Gender roles in reality

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Originally Posted By: Lilith

I think sometimes it can be useful to shock people awake a bit. Yeah, of course it sucks to be seen as a potential rapist or abuser. You know what sucks even more? That no matter how good your intentions, your previous behaviour or your relationship with a woman is, the state of our world is such that it's rational for her to consider you as a potential threat.

Wow. Really, just wow.
That right there is a prime example of sexism at work. Go ahead, just adapt your statement slightly and think about what you have just stated:

Quote:

If you are a black person, no matter how good your intentions or your previous behaviour towards white people were, the state of our world is such that it's rational for a white person to consider you as a potential murderer.

Surely you will not agree with this statement?

That's backwards. Men have privilege over other genders in Western society. Black people do not have racial privileges; white people are the ones with all the privilege. Your statement should read:

Quote:

If you are a white person, no matter how good your intentions or your previous behaviour towards black people were, the state of our world is such that it's rational for a black person to consider you as a potential murderer.

And you know what? It's not wrong.

Dikiyoba.

[Harehunter]

Lilith, I went back to your question to re-read it. Having re-read it, I will try to answer it as best I can.

Quote:

So the women earn more than the men? Such families do exist, but certainly you recognise that they're atypical.

You present the criterion of gender equity being based upon income levels. I did answer you on this when I said that the women in the family do not measure their worth by that standard.

Quote:

If, on the other hand, you're talking about some kind of more nebulous supposed power over the family's financial affairs,

I interpreted this as sinister sarcasm. I still see no question here.

Quote:

consider this: if all the men in the family were to drain all the money they're legally entitled to take out of any joint bank accounts and just walk out one day, what kind of economic position would the women be in?

Here you posit a worse case scenario, based on the assumption that all men are immoral or amoral brutes who would cause such hurt to women just because they can. I tried to explain to you that not all men are as you portray them. There are many men who are, but here, I believe, you are wielding too broad a brush.

Quote:

If the women did the same, what kind of economic position would the men be in?

Here you posit a worse case scenario that is just as unlikely to occur as the previous one. I see the point you are trying to make which you sum up this way:

Quote:

When you want to know which party in a relationship holds more power, it's worth looking at who could more credibly threaten the other into not walking away.

What you failed to see in my response, is that the relationships between the men and the women, in this family at least, is not about "Power", or "Independence". It is a "Partnership" in which the women have more of a say in what goes on than in most families. As to the "Matriarchal" term, I used the term rather loosely in order to get my point across that the women in this family have more authority than you might find in an Archie Bunker relationship.

You represent a marriage as a combative situation, wherein the men have all the Power to cause Harm to their spouses, who are helpless against it, and that the men are likely to abuse that Power. SoT made reference to the relationship of a master and a slave. Maybe that is where Lilith is coming from, but in my situation it is a non-sequiter.

Personally, I find this subject to be disquieting on two fronts. I was raised to respect women, not to dominate over them. What has happened to chivalry, or even plain decent manners? These are sad times indeed. And on the other hand I have the distinct aroma of red herring. What is the origin of that phrase? I'll let you look it up for yourselves.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

You have no idea, and for that you have my regrets. I wish you could find the deep, soul satisfying joy that I have.

Many unhappy relationships start out as happy relationships. That's part of the problem. The question is what happens when the relationship stops being so happy and equitable. When the chips are down, who has the power? Alimony helps, but it doesn't fix everything.

I think the money is really a red herring. It matters, but not so directly. But consider: why are marriages in which the man has higher income much more stable than those where the woman's income is higher? Why is Harehunter's description of his family fairly normal, while a family in which the wife works but the husband has veto power over all matters of importance makes us (or at least me) uncomfortable?. I think it's because there's an understanding that there's magnanimous humoring of the wife at play. Not always, of course; I wouldn't presume to make claims about Harehunter's life. But that's the default: the wives can deliver their demands and ultimatums, and their husbands can smile and humor them. In a real crisis, the husband always has the option to stop being so easygoing and take charge.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

I think sometimes it can be useful to shock people awake a bit. Yeah, of course it sucks to be seen as a potential rapist or abuser. You know what sucks even more? That no matter how good your intentions, your previous behaviour or your relationship with a woman is, the state of our world is such that it's rational for her to consider you as a potential threat.

