeaning to women, that willingness to use this language implies they have bad morals, or anything like that will probably just make them defensive, because people who have this sense of humor don't see it that way. If you want to do it anyway, go ahead, but they probably won't understand. I recognize not all of you said things like that, but those were the comments that stood out to me.
So, are we cool? If no, let me know what would make you feel better. I like you guys and gals, and I want things to be cool between us. I genuinely believe we are all equals. To those who I have offended: I am sorry :)
Here is the thing, women have been saying with a joke or gently or nicely for YEARS. And over and over I heard from men the same thing I hear from you, "I did not know". I'm done saying it nicely. Maybe if I say it clearly "this behavior is sexist", I'll stop hearing "but I did not know". It will probably upset them, but I'd rather them be upset and aware then able to ignore it. I can't ignore it because I don't want to hope my daughter is "one of the lucky ones" and not raped because as one of the lucky ones, I still have pages and pages of stories of crap I have gone through. Before she was born I may have been more understand but frankly, I'm done being understanding. I'm talking to adults and they can learn to deal so 10-12 year old girls don't have to. By us saying this, and everyone being clear, it at least means you won't say it here. That means one less post in which rapists get support but you still say "I'm going to do it". Just because you don't understand WHY it is a problem does not mean it is not. I appreciate that you won't do it here, but just knowing you will do it makes me worried. That man who shot people in Santa Barbara, California surrounded himself with people who said things. We don't know that he would not have shot people if he had not been exposed to this, but we do know that being exposed created his MO. http://jezebel.com/lessons-from-a-day-spent-with-the-ucsb-shooters-awful-f-1582884301/+morninggloria This is an article about those people and what they said. What you say DOES have a major impact on the culture and what behaviors we find acceptable in this culture. So, no we are not cool, though I appreciate part of what you have done. Because I can't be.
-
I have let my 3rd grader walk to school by herself once (0.5 miles). The other kids were sick and I figured it was best in the circumstances to let her go it alone instead of us walking there with her or waking up the kids and bundling them in the car.
Next year when the kids are in 3rd and 4th grade, they might walk by themselves all the time. Lots of other kids are walking by themselves, and I routinely see at least 10 people that know me and the kids on the way to/from school. Add to that cop friends that occasionally walk to/from school with their kids and the crossing guard half way to/from school.
My biggest concern is traffic safety, with abduction/molestation a very minor consideration. The road is busy enough that it would be hard for an abductor to snatch the kids without being seen, which also means they have to navigate traffic (that sometimes speeds above 25 mph speed limit). The only non-crosswalk crossing is directly in front of our house to get to the other side of the road, and they are comfortable making that crossing on foot or on bike.
-
The whole "idling in the school pick-up line" thing is a little odd. I went to get my nieces at their elementary school a few months back (too far from their home to walk) and happily parked about half a block away in their pleasant neighborhood, walked over to the "meet-up point" to get them and we were zooming away less than 10 minutes after school let out. Our route took us past the long line of cars waiting to pull up to the door...based on the rate they were moving, lots of folks were going to end up waiting at least a half hour. Aside from parent/caregiver with a physical disability or a younger sibling asleep in the back seat, which I could totally understand, I just wasn't sure what one got out of staying in the car...
-
OK, I won't defend this anymore. If people feel it is offensive, then it is. I don't intend to argue with anyone about their feelings. I explained why I thought it was harmless, but you are telling me it hurts people and I won't argue.
I'm still going to tell my jokes with my friends, but you won't hear or read any of this language from me, and I will try not to express support for language that people find offensive on this forum. Honestly, I did not know.
I have a request. If you want to make people like me aware of this, maybe try an approach more like this article written to Jon Stewart about his same use of the word in question: http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2012/03/dear-jon-stewart-stop-using-the-word-pussy-thanks/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2012/03/dear-jon-stewart-stop-using-the-word-pussy-thanks/)
Telling people they are being misogynistic, demeaning to women, that willingness to use this language implies they have bad morals, or anything like that will probably just make them defensive, because people who have this sense of humor don't see it that way. If you want to do it anyway, go ahead, but they probably won't understand. I recognize not all of you said things like that, but those were the comments that stood out to me.
So, are we cool? If no, let me know what would make you feel better. I like you guys and gals, and I want things to be cool between us. I genuinely believe we are all equals. To those who I have offended: I am sorry :)
If you genuinely weren't sexist, I just don't think you would find it funny to use that word in that way, to anyone. So no, we are not cool. And if you are saying something really offensive, I don't think the onus is on me, the one you are demeaning, to account for you only saying it because you have a sense of humor, and be nice when I tell you how offensive you are being.
-
Interesting topic.
I guess you need to live in a rural area to see kids walking to school these days in force. In the morning, certain roads near me are teeming with young children - most younger than 14, barefoot most of the year, and there isn't a sidewalk around.
They are all Amish children. Not only are they seemingly unafraid by the danger they are in, they usually all wave to passing cars!
-
The original article doesn't have much detail, but the judge does admonish the man that it's dangerous for a child to be walking alongside the "highway," which makes it sound as if it's a road with cars traveling quite fast, and that it doesn't have a sidewalk.
-
He needed a better lawyer. I'd never show my face in court again if this happened to one of my clients. That's a little hyperbole. Seriously though, someone could have made the arguments for him. I would appeal just for the sake of it as well.
-
I like almost every thread on the MMM forums eventually degrades into:
A: Your offhand comment terribly offended me, which makes you a racist/sexist/classist jerk.
B: Am not!
A: Are too!
B: Am not!
A: Are too!
B: Am not!
-
you forgot the part where the peanut gallery chimes in with their incredibly insightful posts
FWIW I think these discussions are interesting and productive, and are far more nuanced than the "am not" "are too" you apparently see. In the case that they're distracting to the original thread, they are split to become their own topic. It's the nature of discussions and discussion boards to go off on tangents every once and a while.
-
If you don't understand how powerful gender-specific language can be, then there isn't a whole lot the rest of us can do except ask you to be open-minded about challenging those beliefs.
Nonsense. There's a LOT more that can be done about it. I'd like to see more empirical research around the topic. It's not like it's a topic that doesn't lend itself to empirical study but unfortunately, I've searched high and low and have found very little legitimate science being done. It's time we got more rigorous in our dealing with privilege and oppression. "If you don't understand..." language is no longer going to cut it. I'm sick of everybody making the assumption that when somebody doesn't agree with you, it's just because they don't understand what YOU understand. People will understand it when it becomes better-studied. The side benefit is that you won't have to argue your point anymore: you can just give them the meta-analysis and be done with it.
If you genuinely weren't sexist, I just don't think you would find it funny to use that word in that way, to anyone
This statement is at least as offensive as his and reeks of entitlement. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cut it out.
-
If you genuinely weren't sexist, I just don't think you would find it funny to use that word in that way, to anyone
This statement is at least as offensive as his and reeks of entitlement. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cut it out.
Would you make the same defense of, for example, jokingly using the word "Jew" as a synonym for "cheapskate"? If someone genuinely isn't anti-Semitic, what could they possibly be thinking, to find it funny?
-
The misogynistic comments need to stop NOW.
Why? You can disapprove of them, explain your view and then shame, or disassociate from, those who use them, but if they want to continue regardless of all that, they can.
-
If you don't understand how powerful gender-specific language can be, then there isn't a whole lot the rest of us can do except ask you to be open-minded about challenging those beliefs.
Nonsense. There's a LOT more that can be done about it. I'd like to see more empirical research around the topic. It's not like it's a topic that doesn't lend itself to empirical study but unfortunately, I've searched high and low and have found very little legitimate science being done. It's time we got more rigorous in our dealing with privilege and oppression. "If you don't understand..." language is no longer going to cut it. I'm sick of everybody making the assumption that when somebody doesn't agree with you, it's just because they don't understand what YOU understand. People will understand it when it becomes better-studied. The side benefit is that you won't have to argue your point anymore: you can just give them the meta-analysis and be done with it.
If you genuinely weren't sexist, I just don't think you would find it funny to use that word in that way, to anyone
This statement is at least as offensive as his and reeks of entitlement. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cut it out.
Why do you think there has not been research on this? There has been a ton. Google scholar brings up over 32,000 articles in one quick search and that is just one search term, I can think of at least two others I could use to find similar but not the same articles.
-
I wish those who want to use insults that others find problematic would rethink their stance. Even if their minds are not changed, it distracts from what this forum does best. I know they might say, "No, I'm fine! It's the people who object to my language who are disruptive!" Well, here's the thing. Let's be kinder to each other. Maybe fewer insults altogether might be a way to go, even if they're expressed "correctly." In general insults, ridicule, and contempt make for a less friendly atmosphere. Maybe we can agree to try to err on the side of warmth.
-
How can a person find a derogatory joke funny if they don't really believe it? Well, if they were serious, it wouldn't be a joke. If you call someone a name, and you mean it, you don't laugh about it. You might if you are bullying, but that's not what we are talking about. We can't hear each other laughing or see each others' smiling faces over the internet though. Yeah, the jokes hurt sometimes and we should be careful, but why do we want to joke in the first place?
We think it's fun to talk about punching each other in the face. Does that mean we are violent people, deep down? Many people have been hurt very badly, even killed, by a face punch. Maybe someone on this forum has a family member who was killed with a face punch. There's a new fad with some city kids; they try to knockout random people with one punch. Are we encouraging them? Does Dane Cook really want to punch a baby?
Sometimes when a person is annoyed, they make a motion with their hand like they are shooting themselves in the head with a gun. Do they think suicide is funny? I don't think that joke is funny, because someone very close to me committed suicide with a gun, but I don't find it offensive either. It doesn't bother me when people do that. That's the closest I can relate, cuz I'm a white guy.
There are probably a lot more people you know that have a somewhat twisted sense of humor than you think. I bet most of them won't admit it or show it to you unless they are sure you have it too. They don't want you to think they are a bad person. No, it doesn't mean they feel guilty about it. You probably have things you don't want others to know about you too.
So, why do some people think this stuff is funny? Maybe:
-It highlights the absurdities of the human experience.
-They are making fun of the fact that humans invented a word for it, or use the word that way.
-They are making fun of the people who seriously talk like that.
-Shock value.
-Satire.