I think there's a terminology problem more than anything else. Women have to be, and are, cognizant of potential danger almost constantly. It's not that they see men as threats, it's that they're aware of men as potential threats. Interestingly enough, look into what many blacks have said in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin case: blacks also must be vigilant and always alert to the dangers of being black, which go from getting skeptical looks and security-minded eyes turned on them to being harassed or shot by police for the crime of being suspiciously black.

Most men aren't really potential rapists. Most women don't see most men, most of the time, as potential rapists. But many men become offended when women describe being wary of men if they're walking alone at night. More importantly for daily life, women are often more aware of how they present themselves. Too staid and frumpy? Too overtly sexual? The implications and effects just in the workplace are substantial, and until men understand that and try to do something about that, there's a major stumbling block to equality.

—Alorael, who thinks independence is also getting used with two different meanings. Any relationship requires the sacrifice of independence; after all, you're choosing to in some way subordinate, or at least coordinate, your desires with another's. But there's a distinction between that offering of cooperation and the loss of the potential to be independent. If A needs B but B does not need A (for financial security, for emotional well-being, for whatever), there is no way for the relationship to be equitable, and the potential for even unintentional coercion is high. Lilith is right to look at worst-case scenarios; the best cases take care of themselves and work out fine even if the circumstances aren't ideal. There are happy marriages even where wives are essentially chattel slaves. But there are also the marriages that end in horrors. That's the case that needs to get attention so it can't happen.

[Prince of Kitties]

Again though, I have a problem with the words

 

no matter how good... your previous behaviour

 

Privilege or no privilege, we judge the likelihood of people's future behavior based on their past behavior. It's not 100% accurate, but it's all we've got.

 

Edit: in reponse to Alorael... I'm not offended by the idea that women walking alone at night are afraid of me. I'm offended by the idea that I could be married to a woman for 20 years, and always be perfectly good to her, yet it would still be considered perfectly rational for her to think of me as a potential threat.

 

If you can't trust people based on their past behavior, then on what basis can you trust them?

[Dikiyoba]

Quote:

Privilege or no privilege, we judge the likelihood of people's future behavior based on their past behavior. It's not 100% accurate, but it's all we've got.

True. But I think on the whole her statement stands. Sometimes you misjudge someone. Sometimes your privilege blinds you and makes you do something really stupid and hurtful. But most importantly, most of the interactions between the privileged and the oppressed aren't about individuals. Usually it's two strangers interacting, and so minority person A can't rely on the past behavior of privileged person B to know whether B is trustworthy or not. All A can rely on is what the previous behavior of whatever privileged group B comes from as a whole. And since bigotry is systemic and institutionalized, B's group almost certainly has a bad record of past behavior. So A has to be suspicious of and careful around B even before B has interacted with A at all.

Edit: Dikiyoba missed your edit, so take this post with a grain of salt, Miramor.

[Prince of Kitties]

I agree with you pretty much 100% on interactions between strangers. I just think that applying the same rules between friends (or spouses) is a recipe for all kinds of tension and unpleasantness.

 

Basically - and I'm not sure I'm putting this right - I feel that the likelihood of hurt from a trusted person abusing their trust, is vastly outweighed by the likelihood of misery from failing to trust people in the first place.

 

This is probably going to sound awful, but some people take advantage of others. The risk of being exploited, perhaps brutally, is a risk everyone takes at some point. Human society, or what passes for it, has to run on trust or not run at all.

 

I do realize though that the danger of being exploited is much higher for women and minorities... Which, frankly, disgusts me. IMO everyone deserves a fair chance, and some people aren't getting one.

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Wow. Really, just wow.
That right there is a prime example of sexism at work.

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think it's sexism. IIRC sexism refers to an institutional bias, and there is no society on Earth that has an institutional bias against men.

Sorry for quoting you against your wishes, but that is not correct. "Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
The historical fact that discrimination of women has been predominant over discrimination of men does not make the later an acceptable behaviour.

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Quote:

...
But the statement you made up there was not an acceptable contribution to a discussion on gender roles, it was a highly sexist insult to all male readers.

Insult, schminsult. We luxuriate in grotesque privilege all the time, we can put up with a few "insults."