-They are a creepy douche-nozzle. (That one's OK, right? It was used in a response to me and no one said anything.)
You may not think the examples are parallel (I like that phrase Argyle), but that's not the point. I'm just offering this for general insight. These ideas can be extended to anything people may joke about but not really believe. Hopefully this doesn't back-fire; we need to keep those face punches.
-
Is this whole conversation stemming from someone being a dick by calling weak people pussies? That's retarded.
*sits back to watch the sparks fly*
-
My point was I and the people I know, including the women, do not see it as derogatory or sexist, and therefore it is not when we are using it amongst ourselves. Is it harmful when black people say to each other, "What's up, my n-----?" How about when non-religious people jokingly call each other "infidels" or "heathens"?
Unless you are a woman, this argument makes no sense....none at all.
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it.
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Of course you do. You are wrong. Just google any stats/studies on the percent of women in powerful/high paying positions, rejection rates of scientific articles submitted with male vs female names (same exact articles), wealth of women vs men, expectations of women who are mothers vs men as fathers, etc. Or talk to a woman, especially one in a field that is mostly male.
-
My gut reaction with the initial posting is that the judge over-reacted, but I can't make a decision without more details. I do think it's a fitting punishment to make a kid walk a mile home, though. Not such a big thing at all.
Regarding the sexism conversation, I regularly use the word "pussy".. I'll often call my girlfriend one, or she'll call me one sometimes. We both think it's funny. I never thought of it as sexist before, and although I can now see that, I'm still going to use it because I still think it's funny. Perhaps even moreso because it's offensive.
I am pretty low class though, I must admit. Not economically, but behaviorally. It's one of my best traits I think.
-
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it.
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Of course you do. You are wrong.
+1000
-
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it.
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Of course you do. You are wrong. Just google any stats/studies on the percent of women in powerful/high paying positions, rejection rates of scientific articles submitted with male vs female names (same exact articles), wealth of women vs men, expectations of women who are mothers vs men as fathers, etc. Or talk to a woman, especially one in a field that is mostly male.
Depending upon how the parent is defining equality, they aren't exactly wrong either. True gender equality is unlikely to occur for the same reasons that there isn't racial equality, agism is a problem, and even being taller than average can get you more pay (http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspxl).
With regards to the specific points you raise:
- "Women in powerful/high paying positions" - Depends upon how narrow of a band you are talking about. At the time of this writing Angela Merkel is in her third term as the German Chancellor which makes her a very powerful player on the world stage since Germany is part of the G8. While it is true there aren't many women heading Fortune 500 companies, on the same token the average age at appointment is 50, 75% come from internal appointments, and it takes an average of 16 years with the company before the appointment. (Source (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/12/05/the-path-to-becoming-a-fortune-500-ceo/2/)) Since the average age at appointment is 50 we should be starting to see Generation X have an impact upon CEO selection which will make things interesting since a good argument was made for a glass ceiling being in place due to the Baby Boomers but Generation X was raised with more of a mindset towards equality so that ceiling should go away. Of course, it will still take another 10 to 20 years for all of the CEOs currently in place to retire and be replaced before we can step back and actually evaluate things.
- "rejection rates of scientific articles submitted with male vs female names" - This is news to me, do you have sources for that? I'm not saying it doesn't exist but in my field peer reviews are performed "blind' so the reviewers shouldn't know the gender of the person that wrote the article. So, off hand, this would point to an issue with the editors who should be fairly easy to call out and have replaced.
- "wealth of women vs men" - This can very easily relate back to the pay gap and odds are the same explanations for the pay gap may apply. However, there are a lot of variables involved so you need to narrow things down a bit. All other variables being equal, a single parent household is likely to have a lower net worth than a single person since the single parent household has two people that need to be fed.
- "expectations of women who are mothers vs men as fathers" - Which is more of a product of culture which is extremely hard to change on any sort of quick basis. Usually it takes generations for cultural norms to change assuming that they are something that aren't ingrained into a given culture.
- "Or talk to a woman, especially one in a field that is mostly male." - Conversely, talk to a male in a field that is dominated by women. If you think about it, you hear a lot more people questioning why there aren't more women in STEM fields then why aren't more men in a field like nursing where the number of males has tripled (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/employment_occupations/cb13-32.html) since 1970 to 9.6%. Where as the STEM figures for women is highly variable depending upon the field at 45.9% all the way down to 5.5% (http://www.ngcproject.org/statistics). Not exactly equal but my point is you hear about the STEM gender gap a lot more than you do the RN gender gap.
If you really want to get into the depths of statistics, there is actually a reverse gender gap starting to appear right now both in terms of pay (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html),
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.
and in terms of education (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/03/college-degree-gender-gap-widens-with-younger-gen-xers/),
A federal survey of about 9,000 young men and women born during the years 1980 to 1984 shows a big disparity when it comes to higher education, with women a third more likely to have received a bachelor's degree by age 27. While it has long been known that women are outpacing men when it comes to pursuing higher education, the extensive study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics highlighted several numbers that show the trend is accelerating.
You need to consider education and experience with that. If women are more likely to get high degrees then maybe the 8% is still a wage gap. A stupid example but you would not compare the wage of a female lawyer to a male restaurant manager and say "well she make 8% more, so the wage gap is gone".
-
I think there is some odd psychology going on when it comes to helicopter parenting. I used to think it was just about people not understanding risk assessment, but I think it goes deeper than that. IF, and I know the chance is small, your child gets abducted by a stranger walking home, public opinion would cast almost as much blame on the parent as the perp. Same with leaving your kids in the car for a minute while grabbing something in the car, or leaving your kids unsupervised outside. Parental judgement by your peers is a powerful force and can lead people to act in ways that might not be rational otherwise.
An excellent point that's been largely overlooked so far.
agreed! this psychology is actually also one of the main things that influences me to wear a bike helmet. I just KNOW if I get in an accident and die or suffer traumatic brain injury, people will be sad and feel bad for me but at the same time think "why the fuck wasn't she wearing a helmet?!?" at least, I know that's what I would think. :)
-
You need to consider education and experience with that. If women are more likely to get high degrees then maybe the 8% is still a wage gap. A stupid example but you would not compare the wage of a female lawyer to a male restaurant manager and say "well she make 8% more, so the wage gap is gone".
Which is pretty much exactly how the wage gap is normally presented in the media.
This is a cohort study based upon the age which should control for experience but it doesn't look like career choice is accounted for, but one of the talking points is on the point of education:
The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. "These women haven't just caught up with the guys," says Chung. "In many cities, they're clocking them."
This goes back to the education gap that I mentioned in a previous post and is a much more serious problem that most people might realize. If we were heading for truly equal society then we should expect the educational obtainment rate to more or less even out or have some nominal difference that could be explained. However, a 2:3 graduation ratio is fairly significant and should be investigated as to why it is occurring.
I'll give you that, BUT I am a researcher and the research is clear that EVEN account for everything there is a gender gap. And they know why. It is call implicit bias. The same reason that there is a gap in nursing unless you are union or in management that favor women. We assume certain groups should do certain behaviors. One reason why a woman may be called a bitch for the same behavior that a man would be called a leader for. Which is why vocabulary and attitude is so important and WHY I was bothered by the comments here. I do believe in equality and no ones race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc should effect their job, only their skills at the job.
-
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it.
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Of course you do. You are wrong. Just google any stats/studies on the percent of women in powerful/high paying positions, rejection rates of scientific articles submitted with male vs female names (same exact articles), wealth of women vs men, expectations of women who are mothers vs men as fathers, etc. Or talk to a woman, especially one in a field that is mostly male.
Depending upon how the parent is defining equality, they aren't exactly wrong either. True gender equality is unlikely to occur for the same reasons that there isn't racial equality, agism is a problem, and even being taller than average can get you more pay (http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspxl).
With regards to the specific points you raise:
- "Women in powerful/high paying positions" - Depends upon how narrow of a band you are talking about. At the time of this writing Angela Merkel is in her third term as the German Chancellor which makes her a very powerful player on the world stage since Germany is part of the G8. While it is true there aren't many women heading Fortune 500 companies, on the same token the average age at appointment is 50, 75% come from internal appointments, and it takes an average of 16 years with the company before the appointment. (Source (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/12/05/the-path-to-becoming-a-fortune-500-ceo/2/)) Since the average age at appointment is 50 we should be starting to see Generation X have an impact upon CEO selection which will make things interesting since a good argument was made for a glass ceiling being in place due to the Baby Boomers but Generation X was raised with more of a mindset towards equality so that ceiling should go away. Of course, it will still take another 10 to 20 years for all of the CEOs currently in place to retire and be replaced before we can step back and actually evaluate things.
- "rejection rates of scientific articles submitted with male vs female names" - This is news to me, do you have sources for that? I'm not saying it doesn't exist but in my field peer reviews are performed "blind' so the reviewers shouldn't know the gender of the person that wrote the article. So, off hand, this would point to an issue with the editors who should be fairly easy to call out and have replaced.
- "wealth of women vs men" - This can very easily relate back to the pay gap and odds are the same explanations for the pay gap may apply. However, there are a lot of variables involved so you need to narrow things down a bit. All other variables being equal, a single parent household is likely to have a lower net worth than a single person since the single parent household has two people that need to be fed.
- "expectations of women who are mothers vs men as fathers" - Which is more of a product of culture which is extremely hard to change on any sort of quick basis. Usually it takes generations for cultural norms to change assuming that they are something that aren't ingrained into a given culture.
- "Or talk to a woman, especially one in a field that is mostly male." - Conversely, talk to a male in a field that is dominated by women. If you think about it, you hear a lot more people questioning why there aren't more women in STEM fields then why aren't more men in a field like nursing where the number of males has tripled (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/employment_occupations/cb13-32.html) since 1970 to 9.6%. Where as the STEM figures for women is highly variable depending upon the field at 45.9% all the way down to 5.5% (http://www.ngcproject.org/statistics). Not exactly equal but my point is you hear about the STEM gender gap a lot more than you do the RN gender gap.
If you really want to get into the depths of statistics, there is actually a reverse gender gap starting to appear right now both in terms of pay (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html),
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.
and in terms of education (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/03/college-degree-gender-gap-widens-with-younger-gen-xers/),
A federal survey of about 9,000 young men and women born during the years 1980 to 1984 shows a big disparity when it comes to higher education, with women a third more likely to have received a bachelor's degree by age 27. While it has long been known that women are outpacing men when it comes to pursuing higher education, the extensive study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics highlighted several numbers that show the trend is accelerating.
-"women in powerful positions"-regardless of whether or not this effect is minimized over time (which I'm not sure that it will be), the reality is there is not currently equality regarding the percent of women in powerful positions. Finding a few examples of women in these positions does not negate this fact.
-"rejection rates of scientific journals"- I can't find the exact article I read before, but here is a similar one I've found: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6631/abs/387341a0.html . It shows gender bias in peer review scoring of post doc candidates' applications. And even if reviews are "blind" (which they aren't in my field, a hard science), these studies point to biases that would arguably extend to affect things in one's career beyond publication. They point to subconscious opinions formed about women vs men. These are the types of inequities that slowly chip away at one's career vs bias that is so egregious that a single editor can be singled-out for it and gotten rid of.
-"wealth of women vs men"-again, I made no argument regarding causes, but simply the existence of huge inequities between women and men
-"expectations of women as mothers..."- I did not comment on whether these are cultural inequities that are slow to change. The fact remains that regardless of cause, this is another example of existing inequities.
-As far as all of your other comments regarding "reverse inequity" situations: in no way do they diminish the *fact* that there is still clearly strong inequality in power, wealth, career bias etc between men and women, so what is your point? That there are fewer male nurses than female? So this somehow negates the vast differences in pay, power, wealth, etc between men and women that exist? If not, why the unrelated tangent? Perhaps you should consider this: http://feministing.com/2014/05/30/an-open-letter-to-privileged-people-who-play-devils-advocate/
-
Is this whole conversation stemming from someone being a dick by calling weak people pussies? That's retarded.
*sits back to watch the sparks fly*
you're my hero lol! this forum makes me think me and my friends need to be more scholarly. until today i didn't even really know about half the stuff that offended people
-
I'll give you that, BUT I am a researcher and the research is clear that EVEN account for everything there is a gender gap.
Ok, great! Feel free to post some articles to defend your position otherwise you are pretty much just making an appeal to authority.
And they know why. It is call implicit bias.
Yes, and currently there is a bit to do about hurricane names (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/29/1402786111.abstract?sid=79a9dd5a-51c7-4dfe-95b0-25c41fec04e9), but an implicit bias tends to arise from social norms which comes back to culture which in turn means you are unlikely to fix things over night.
The same reason that there is a gap in nursing unless you are union or in management that favor women.
Except if management is favoring women that implies that there is not equality in the workplace. Of course, measuring equality in the workplace is hard since even if you have two people with the same educational obtainment and experience start at the same pay, their pay may drift over the years if their raises and promotions are affected by their reviews and work ethic.
We assume certain groups should do certain behaviors. One reason why a woman may be called a bitch for the same behavior that a man would be called a leader for.
True, but then again, it has been scientifically demonstrated that women tend to be better at emotional interpretation than men which means that so you have to be careful when you say that to control for what can be demonstrated as an intrinsic capability of a given group versus a stereotype of a group. The problem with interpreting the use of language is that someone's choice of words could be influenced by years of interaction with a person or it could be limited to a brief interaction.
No, it is expecting you to do some basic work searching if you decide to have an opinion contrary to what the research has shown. But just because you asked, here is a within one industry research article, but I can start posting multiple others but I would consider that spamming.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/193.short
Anthony Lo Sasso, Michael Richards, Chiu-Fang Chou, and Susan Gerber explore a growing gender gap in physicians’ starting salaries. They find that in New York State, where more residents are trained than in any other state, women leaving residency training programs earn considerably less than their male counterparts—and that the gap isn’t explained by such factors as choice of specialties.
These authors brought different perspectives and expertise to the research, lead author Lo Sasso says. Their collaboration started at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Lo Sasso, a professor and senior research scientist in the UIC School of Public Health, supervised Chou’s doctoral research at the school, and they soon began to collaborate on other work. Richards, then a medical student at UIC, joined them. Gerber, Lo Sasso’s wife and frequent collaborator, was brought into this project for her expertise and her perspective as a female physician.
The authors were surprised by the striking difference in starting salaries that their research found between male and female physicians. They accounted for every factor that might explain this finding, given previous research that found no difference in salary between sexes, but this made no difference. “We honestly tried everything we could to make it go away, but it wouldn’t,” Lo Sasso says. The authors hope that their research will highlight the uncertainty and unpredictability inherent in dynamic physician labor markets—a factor that will play into health reform, as demand grows for primary care providers and physicians in general.
-
We live in England and the way things work here, most village have a primary school and kids from year 5 on can walk/bike to school alone. We're going back to the US and I've been looking at areas where there's a school in the community. I used to live in Downtown Boise, the north end, and it was like that there. It's so nice!
I hope to find another place where the kids can walk to and from school!!
-
Hello everybody, long-time lurker here! I am surprised that the idea of a huge gender wage gap is so heavily supported in a community where people also believe their portfolio of companies will work ruthlessly and tirelessly to maximize profit for their shareholders. Many of us invest in index funds containing those companies in the hopes of funding our retirement. If the gap was so pervasive in every field regardless of other factors besides gender, companies would be paying 23% more just to employ a man instead of a woman who could do the job just as well. Just one company would see this and they'd hire as many women as it could get away with to crush their competition. Since labor is a large percentage of business costs, companies could add entire percentage points to their profit margins by making that one change. No good company would walk away from that much profit and I would not wish to invest in a company incompetent enough to ignore it.
Contrary to what the BLS says in its own report, you CAN largely dismiss the wage gap by accounting for other factors such as marital status, hours worked, and children by using the data it provided (see link 1). The gap shrinks to 4.2% for women that never married without considering anything else. Just for being under the age of 35, the gap shrinks to 9.8%. Women actually make 5.3% more than men at 1-35 hours worked and 11.3% more than men at 35-39 hours regardless of age, marital status, or children. (see page 41 of BLS report). Men make 14.5% more than women as full time employees but more men choose to work 41+ hours a week. The full time gap could be because women become stay at home moms more frequently and lose years of raises and experience when re-entering the work force or prefer part time employment to watch any children. Since there are no numbers to back that up, take it with a grain of salt. Anywho, check out the first link and compare it with the BLS report if you don't believe the numbers. The thing that surprised me the most was the impact of married vs. unmarried which had gaps of 23.4% and 4.2% respectively. I thought children would have the largest impact but that was not the case.
1. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/ (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/)
2. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf)
Back on topic, it largely depends on how old the son was. I could understand giving the fine to the father if the son was around 5-7 because even when I was in school, the safety squad that I took part in as a child would at least walk kindergartners to their home streets and that was only 12 years ago. I think the bigger question we should all be asking is why the father is driving his car a mile to pick up his son when he could be biking in tropical paradise instead? :)
-
Hello everybody, long-time lurker here! I am surprised that the idea of a huge gender wage gap is so heavily supported in a community where people also believe their portfolio of companies will work ruthlessly and tirelessly to maximize profit for their shareholders. Many of us invest in index funds containing those companies in the hopes of funding our retirement. If the gap was so pervasive in every field regardless of other factors besides gender, companies would be paying 23% more just to employ a man instead of a woman who could do the job just as well. Just one company would see this and they'd hire as many women as it could get away with to crush their competition. Since labor is a large percentage of business costs, companies could add entire percentage points to their profit margins by making that one change. No good company would walk away from that much profit and I would not wish to invest in a company incompetent enough to ignore it.
Contrary to what the BLS says in its own report, you CAN largely dismiss the wage gap by accounting for other factors such as marital status, hours worked, and children by using the data it provided (see link 1). The gap shrinks to 4.2% for women that never married without considering anything else. Just for being under the age of 35, the gap shrinks to 9.8%. Women actually make 5.3% more than men at 1-35 hours worked and 11.3% more than men at 35-39 hours regardless of age, marital status, or children. (see page 41 of BLS report). Men make 14.5% more than women as full time employees but more men choose to work 41+ hours a week. The full time gap could be because women become stay at home moms more frequently and lose years of raises and experience when re-entering the work force or prefer part time employment to watch any children. Since there are no numbers to back that up, take it with a grain of salt. Anywho, check out the first link and compare it with the BLS report if you don't believe the numbers. The thing that surprised me the most was the impact of married vs. unmarried which had gaps of 23.4% and 4.2% respectively. I thought children would have the largest impact but that was not the case.
1. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/ (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/)
2. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf)
Back on topic, it largely depends on how old the son was. I could understand giving the fine to the father if the son was around 5-7 because even when I was in school, the safety squad that I took part in as a child would at least walk kindergartners to their home streets and that was only 12 years ago. I think the bigger question we should all be asking is why the father is driving his car a mile to pick up his son when he could be biking in tropical paradise instead? :)
This has been explained, over and over. Both men and women have implicit bias and they rate the same work as being less when associated with a female name (the reverse being true in nursing, and teaching and I think social work until you get into management which is still seen as a male skill). Studies done where hours are equivocated show a bias in promotions/raised. In fact I have posted on here an article about backlash on women when they negotiate. People can pretend this does not exists all they want, but research for over 30 years has show this to be true. It is as ridiculous as saying evolution does not exist.
-
Hello everybody, long-time lurker here! I am surprised that the idea of a huge gender wage gap is so heavily supported in a community where people also believe their portfolio of companies will work ruthlessly and tirelessly to maximize profit for their shareholders. Many of us invest in index funds containing those companies in the hopes of funding our retirement. If the gap was so pervasive in every field regardless of other factors besides gender, companies would be paying 23% more just to employ a man instead of a woman who could do the job just as well. Just one company would see this and they'd hire as many women as it could get away with to crush their competition. Since labor is a large percentage of business costs, companies could add entire percentage points to their profit margins by making that one change. No good company would walk away from that much profit and I would not wish to invest in a company incompetent enough to ignore it.
So because markets are efficient, sexism (plus all other forms of discrimination) must play no part in employment practices? (By the way, you don't have to believe in efficient markets to think that stock market index funds are a good investment.)
The thing is, we know that a lot of sexism is not conscious or deliberate - it's usually just an unthinking continuation of what everyone is used to. Employers aren't going to say "hey, we can pay women less to do the same work, let's fire all the men!" because they aren't generally even aware of the fact that they pay women less, and would tend to claim that they don't.