I, personally, am not by any means privileged over any women I am likely to interact with.
If I ever attempted at any time to give a woman any kind of order, I will get laughed at.
If a woman of equal qualification works in the same position I do, laws and company policies guarantee her the exact same payment.

I do not disagree that sexism exists in my society, but I neither participate in nor profit from it.
There is thus no reason why I should lean back and let someone declare that I am to be considered a potential rapist.

Quote:

BTW, did you notice some of the stuff Harehunter said?

Sure, I read it. His comments are extremely emotional, very personal and utterly pointless within the ongoing discussion. I did not comment on them, because his comments have a religious quality, and it is obvious that no amount of reasoning will change his point of view. I did at no point criticise Lilith for disagreehim with Harehunter.

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Originally Posted By: "Harehunter"

I wish that someday you can find a relationship as strong as the one I am blessed with. Perhaps you already are, but your stance on independence indicates that you are not yet ready for such. May you find happiness without measure.

"A women can't be in a truly happy relationship without giving up some of her independence." Now that's what I call sexist.

I agree. How does that justify insulting every reader who just so happens to share Harehunters gender?

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Surely you will not agree with this statement?

That's backwards. Men have privilege over other genders in Western society. Black people do not have racial privileges; white people are the ones with all the privilege.

So, discriminations against members of a privileged group are generally acceptable? Good to know.

[Prince of Kitties]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Sorry for quoting you against your wishes, but that is not correct. "Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."

Quoted from Wikipedia?

Quote:

The historical fact that discrimination of women has been predominant over discrimination of men does not make the later an acceptable behaviour.

Gut instinct agrees with you. Intellect disagrees. Discrimination against men by women is socially a non-issue.

Quote:

I, personally, am not by any means privileged over any women I am likely to interact with.
If I ever attempted at any time to give a woman any kind of order, I will get laughed at.
If a woman of equal qualification works in the same position I do, laws and company policies guarantee her the exact same payment.

I do not disagree that sexism exists in my society, but I neither participate in nor profit from it.
There is thus no reason why I should lean back and let someone declare that I am to be considered a potential rapist.

Do you have to deal with men looking at your breasts all the time?

I'm serious, that's a privilege issue. Men walk around stealing glances at women's bosoms; if you're a woman, it starts to get really demeaning after a while.

(And no, I'm no better about this than any other man. Even so.)

[Alorael at Large]

Wariness and discrimination are not synonymous. Women are perfectly capable of being very conscious of their own safety without somehow taking it on on men.

 

—Alorael, who will go ahead and just say that he disagrees with Lilith. He isn't a woman, but those he knows who will happily discuss it are quite clear about the fact that the setting and the people matter. Friends aren't viewed as potential threats. Past behavior matters. But that doesn't fix the stranger problem, or the societal problem.

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Quote:

The historical fact that discrimination of women has been predominant over discrimination of men does not make the later an acceptable behaviour.

Gut instinct agrees with you. Intellect disagrees. Discrimination against men by women is socially a non-issue.

Men are raped and abused by women.
Men are excluded from what are considered typically female jobs like Nurse or Kindergardener, and have to sue to be allowed to choose their own profession.

If these occurences are not reported by the media or not recognized by the men in your societey, or if you choose to disbelieve those reportings, than this is indeed a sign of the strong existence of gender roles in your society. Apparently it is considered shamefull for men be less powerfull than a given woman, and they can only expect ridicule if they admit it?

In this case there is also a strong case of discrimination of men by other men.

Quote:

Quote:

I, personally, am not by any means privileged over any women I am likely to interact with.
If I ever attempted at any time to give a woman any kind of order, I will get laughed at.
If a woman of equal qualification works in the same position I do, laws and company policies guarantee her the exact same payment.

I do not disagree that sexism exists in my society, but I neither participate in nor profit from it.
There is thus no reason why I should lean back and let someone declare that I am to be considered a potential rapist.

Do you have to deal with men looking at your breasts all the time?

I'm serious, that's a privilege issue. Men walk around stealing glances at women's bosoms; if you're a woman, it starts to get really demeaning after a while.

(And no, I'm no better about this than any other man. Even so.)

At my breasts specifically? Not usually, women tend to rather focus on my shoulders or legs. Where I live women havn't been afraid to express their sexual interests for a few decades now, and aren't usually opposed to men expressing theirs.