Another thing is that part of the gender pay gap is due to pay differences between different jobs which are comparable in terms of skills and qualifications - men and women alike in Job A may be paid less than men and women alike in an equivalent Job B, but social pressures push women towards Job A and men towards Job B. But since each job pays men and women the same, "let's fire all the men" isn't going to work.
Besides, even if "let's employ women because we can get away with paying them less" were an effective way to reduce labour costs in many circumstances, you have to realise that sexism as explicit corporate policy would be phenomenally bad PR, and those companies would not see their profits go up...
I'm sorry, but if the belief in efficient markets leads you to conclude that there is no gender pay gap (it shouldn't, but if it does), really the conclusion should be that markets are not efficient. Also, your last sentence explicitly says you value profit over ethics, which makes you look like kind of a tool.
-
We live in England and the way things work here, most village have a primary school and kids from year 5 on can walk/bike to school alone. We're going back to the US and I've been looking at areas where there's a school in the community. I used to live in Downtown Boise, the north end, and it was like that there. It's so nice!
I hope to find another place where the kids can walk to and from school!!
A lot of the older schools in Raleigh NC (where we live) are like that - neighborhood schools where you can walk to them without crossing really busy roads. We happen to have one in our neighborhood and it's definitely nice to be able to walk to/from school. Outside of saving money, getting exercise and enjoying the outdoors, it also builds community. You get to know other parents who are out walking their kids to school, and you meet people who don't even have kids. Now, when I talk to a new neighbor, they say "oh, you're that guy out walking all the time". It's also a crime deterrent if people are out walking around. I'd rather hit a quiet cul de sac than the main street I live on that has plenty of vehicular, pedestrian, and bike traffic (particularly when school starts and ends each day).
-
I love you too! :) I only made an assertion that companies act to maximize profit, not that it was completely efficient and all-knowing as that hypothesis states. One could argue that the markets can remain irrational for a long time but 30 years would be an absurd amount of time for no company to notice something regularly stated in news headlines and act on it in some way. My initial scenario for why the pay gap did not exist came from a belief that a company would try its hardest to close such a gap in any way possible to squeeze out more profit. I'll admit my scenario was rather poor but I still believe that to be the reason such a huge gap would quickly disappear in today's world. The numbers are unrelated to my scenario though and only support the assertion that the gap is often small or nonexistent when you correct for marriage, children, and hours worked.
I stated that I would choose to avoid a company that didn't preferentially employ women to save 20% on labor costs compared to men since it would make more sense than hiring men for more money to do the same work in that scenario. It would point to a company that is either sexist or highly inefficient which are both things I despise. You're right though that my example was quite unrealistic. I'd have no way of knowing that since salaries are generally hidden first of all. They could get around the PR problem by simply lowering the wages of new male hires over time to bring them in line with what women make because wages are typically not public knowledge.
As you said, it is not that simple and other factors exist to help explain these differences such as the company, educational background, and location. I did not mean to assert that discrimination does not exist in the workforce, only that most companies will not actively discriminate on a level where mass profits are at stake. There may be some differences in pay, even significant ones between the sexes, but it isn't as clear-cut as the 20% nonsense. I'm well aware academia can be sexist, my chemistry profs have told me enough horror stories but that was not what I was addressing. I'm not arguing that sexism in the workplace doesn't exist, only that it doesn't include the huge gulf in pay that most people make it out to have.
I personally believe that many companies don't give two licks about ethics when we have fracking, outsourcing, and our joke of a minimum wage that are all ruining millions of lives and forcing taxpayers to subsidize what they do not pay. I noticed neither of you responded to the next paragraph where the numbers support that such a gap is likely very different than what has been advertised. Say what you will on my stance as to why the gender pay gap is small or non-existent but if you read the data provided by the government study, the gap largely disappears by just making a few simple changes to the sample pool. If anything, there is a gap due to marriage, children, and possibly age and not solely due to gender in many cases.
-
I love you too! :) I only made an assertion that companies act to maximize profit, not that it was completely efficient and all-knowing as that hypothesis states. One could argue that the markets can remain irrational for a long time but 30 years would be an absurd amount of time for no company to notice something regularly stated in news headlines and act on it in some way. My initial scenario for why the pay gap did not exist came from a belief that a company would try its hardest to close such a gap in any way possible to squeeze out more profit. I'll admit my scenario was rather poor but I still believe that to be the reason such a huge gap would quickly disappear in today's world. The numbers are unrelated to my scenario though and only support the assertion that the gap is often small or nonexistent when you correct for marriage, children, and hours worked.
I stated that I would choose to avoid a company that didn't preferentially employ women to save 20% on labor costs compared to men since it would make more sense than hiring men for more money to do the same work in that scenario. It would point to a company that is either sexist or highly inefficient which are both things I despise. You're right though that my example was quite unrealistic. I'd have no way of knowing that since salaries are generally hidden first of all. They could get around the PR problem by simply lowering the wages of new male hires over time to bring them in line with what women make because wages are typically not public knowledge.
As you said, it is not that simple and other factors exist to help explain these differences such as the company, educational background, and location. I did not mean to assert that discrimination does not exist in the workforce, only that most companies will not actively discriminate on a level where mass profits are at stake. There may be some differences in pay, even significant ones between the sexes, but it isn't as clear-cut as the 20% nonsense. I'm well aware academia can be sexist, my chemistry profs have told me enough horror stories but that was not what I was addressing. I'm not arguing that sexism in the workplace doesn't exist, only that it doesn't include the huge gulf in pay that most people make it out to have.
I personally believe that many companies don't give two licks about ethics when we have fracking, outsourcing, and our joke of a minimum wage that are all ruining millions of lives and forcing taxpayers to subsidize what they do not pay. I noticed neither of you responded to the next paragraph where the numbers support that such a gap is likely very different than what has been advertised. Say what you will on my stance as to why the gender pay gap is small or non-existent but if you read the data provided by the government study, the gap largely disappears by just making a few simple changes to the sample pool. If anything, there is a gap due to marriage, children, and possibly age and not solely due to gender in many cases.
But even when they do that the promotions, even of women without children, and wage gap between the genders exist AND they have tested that reason behind it, has not gone away. So instead of arguing against every peer reviewed study I can find, how about fix the underlying issue and then no one will argue with you. And, btw, the first study on this bias that I remember reading was over 30 years ago so, yes the bias can last for that period of time.
-
But even when they do that the promotions, even of women without children, and wage gap between the genders exist AND they have tested that reason behind it, has not gone away. So instead of arguing against every peer reviewed study I can find, how about fix the underlying issue and then no one will argue with you. And, btw, the first study on this bias that I remember reading was over 30 years ago so, yes the bias can last for that period of time.
Well, I'm simply using the statistics provided directly from a mass sampling of the population from here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf). I was a very strong believer in the 20% pay gap until I found that article and went through all the numbers myself. The sources I found on my own discussed some other form of discrimination instead of the pay gap as a whole so I welcome any sources! I commented on this knowing that it would push some people's buttons so I don't mind any anger at all. :3 The other source I used just picked out choice morsels from that report for ease of viewing. The whole point that I am making is that if gender was the primary factor between such a huge gulf, it'd be highly unlikely to see up to 80% of it being lopped away by accounting for a single variable while holding gender constant in many scenarios. What I was getting at is if changing one or two variables largely bridges the gap, what if we happened to do everything at the same time for a more equal comparison? To me, it seems highly unlikely that the pay gap would persist to a large extent when most individual variables besides marriage/children/low education/old age shrinks it down.
Here, I'll do one in addition to those in the article I linked. Here are numbers drawn from page 56 of the report.
Women’s earnings as percentages of a man’s at age 25+ at certain education levels:
79.9% total
76.0% less than high school
76.3% high school
76.9% some college or associates
73.0% bachelors and above.
Pretty abysmal right? Looking from just those numbers, there is almost certainly a wage gap. Now take a look on page 46.
Women’s earnings as percentages of a man’s hourly wage at age 25+ at certain education levels:
86.8% total
78.7% less than high school
79.3% high school
85.3% some college or associates
91.5% bachelors and above.
Still a wage gap but it looks like some areas tightened up quite a bit.
Let's see how much the gaps closed in each category by accounting for just the hourly wage.
34.3% total
11.3% less than high school
12.7% high school
36.4% some college or associates
68.5% bachelors and above.
Some other important variable(s) are likely affecting the results or the impact simply grows with education level judging by how it trends. One could argue physical jobs that don't require an education pay better than service jobs and more men take those, actual discrimination is taking place more frequently at lower education levels, or something of that sort but since I have no numbers, I'll leave that to your interpretation. But look at what happens for the bottom group. 68.5% of the gap in pay between bachelor's degree men and women is accounted for just by isolating their hourly rates. When unmarried, childless, or young women all only have a 10% gap or less between their counterparts without even accounting for hours worked and that men work more hours than women on average, it indicates that those variables are responsible for the gap and gender is probably not the primary factor.
-
Let's see how much the gaps closed in each category by accounting for just the hourly wage.
The thing that seemingly everyone forgets when they 'correct' for this variable is that it's also totally sexist that women are expected to work less than men, and given fewer or less reliable hours. The sexism in employment doesn't go away, it's just pushed under the carpet.
Either way, sexism is emphatically not a thing of the past - a preposterous claim, which the gender wage gap was cited as clear evidence against. Whether it's explained by lower hourly pay or fewer hours, or both, it's clear evidence of sexism.
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it.
I mean, really, there's only two ways you can go. Either women earn less than men because they aren't treated fairly, or because it is fair for them to earn less. The first one acknowledges sexism, the second one is sexism.
-
Thank you, Warfreak2.
-
The thing that seemingly everyone forgets when they 'correct' for this variable is that it's also totally sexist that women are expected to work less than men, and given fewer or less reliable hours. The sexism in employment doesn't go away, it's just pushed under the carpet.
Either way, sexism is emphatically not a thing of the past - a preposterous claim, which the gender wage gap was cited as clear evidence against. Whether it's explained by lower hourly pay or fewer hours, or both, it's clear evidence of sexism.
Source that women are given fewer or less reliable hours? It's not sexism if women are choosing to work fewer hours.
-
I think at this point in the US we are very close to gender equality, maybe we have even achieved it.
I mean, really, there's only two ways you can go. Either women earn less than men because they aren't treated fairly, or because it is fair for them to earn less. The first one acknowledges sexism, the second one is sexism.
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong, but being wrong is different than being sexist. I haven't seen the data before; I may change my mind if I look more into it. It's pretty complicated though, I think people see what they want to see.
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him. I'm not arguing that, because I don't give a shit. It depends on what roles people want to fill, whether anything sexist is going on. I hear enough arguments from both sides that I just say fuck it.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
I would not necessarily agree with that. All humans are indoctrinated into their culture, women just as much as men. Given that overall women don't have as much power as men, the sexism may not be as directly harmful but I do think both genders can be and are sexist. The fact that I am uncomfortable that my female professor has a SAHH and not as much when my male professor has a SAHW does mean that I have some sexism. I work hard to make sure my uncomfortableness does not affect my actions because I am aware of them, and that works to an extent. It does not mean I am not sexist.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
Thanks, Warfreak. You do a great job responding.
-
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
I would not necessarily agree with that. All humans are indoctrinated into their culture, women just as much as men. Given that overall women don't have as much power as men, the sexism may not be as directly harmful but I do think both genders can be and are sexist. The fact that I am uncomfortable that my female professor has a SAHH and not as much when my male professor has a SAHW does mean that I have some sexism. I work hard to make sure my uncomfortableness does not affect my actions because I am aware of them, and that works to an extent. It does not mean I am not sexist.
Oh, agreed for sure. Perhaps "mainly propagated by" isn't exactly the right term. I don't just mean that men tend to spread sexist ideas more effectively, but also that those sexist ideas tend to be originated by men.
Whenever someone comes up with an example of "sexism against men", I just think, look more closely and you'll probably be able to trace that sexism back to men. If you think about a guy getting teased for earning less than his wife, for example, the people teasing him are probably men. If he is looked down on for being a stay-at-home parent, even if by women, it's still rooted in misogyny - the idea that staying at home to raise children is something a woman should do.
-
The fact that I am uncomfortable that my female professor has a SAHH and not as much when my male professor has a SAHW does mean that I have some sexism.
Are you my student-lol? (I'm a prof with a SAHH).
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
If women do want to work less, I don't know why. And if I offer an explanation, you will say I'm being sexist. Accept my religion, or you are going to hell! :P
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
That's based on the opinion that one role is inferior to the other. If you don't think that, it's pretty symmetric. The sexist part is that men and women are expected to fill different rolls, and they are looked down upon for not doing so. There are other things that men bitch about as being sexist against men, many involve the courts. I'm not going to list them because defending them is not the point. Point is, both genders are whiny bitches. In the spirit of re-appropriation: we need to grow some vagina!
-
The fact that I am uncomfortable that my female professor has a SAHH and not as much when my male professor has a SAHW does mean that I have some sexism.
Are you my student-lol? (I'm a prof with a SAHH).
Do you work in a science related field? Lol
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
If women do want to work less, I don't know why. And if I offer an explanation, you will say I'm being sexist. Accept my religion, or you are going to hell! :P
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
That's based on the opinion that one role is inferior to the other. If you don't think that, it's pretty symmetric. The sexist part is that men and women are expected to fill different rolls, and they are looked down upon for not doing so. There are other things that men bitch about as being sexist against men, many involve the courts. I'm not going to list them because defending them is not the point. Point is, both genders are whiny bitches. In the spirit of re-appropriation: we need to grow some vagina!
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
-
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
How good and recent is the survey data on that though? I'm curious because given the forum we are on I would say that a lot of people would likely say that they want to work less because they want to have more of their own free time to spend doing things they enjoy and don't see the point in climbing the cooperate ladder. Let's face it, there is a lot of truth in the saying that "You don't lie on your deathbed wishing you spend more time at the office." Anecdotally I've known a couple people over the years of both genders that grew extremely tired of the office and laboratory politics (STEM fields) once their first child was born and actively looked for ways to reduce their workload and pretty much drew back from trying to climb the ladder.
They keep repeating it for the same reason you asked, because we think the behavior will go away. The latest one I read was published this year which normally means a year to three years behind.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
If women do want to work less, I don't know why. And if I offer an explanation, you will say I'm being sexist. Accept my religion, or you are going to hell! :P
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
That's based on the opinion that one role is inferior to the other. If you don't think that, it's pretty symmetric. The sexist part is that men and women are expected to fill different rolls, and they are looked down upon for not doing so. There are other things that men bitch about as being sexist against men, many involve the courts. I'm not going to list them because defending them is not the point. Point is, both genders are whiny bitches. In the spirit of re-appropriation: we need to grow some vagina!
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
I'm not assuming that; I threw it out as a possibility. I think there are too many unknowns to claim sexism. That view is not sexist.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
If women do want to work less, I don't know why. And if I offer an explanation, you will say I'm being sexist. Accept my religion, or you are going to hell! :P
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
That's based on the opinion that one role is inferior to the other. If you don't think that, it's pretty symmetric. The sexist part is that men and women are expected to fill different rolls, and they are looked down upon for not doing so. There are other things that men bitch about as being sexist against men, many involve the courts. I'm not going to list them because defending them is not the point. Point is, both genders are whiny bitches. In the spirit of re-appropriation: we need to grow some vagina!
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
I'm not assuming that; I threw it out as a possibility. I think there are too many unknowns to claim sexism. That view is not sexist.
Except that this is an entire field of research (that has been going for over 30 years, to my knowledge, probably longer but I refuse to go into the stacks without a damn good reason), and they have determined the "reason". And that reason is a inherent gender bias (psych/soc people don't call it sexism, lol) and the effects of that bias. For example women who did succeed in the generation prior often worked more hours than the men (so you look at the hours put in by a female dean/chair/higher level tenure (I assume C level as well but not my interest so I don't know for certain) and it is higher than the average male in the same position). That means that they expect more out of those in the next generation, which means those who want work life balance often go with male investigators if they have choice (because the men expect hour similar to their own, in the same way as the females) And who gets the choice? The top students. So you have two PIs working the same hours, but the females are working more service hours (required by the chair, and that fact is supported by research which again I can post on Monday) so less research hours, they often get not the pick of grad students or post docs (ones doing most of the research) which means more hand holding which means again less bench work for PI and all of that, combined with inherit bias when picking tenure faculty equal less promotions for females.
So, do we assume it is just women want this, or do we follow what research shows? Which is that they are fighting against not only an external bias but an internal one because we have women and men as children that men jobs are one kind and women jobs are another kind and being a stay at home parent or a part time parent is a female possibility not a male.
Based on my job throwing out ideas that don't come from previous evidence bothers me. Especially when even the question is phrased in a subtle sexist way. Now, given the demographics on this board, I assume you are male. Most males are not THAT subtle so I assume that it was not an international phrasing. Which just goes to show the biggest issue. People are not educated about this, we don't want to admit our prejudices and then we do subtle things that still affect our culture in that way.
-
It happens so often, in fact pervasively: people from a group against whom there is bias argue that there is pervasive bias, and the people in the group that commits the bias argue against it. White people claim there's very little racism, men claim there's very little sexism, etc. etc. Numerous, detailed and rigorous studies show that the bias is there, and yet the groups that commit the bias very often keep arguing against it.
Now, I get why. Nobody wants to be accused of objectionable behavior. Everyone's offended by the idea that injustice is going on and they're on the wrong side of the divide. Plus of course the people in the unaffected groups simply don't see a lot of it. They don't grow up with the experience of bias on so many occasions, and it's just not on their radar generally. If there's an instance in the news, the affected group picks up on it, unaffected groups probably don't notice it in the big welter of information coming at them.
But here's the thing. We shouldn't let our defensiveness trump our open-mindedness. "You say that's an instance of prejudice? I sure hadn't considered that. Hmm." Not "That's not an instance! All wrong! Complainers! Whiners! You're just not taking responsibility for your own failures!"
Plus let's be open to the fact that people in the affected categories will have had a much closer-up experience of the thing that unaffected people. Maybe they know what they're talking about. Very likely they do. We don't have to explain their experience to them.
Because really, the denial of the problem on the part of the unaffected groups is exactly the problem. "There's no bias. I don't see it." "That's my point."
-
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
lol wut
Got it: everything bad is because of men.
There are plenty of women who hold sexist views, and believe it or not, it's not because of men!
-
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
lol wut
Got it: everything bad is because of men.
There are plenty of women who hold sexist views, and believe it or not, it's not because of men!
Groups in power positions can't really claim discrimination, racism, sexism etc. That's like a CEO whining that her employees are mean to her. The point of discrimination is that it puts negative views on groups of people that don't hold power positions.
Some women hold power positions. My wife has always made more money than me. Yet, as a woman she's a member of a group that has been both historically oppressed and is currently oppressed. Choose whatever rational you'd like for that, earnings, domestic violence, rape, educational levels, percentage of a group that holds positions of power etc. Women are a minority group based on that rational.
I'm not perfect and I've held racist and misogynistic views in the past, and they still occasionally come crawling up from my subconscious. Still, I'd like to hope that we're all doing what we can to make the world a more just and equitable place. Carefully choosing our words is perhaps the easiest way to do that.
Instead of pussy say coward. It describes how someone is behaving without putting down a group of people.
-
Instead of pussy say coward. It describes how someone is behaving without putting down a group of people.
But that's not funny. How about candy-ass? Or chicken-shit? Those are bona fide replacements.
-
Instead of pussy say coward. It describes how someone is behaving without putting down a group of people.
But that's not funny. How about candy-ass? Or chicken-shit? Those are bona fide replacements.
I'm pretty sure that everyone would be fine with wiener.
-
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
lol wut
Got it: everything bad is because of men.
There are plenty of women who hold sexist views, and believe it or not, it's not because of men!
Groups in power positions can't really claim discrimination, racism, sexism etc. That's like a CEO whining that her employees are mean to her. The point of discrimination is that it puts negative views on groups of people that don't hold power positions.
Huh? Just because someone holds a position of power, that doesn't mean they can't be harmed by discrimination. I'm having trouble following your logic. A CEO shouldn't complain if employees are mean to her because she's a CEO and has power. But because this CEO is a woman and women are always oppressed, she can complain? I'm not really sure what you're saying.
There are plenty of situations where men are discriminated against. They're allowed to complain about it. Or are you saying that men, because they've traditionally had more power and wealth, should just shut up and get over it? Sounds like you're suggesting they should "toughen up". Pretty sexist IMO.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
If women do want to work less, I don't know why. And if I offer an explanation, you will say I'm being sexist. Accept my religion, or you are going to hell! :P
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
That's based on the opinion that one role is inferior to the other. If you don't think that, it's pretty symmetric. The sexist part is that men and women are expected to fill different rolls, and they are looked down upon for not doing so. There are other things that men bitch about as being sexist against men, many involve the courts. I'm not going to list them because defending them is not the point. Point is, both genders are whiny bitches. In the spirit of re-appropriation: we need to grow some vagina!
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
I'm not assuming that; I threw it out as a possibility. I think there are too many unknowns to claim sexism. That view is not sexist.
Except that this is an entire field of research (that has been going for over 30 years, to my knowledge, probably longer but I refuse to go into the stacks without a damn good reason), and they have determined the "reason". And that reason is a inherent gender bias (psych/soc people don't call it sexism, lol) and the effects of that bias. For example women who did succeed in the generation prior often worked more hours than the men (so you look at the hours put in by a female dean/chair/higher level tenure (I assume C level as well but not my interest so I don't know for certain) and it is higher than the average male in the same position). That means that they expect more out of those in the next generation, which means those who want work life balance often go with male investigators if they have choice (because the men expect hour similar to their own, in the same way as the females) And who gets the choice? The top students. So you have two PIs working the same hours, but the females are working more service hours (required by the chair, and that fact is supported by research which again I can post on Monday) so less research hours, they often get not the pick of grad students or post docs (ones doing most of the research) which means more hand holding which means again less bench work for PI and all of that, combined with inherit bias when picking tenure faculty equal less promotions for females.
So, do we assume it is just women want this, or do we follow what research shows? Which is that they are fighting against not only an external bias but an internal one because we have women and men as children that men jobs are one kind and women jobs are another kind and being a stay at home parent or a part time parent is a female possibility not a male.
Based on my job throwing out ideas that don't come from previous evidence bothers me. Especially when even the question is phrased in a subtle sexist way. Now, given the demographics on this board, I assume you are male. Most males are not THAT subtle so I assume that it was not an international phrasing. Which just goes to show the biggest issue. People are not educated about this, we don't want to admit our prejudices and then we do subtle things that still affect our culture in that way.
It's OK to throw around possibilities when you are challenging a claim. The burden is on the person making the claim to figure this stuff out. Maybe I should have said "I don't have good reason to believe our society is sexist" instead of "I think we are very close to gender equality." When I said that, it wasn't to make a claim, it was to give a background of my thoughts and why I don't see calling someone a pussy as sexist.
Why would you be upset that I don't acknowledge something I don't see? I don't care that you think our society is sexist, but I object to the idea that I am sexist for not agreeing with you. That's like when a religious person tries to convert somebody, then tells them they are a sinner for not accepting it.
BTW, I browsed the article you posted from Jezebel. That language is disgusting. If I new a person who talked like that, I'd try to get them psychological help. They are serious about what they are saying and are crossing the line. It is specific and violent, totally different category than the jokes I was talking about. Yes, there is a line and it's not hard for people to see it, in my experience. No, I don't think pussy jokes lead to that language or those ideas. Those guys live in their own world.
What is the first part I put in bold referring to?
Is it sexist to say most males are not that subtle? I don't know what is and what is not.
-
Instead of pussy say coward. It describes how someone is behaving without putting down a group of people.
But that's not funny. How about candy-ass? Or chicken-shit? Those are bona fide replacements.
I'm pretty sure that everyone would be fine with wiener.
I'm fine with it, but many guys would probably figure if that is OK, "pussy" is OK too.
-
Hello everybody, long-time lurker here! I am surprised that the idea of a huge gender wage gap is so heavily supported in a community where people also believe their portfolio of companies will work ruthlessly and tirelessly to maximize profit for their shareholders. Many of us invest in index funds containing those companies in the hopes of funding our retirement. If the gap was so pervasive in every field regardless of other factors besides gender, companies would be paying 23% more just to employ a man instead of a woman who could do the job just as well. Just one company would see this and they'd hire as many women as it could get away with to crush their competition. Since labor is a large percentage of business costs, companies could add entire percentage points to their profit margins by making that one change. No good company would walk away from that much profit and I would not wish to invest in a company incompetent enough to ignore it.
Contrary to what the BLS says in its own report, you CAN largely dismiss the wage gap by accounting for other factors such as marital status, hours worked, and children by using the data it provided (see link 1). The gap shrinks to 4.2% for women that never married without considering anything else. Just for being under the age of 35, the gap shrinks to 9.8%. Women actually make 5.3% more than men at 1-35 hours worked and 11.3% more than men at 35-39 hours regardless of age, marital status, or children. (see page 41 of BLS report). Men make 14.5% more than women as full time employees but more men choose to work 41+ hours a week. The full time gap could be because women become stay at home moms more frequently and lose years of raises and experience when re-entering the work force or prefer part time employment to watch any children. Since there are no numbers to back that up, take it with a grain of salt. Anywho, check out the first link and compare it with the BLS report if you don't believe the numbers. The thing that surprised me the most was the impact of married vs. unmarried which had gaps of 23.4% and 4.2% respectively. I thought children would have the largest impact but that was not the case.
1. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/ (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/)
2. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf)
Back on topic, it largely depends on how old the son was. I could understand giving the fine to the father if the son was around 5-7 because even when I was in school, the safety squad that I took part in as a child would at least walk kindergartners to their home streets and that was only 12 years ago. I think the bigger question we should all be asking is why the father is driving his car a mile to pick up his son when he could be biking in tropical paradise instead? :)
Two things stand out, in the "can largely be dismissed" comment here:
4.2% unmarried gap
23.4% married gap.
At my level, being married, that's $23,000 a year.
I think that's significant.
-
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
Well, I can tell you.
When I had my first kid, I wanted to work part time because I was exhausted. Nursing, pumping, working full time, not sleeping, it was awful.
When I had my second kid I did the same for awhile, but went back full time faster. I was working towards a promotion with my boss, taking on more responsibility, etc. etc.
But upper management nixed it. They refused my boss's request for my raise. Reorganized me out of my position. And then...over the space of 6 months I found myself in a spot where I'd been doing all of this extra work, taken on more responsibility, seeing the two newer engineers (male) making 20% more than me. Because you know, when you hire someone in from outside you have to pay them the market rate (not just me getting screwed, my male coworkers too).
So imagine that you are burning the candle at both ends and upper management gives you the finger like that. So yeah, I decided to work less. It's one thing to be recognized for your effort and accomplishments. If not recognized? Well, then I guess I decided if I wasn't going to be paid what the job I was doing is worth, I would turn my job into something that matches the pay.
-
Maybe I should have said "I don't have good reason to believe our society is sexist"
[...]
Why would you be upset that I don't acknowledge something I don't see? I don't care that you think our society is sexist, but I object to the idea that I am sexist for not agreeing with you.
The problem is that you are either ignorant or dismissive of the mountainous testimony of women who describe their experiences of sexism. Either you don't listen to women talk about it, or you think they are wrong - otherwise you would have plenty of good reasons to believe that sexism is still widespread.
Like, I've never seen the Taj Mahal, but it would be pretty darn stupid to say I have no good reason to believe it exists. This is like that, except the people whose experiences you're ignoring or dismissing are exclusively women, so hopefully you can see why you might be accused of sexism...
-
Maybe I should have said "I don't have good reason to believe our society is sexist"
[...]
Why would you be upset that I don't acknowledge something I don't see? I don't care that you think our society is sexist, but I object to the idea that I am sexist for not agreeing with you.
The problem is that you are either ignorant or dismissive of the mountainous testimony of women who describe their experiences of sexism. Either you don't listen to women talk about it, or you think they are wrong - otherwise you would have plenty of good reasons to believe that sexism is still widespread.
Like, I've never seen the Taj Mahal, but it would be pretty darn stupid to say I have no good reason to believe it exists. This is like that, except the people whose experiences you're ignoring or dismissing are exclusively women, so hopefully you can see why you might be accused of sexism...
Nah, I don't buy it when men say it either. And this isn't the Taj Mahal, this is a concept. It's more like saying I don't have a reason to believe that trickle-down economics works. It's complicated; people have different criteria and views of it.
-
Maybe women want to work less. Plenty of women want to be house wives or stay-at-home-moms. You probably think I am wrong
I don't necessarily think that this isn't partly true...
But supposing it's true, why do women want to work less and earn less? It's not like having woman-parts should cause anyone to eschew lucrative careers... women are human beings, so (like men) they often want what they are told to want. And we collectively keep telling women to want to work less, stay at home, be a housewife and raise children. And we collectively keep telling men to want to earn more and aim for the top. It's still sexist.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for the gender wage gap. (So far we've identified three.) But however it's explained, the explanation is either going to acknowledge sexism, or be an example of it.
If women do want to work less, I don't know why. And if I offer an explanation, you will say I'm being sexist. Accept my religion, or you are going to hell! :P
It could be argued that it is sexist that men are looked down upon for being stay-at-home-dads, or that it is embarrassing if a man's wife makes more money than him.
I agree! Those things are totally sexist... against women. These are two examples of men being judged for taking an "inferior" role which "should be" taken by a woman. The sexism is the implication that they ought to take the "superior" role because they are a man.
The difference between sexism against women and "sexism against men" is that sexism against women is mainly propagated by men, and "sexism against men" is mainly propagated by men.
That's based on the opinion that one role is inferior to the other. If you don't think that, it's pretty symmetric. The sexist part is that men and women are expected to fill different rolls, and they are looked down upon for not doing so. There are other things that men bitch about as being sexist against men, many involve the courts. I'm not going to list them because defending them is not the point. Point is, both genders are whiny bitches. In the spirit of re-appropriation: we need to grow some vagina!
But you don't have a reason why women "want" to work less nor any evidence that they do, why would you assume the answer is they want ti? One reason could be gender wage gap. I took a large time off than my husband because neither of us have parental leave pay and he made more so we had save up less for me to be out then him.
I'm not assuming that; I threw it out as a possibility. I think there are too many unknowns to claim sexism. That view is not sexist.
Except that this is an entire field of research (that has been going for over 30 years, to my knowledge, probably longer but I refuse to go into the stacks without a damn good reason), and they have determined the "reason". And that reason is a inherent gender bias (psych/soc people don't call it sexism, lol) and the effects of that bias. For example women who did succeed in the generation prior often worked more hours than the men (so you look at the hours put in by a female dean/chair/higher level tenure (I assume C level as well but not my interest so I don't know for certain) and it is higher than the average male in the same position). That means that they expect more out of those in the next generation, which means those who want work life balance often go with male investigators if they have choice (because the men expect hour similar to their own, in the same way as the females) And who gets the choice? The top students. So you have two PIs working the same hours, but the females are working more service hours (required by the chair, and that fact is supported by research which again I can post on Monday) so less research hours, they often get not the pick of grad students or post docs (ones doing most of the research) which means more hand holding which means again less bench work for PI and all of that, combined with inherit bias when picking tenure faculty equal less promotions for females.
So, do we assume it is just women want this, or do we follow what research shows? Which is that they are fighting against not only an external bias but an internal one because we have women and men as children that men jobs are one kind and women jobs are another kind and being a stay at home parent or a part time parent is a female possibility not a male.
Based on my job throwing out ideas that don't come from previous evidence bothers me. Especially when even the question is phrased in a subtle sexist way. Now, given the demographics on this board, I assume you are male. Most males are not THAT subtle so I assume that it was not an international phrasing. Which just goes to show the biggest issue. People are not educated about this, we don't want to admit our prejudices and then we do subtle things that still affect our culture in that way.
It's OK to throw around possibilities when you are challenging a claim. The burden is on the person making the claim to figure this stuff out. Maybe I should have said "I don't have good reason to believe our society is sexist" instead of "I think we are very close to gender equality." When I said that, it wasn't to make a claim, it was to give a background of my thoughts and why I don't see calling someone a pussy as sexist.
Why would you be upset that I don't acknowledge something I don't see? I don't care that you think our society is sexist, but I object to the idea that I am sexist for not agreeing with you. That's like when a religious person tries to convert somebody, then tells them they are a sinner for not accepting it.
BTW, I browsed the article you posted from Jezebel. That language is disgusting. If I new a person who talked like that, I'd try to get them psychological help. They are serious about what they are saying and are crossing the line. It is specific and violent, totally different category than the jokes I was talking about. Yes, there is a line and it's not hard for people to see it, in my experience. No, I don't think pussy jokes lead to that language or those ideas. Those guys live in their own world.
What is the first part I put in bold referring to?
Is it sexist to say most males are not that subtle? I don't know what is and what is not.
It is not sexist to understand and comment on differences but it is sexist to assume ALL in that group have those characteristics (and that really is not efficient because it is wrong enough of the times). A stupid example, most women are shorter than most men and are less strong. However some women are stronger than some men. So you would not put an ad for someone who needs to pick up 100lb as a male only job but you would put that the person needs to pick up 100lbs and it would not be unreasonable to assume the majority of the people who apply are male as long that does not stop you from accepting the females who apply. Does that make sense?
To the rest of your point, it is not in a different category than what you said, it is just more extreme. Those comment you made, contribute to a culture that allow those men to think their comments are ok.
Actually I classed you as sexist for your original comment and subsequent behavior, not the lack of being able to identify the sexism. The not being able to identify it, is classed as privilege.
You did not say, I think there are too many variables to declare this is just sexism (except that if you look up inhert bias and wage/hiring etc, you will see that that bias has been shown to result in both sexist and racist hiring and income gaps, so that tells me you just have not looked anything up), you said "maybe it is just women want to stay home" which predisposes that women want to more then men. Not most women vs most men (though there has been no research I have seen to even to back that up, please link if you have) but ALL women vs ALL men. That predisposition is by it's very nature a sexist conclusion. Does that explain my comments more?
And just a side note, one way I keep myself safe is hearing the "little sexism" and avoiding the men who say them because those state sexist comments are correlated to those who sexually assault because both are correlated to a sexist belief system that makes women's consent not matter as much as a male's wants. So, yes, your comments and beliefs do affect women around you, it is not harmless like believing a different religion.
-
Gin1984,
In the context of statistics, a statement like "men do X more than women" means on average. It doesn't mean "all." Isn't the "most" implied, since it is the case almost every time? When would you have a statistic that actually means "all"? Do you really think I meant ALL women want to work less was a possibility?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about jokes leading to harm. I wrote a bunch of stuff about that; you know what I think. Those men have their own fucked-up culture; I don't know where they got it.
My "lack of being able to identify sexism" is the reason for my "sexist" behavior. It is not really sexist, at worst un-informed. How do you know if I am privileged or not? Because I said I'm a white guy? Are ALL white guys privileged?
The religious people who try to convert others don't think it is harmless that they have a different, or no, religion. That is just your opinion, mine too obviously. My example is good.
You are experiencing a confirmation bias by avoiding men who joke a certain way. Any reason to stay away from more men is going to result in lower chances of being a victim. Also: correlation vs. causation.
-
Gin1984,
In the context of statistics, a statement like "men do X more than women" means on average. It doesn't mean "all." Isn't the "most" implied, since it is the case almost every time? When would you have a statistic that actually means "all"? Do you really think I meant ALL women want to work less was a possibility?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about jokes leading to harm. I wrote a bunch of stuff about that; you know what I think. Those men have their own fucked-up culture; I don't know where they got it.
My "lack of being able to identify sexism" is the reason for my "sexist" behavior. It is not really sexist, at worst un-informed. How do you know if I am privileged or not? Because I said I'm a white guy? Are ALL white guys privileged?
The religious people who try to convert others don't think it is harmless that they have a different, or no, religion. That is just your opinion, mine too obviously. My example is good.
You are experiencing a confirmation bias by avoiding men who joke a certain way. Any reason to stay away from more men is going to result in lower chances of being a victim. Also: correlation vs. causation.
Actually research does agree with me that men that are sexist are more likely to assault, not all men assault and there are very much characteristics of the men who do. Try googling on google scholar sexism and sexual assault and you will get thousands of research articles say such. I am not avoiding men, I'd have to say that I have more male then female friends because of my profession and hobbies. And, I don't have the belief that all men do such a horrid thing. And again, you keep thinking this is a difference of opinion when your opinion is based on personal belief and no facts and mine is on over a generation of research. It is like arguing with someone who is saying creationism is as valid as evolution because they are both "theories". Honestly, I am not arguing with you, but bringing it out for others reading because I know that you are not going to get it. You have made it very obvious.
-
I've been unable to find the study proving that occasional use of the word 'pussy' correlates to sexism and therefore sexual assault against women. Could you provide it?
-
Nah, I don't buy it when men say it either. And this isn't the Taj Mahal, this is a concept. It's more like saying I don't have a reason to believe that trickle-down economics works. It's complicated; people have different criteria and views of it.
So, lots of women's everyday experiences of sexism are not "a good reason" to believe in sexism because related experience can't establish the existence of abstract concepts like Winter, mutual funds and Lollapalooza.
But it's definitely not sexist, no Sir, because you don't just dismiss women who relate their experiences of sexism - you dismiss men who relate women's experiences of sexism, too.
Are ALL white guys privileged?
Too (http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/55307010922/what-is-white-privilege-usa) easy (http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2013/04/a-definitive-guide-to-white-privilege/)...
-
Can the title of this thread be changed? My brain is rebelling at having to translate "walking home from school" to "the role of language in sexist culture and behavior" every time it pops up in the list.
-
Not really, both of those links only apply to the United States and the second one doesn't bother with any sources so it is unlikely to stand up as a rigorous document. The original posted used the keyword all which means you also need to demonstrate that white males outside of the United States are privileged and that non-cisgendered white males are also privileged. You would also need to define what "white" means as well since it can change depending upon the culture group.
We were talking about the US, seeing as bikebum's claim that we already achieved (or were near to achieving) gender equality was specific to the US. But I literally just gave the first two plausible links I found on Google. If you want to know more about white privilege (which is not the same as male privilege or cis privilege, but the same advice applies) than a couple of basic introductions will tell you, feel free to look it up yourself. Bikebum obviously didn't.
I don't feel like I "need" to do any more than that to persuade anyone that a widely-understood, well-documented phenomenon exists; I certainly don't feel the need to defend claims that I didn't make. If bikebum really wants an answer to his question, rather than just something else to argue about, I will rest knowing that I showed him where the answer can be easily found.
-
But it's definitely not sexist, no Sir, because you don't just dismiss women who relate their experiences of sexism - you dismiss men who relate women's experiences of sexism, too.
And men's experiences of sexism against men too. That's what I meant.
-
If sexism was just a few idiots who think their gender is better, and these idiots were about evenly distributed among men and women, then "society isn't sexist" would probably be a defensible position. But institutional sexism is pretty much exclusively against women, and invisibly benefits men. It's just inherently something that men don't experience - even when they benefit from it. Male (http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/) privilege (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-11-22_72), like the other privileges, conveys a set of advantages which don't feel like advantages; they are just things that someone either doesn't notice that they benefit from, or assumes everyone benefits from. In fact, not having to acknowledge privilege is part of the package.
That's the problem. By denying institutional sexism, you're ignoring or dismissing the experiences of, pretty much exclusively, women.
-
Are you sure you mean institutional sexism and not inherent bias or cultural sexism? Institutional sexism (http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id597) would mean that there are actual laws and policies that are being made to restrict the rights and privileges of men or women.
I propose a subtle but important change to your wording: "actual laws and policies that are being made to which restrict the rights and privileges". Otherwise we'll get bogged down in the idea that institutional sexism is the hidden intentions of policymakers, rather than results of their policies.
In the United States most of the institutional sexism tends to benefit women (ex. women owned businesses (http://www.sba.gov/content/women-owned-businesses)) or the laws take measures to try and be gender neutral. Now this isn't to say that there aren't organizations that institutional sexism, but in aggregate it is a lot easier to find bias or cultural sexism that actual overt institutional sexism.
There are policies which explicitly benefit women, but these are generally bandaids trying to address much larger effects in the other direction. This isn't sexism - a policy of making sure you don't drive too much further North is not really directionally biased if you are already way North of where you're trying to go.
However, just because a policy doesn't explicitly mention a particular group, doesn't mean it isn't biased against that group.
- Imagine if the response to the women's suffrage movement, instead of changing the law to "all adults can vote", was to change the law to "all salaried workers can vote". Seems gender-neutral, no? But at the time, the almost all salaried workers were men.
- Imagine if the requirement for a high position in the government was a minimum of 20 years military service. Seems sexuality-neutral? But 20 years ago, how many military servicemembers were gay?
- Imagine if, back in 1800, instead of "white people may buy and sell black people", the law were "landowners may buy and sell destitute people"? Sounds race-neutral? But it would have been practically the same policy!
Unfortunately, you can't only look at policies which mention particular groups when you're assessing institutional bias against those groups. It's not even just bigoted policymakers cleverly hiding discrimination with seemingly-neutral language (though it's hard to believe that this doesn't happen). Even if they have good intentions, when a group is disproportionately unrepresented amongst policymakers, policies will tend to discriminate against that group - simply because policymakers are mostly looking out only for the unintended consequences that would harm people like themselves, and they typically aren't very good at spotting unintended consequences that would harm others.
So, even identifying which institutional policies disproportionately harm women is probably an insurmountable task; that makes fixing the problem very difficult. However, observing the problem is very easy, without even looking at the actual policies, it's evident from the results.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-are-some-common-form_b_4473062.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-are-some-common-form_b_4473062.html)
Don't get too caught up in the bullet points. The last part is what I like:
In all cases of sexism, against males and females alike, both parties are always at fault (to what degree is dependent on the specific issue at hand); as in society at large is to blame most of all for perpetuating things under the guises (or as Michael Kaufman puts it best the collective hallucinations) of 'manhood, womanhood, and roles.'
I'm a feminist who strongly believes that feminism, as an equality movement, should discuss these issues as fervently as it does more female-centered inequalities, however unpopular they are with females. Things are only going to get better when we stop viewing all of these gender issues as 'us vs them' instead of the actual 'we' (this system is flawed, we're all hurting); more people should read the works of people like Kenneth Clatterbaugh). Dialogues trump monologues.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-are-some-common-form_b_4473062.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-are-some-common-form_b_4473062.html)
Don't get too caught up in the bullet points. The last part is what I like:
In all cases of sexism, against males and females alike, both parties are always at fault (to what degree is dependent on the specific issue at hand); as in society at large is to blame most of all for perpetuating things under the guises (or as Michael Kaufman puts it best the collective hallucinations) of 'manhood, womanhood, and roles.'
I'm a feminist who strongly believes that feminism, as an equality movement, should discuss these issues as fervently as it does more female-centered inequalities, however unpopular they are with females. Things are only going to get better when we stop viewing all of these gender issues as 'us vs them' instead of the actual 'we' (this system is flawed, we're all hurting); more people should read the works of people like Kenneth Clatterbaugh). Dialogues trump monologues.
You know what, I hear this from feminists and women a lot and it pisses me off. It's tied to our prejudice that women ought to be caring and nurturing of others. We perceive something wrong with the idea that a woman might be self-centered enough to be looking out solely for her own self interests. You know what? The civil rights movement was sexist. The suffragist movement was racist. The LGBT movement doesn't give a fuck about the rights of straight people. Does anybody care? No, because they got shit done.
-
Can the title of this thread be changed? My brain is rebelling at having to translate "walking home from school" to "the role of language in sexist culture and behavior" every time it pops up in the list.
At your service....
-
Instead of pussy say coward. It describes how someone is behaving without putting down a group of people.
But that's not funny. How about candy-ass? Or chicken-shit? Those are bona fide replacements.
I'm pretty sure that everyone would be fine with wiener.
I'm fine with it, but many guys would probably figure if that is OK, "pussy" is OK too.
I always considered "pussy" in the same vein as "scaredy cat" or "kitten". I don't understand why we have to assume everybody who says it means vagina. In my social circle if you mean vagina, you say vagina. Or "pagina", but that might be because I live with a toddler.
-
I always considered "pussy" in the same vein as "scaredy cat" or "kitten". I don't understand why we have to assume everybody who says it means vagina.
Yes, depending on context, of course. Or 'wussy' is an acceptable alternative, and more commonly used in my circles.
As for the bias arguments, why do those who claim bias only point to the work environment, and never to life outside of work, where from my POV it seems that there is bias in favor of women in many areas, from dating to child custody to arrest & conviction rates.
-
Someone who tells a sexist or racist joke has an audience of two types of people: the ones who are assholes, and the ones who think the joke teller is an asshole.
-
I always considered "pussy" in the same vein as "scaredy cat" or "kitten". I don't understand why we have to assume everybody who says it means vagina.
Yes, depending on context, of course. Or 'wussy' is an acceptable alternative, and more commonly used in my circles.
As for the bias arguments, why do those who claim bias only point to the work environment, and never to life outside of work, where from my POV it seems that there is bias in favor of women in many areas, from dating to child custody to arrest & conviction rates.
Actually, in cases where the dad actually fights for custody (and there is no issue with either parent) the dad is more likely to win. However, because of idea that women are suppose to be the caregivers, many men never try.
-
I always considered "pussy" in the same vein as "scaredy cat" or "kitten". I don't understand why we have to assume everybody who says it means vagina.
Yes, depending on context, of course. Or 'wussy' is an acceptable alternative, and more commonly used in my circles.
As for the bias arguments, why do those who claim bias only point to the work environment, and never to life outside of work, where from my POV it seems that there is bias in favor of women in many areas, from dating to child custody to arrest & conviction rates.
Actually, in cases where the dad actually fights for custody (and there is no issue with either parent) the dad is more likely to win. However, because of idea that women are suppose to be the caregivers, many men never try.
That's not at all what this 2003 report shows: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf). It shows that women are awarded custody at six or seven times the rate of fathers.
-
As for the bias arguments, why do those who claim bias only point to the work environment, and never to life outside of work, where from my POV it seems that there is bias in favor of women in many areas, from dating to child custody to arrest & conviction rates.
Because there's a lot more data collected about work environments so it's easy to make an empirical case. There are mountains (http://everydaysexism.com/) of anecdotal evidence (https://twitter.com/hashtag/yesallwomen) of sexism in many areas of life, but it's far too easy to counter "that's just a million anecdotes, where is the data?"
-
I always considered "pussy" in the same vein as "scaredy cat" or "kitten". I don't understand why we have to assume everybody who says it means vagina.
Yes, depending on context, of course. Or 'wussy' is an acceptable alternative, and more commonly used in my circles.
As for the bias arguments, why do those who claim bias only point to the work environment, and never to life outside of work, where from my POV it seems that there is bias in favor of women in many areas, from dating to child custody to arrest & conviction rates.
Actually, in cases where the dad actually fights for custody (and there is no issue with either parent) the dad is more likely to win. However, because of idea that women are suppose to be the caregivers, many men never try.
That's not at all what this 2003 report shows: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf). It shows that women are awarded custody at six or seven times the rate of fathers.
As I said, many men never try. But if you look at the cases in which men do, they most often win.
-
If things were like they were in the good ol' days, I'd tolerate the risk.
What good ol' days? Kids have never been safer: http://www.psmag.com/culture/the-kids-really-are-all-right-58651/
Almost all children are kidnapped by a parent or caregiver. The risk of a random stranger abducting your child is so rare it should barely even be thought about.
Agreed. The numbers do not lie.
-
I always considered "pussy" in the same vein as "scaredy cat" or "kitten". I don't understand why we have to assume everybody who says it means vagina.
Yes, depending on context, of course. Or 'wussy' is an acceptable alternative, and more commonly used in my circles.
As for the bias arguments, why do those who claim bias only point to the work environment, and never to life outside of work, where from my POV it seems that there is bias in favor of women in many areas, from dating to child custody to arrest & conviction rates.
Actually, in cases where the dad actually fights for custody (and there is no issue with either parent) the dad is more likely to win. However, because of idea that women are suppose to be the caregivers, many men never try.
That's not at all what this 2003 report shows: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf). It shows that women are awarded custody at six or seven times the rate of fathers.
As I said, many men never try. But if you look at the cases in which men do, they most often win.
So in other words, men are expected to retain a lawyer and have a vigorous court case in order to win custody? Doesn't that strike you as the court being biased towards women if the default custody award is to the mother?
When you divorce, most people have a lawyer (as well they should), each side proposes what they want. Women focus on the children and family home, on average whereas men (again on average) do not. When men do ask their lawyer to include the child, they win. Yes, there is sexism in that we don't train BOTH genders to raise their children, but also sexism that if men want the children, they get them (again, on average). The default is based on what the two members of the couple want. The default for the court, on the other hand, is joint custody (unless you have a very old judge, lol).
-
As I said, many men never try. But if you look at the cases in which men do, they most often win.
Perhaps the statistics are biased because many men perceive that it's useless to try unless they have an absolutely ironclad case.
-
As I said, many men never try. But if you look at the cases in which men do, they most often win.
Perhaps the statistics are biased because many men perceive that it's useless to try unless they have an absolutely ironclad case.
That very well may be true, James. I feel that we really need to push equality in all areas, including this one and education is one way to do so.
-
Groups in power positions can't really claim discrimination, racism, sexism etc. That's like a CEO whining that her employees are mean to her. The point of discrimination is that it puts negative views on groups of people that don't hold power positions.
The problem with this is that the group in a power position changes depending on the social context. Who The Man(TM) is depends depends entirely on the social context in which an interaction takes place. A white male could very well NOT be in a power position in, say, a community dominated by hispanic females even if the broader US culture is white-male dominated. Obviously that example is a bit extreme, but it DOES happen in the real world. I have SEEN it and I have EXPERIENCED it and the research backs it up. It's not at all uncommon in minority-dominated communities, for example.
You can be both in a privileged position or not at the same time depending on what's going on around you. Power dynamics is a complicated thing and often changes moment-to-moment as you go about your day.
-
It seems highly likely to me that this article took a very skewed view on the facts. When you dig into these cases they usually make a heck of a lot more sense than the media would suggest.
-
There some reason this thread ha not been moved to "Off Topic?"
I can see the shame and the comedy, but I don't think this cantankerous 148 post wonder belongs in this subforum.