[Kreador]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Wow. Really, just wow.
That right there is a prime example of sexism at work.

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think it's sexism. IIRC sexism refers to an institutional bias, and there is no society on Earth that has an institutional bias against men.

Sorry for quoting you against your wishes, but that is not correct. "Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
The historical fact that discrimination of women has been predominant over discrimination of men does not make the later an acceptable behaviour.

Different groups use the terms differently, largely dependent on an unspoken background agenda. Some speakers treat "racism" and "sexism" as only referring to an institutional and historical imbalance and its expression in active and passive repression. Others use it as you have defined it. It's a prime source of an inability to communicate between the two groups.

That said, while you may not feel that you are an active participant in the privilege of being a caucasian male in modern Western culture, you do in fact benefit from it in ways that you probably don't think about. Germany is better about forcing compliance with nondiscrimination, but there are many things that you don't have to think about on a daily basis. You don't have to think about how many buttons on your shirt to button, or how long or short your dress should be in order to get sufficient attention without getting excess negative attention.

Equally when discussing racial questions, I have lived in places (the Caribbean) where people's first reactions to me, as a white male, were negative. In those cases I understand fully that it's a rational reaction to past ill treatment at the hands of people who looked like me. And it is MY responsibility to prove through careful action that I deserve better treatment. That's a case of bias based on having been oppressed in the past. Invert that and it is not the responsibility of a black man in the modern United States to prove that he is not a danger, but authorities and individuals often treat them as if it is. This is a case of continuing oppression. The assumption of black men as being dangerous, lazy, and untrustworthy was placed upon them without reference to past action. It is a part of the oppression and the responsibility of the oppressor to correct his actions.

In general, decisions based solely on race or sex are wrong (I say in general because careful consideration can name situations where it is correct and we don't need to toss the baby out with the bathwater here), but for different reasons in different circumstances, and the ways to deal with the problem vary based on cultural, historical, and institutional norms.

To get back to Lilith's comment, forget divorce for a minute. In the case of one spouse working and the other taking care of the home, the balance of power is unequal because, if the homemaker spouse disappears (dies, walks off, whatever), the working spouse has to work out how to care for the children/home, which generally involves either assistance from the family or hiring someone. If the working spouse goes away, the homemaker spouse now not only has to work out how to continue to take care of the home, but has to find a way to financially support that home so that everything is not lost. It is fundamentally not an equal situation.

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: Kreador

That said, while you may not feel that you are an active participant in the privilege of being a caucasian male in modern Western culture, you do in fact benefit from it in ways that you probably don't think about. Germany is better about forcing compliance with nondiscrimination, but there are many things that you don't have to think about on a daily basis. You don't have to think about how many buttons on your shirt to button, or how long or short your dress should be in order to get sufficient attention without getting excess negative attention.

I don't? Thanks for telling me that, I will immediatly go and throw away my razor and my ties, and start wearing short skirts to work, now that I now longer have to worry about that.

[Kreador]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Originally Posted By: Kreador

That said, while you may not feel that you are an active participant in the privilege of being a caucasian male in modern Western culture, you do in fact benefit from it in ways that you probably don't think about. Germany is better about forcing compliance with nondiscrimination, but there are many things that you don't have to think about on a daily basis. You don't have to think about how many buttons on your shirt to button, or how long or short your dress should be in order to get sufficient attention without getting excess negative attention.

I don't? Thanks for telling me that, I will immediatly go and throw away my razor and my ties, and start wearing short skirts to work, now that I now longer have to worry about that.

If you're being intentionally dense, it's really not a good look on you. Appropriate work attire is one thing, having to be concerned that your attire might attract unwanted advances and even potential sexual assault is something entirely different.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Men are raped and abused by women.
Men are excluded from what are considered typically female jobs like Nurse or Kindergardener, and have to sue to be allowed to choose their own profession.

Women are much more rarely rapists, even more rarely the aggressors in non-statury rape, and I'm unaware of (and unable to find in a couple of minutes) any cases in which women have been accused of the violent rape of men. Coercion and drugs come up. Stranger in a dark alley doesn't.

Perhaps this is also an international difference, but while teaching and nursing are still gender-imbalanced professions, they're becoming less so, and the stereotypes are weakening. I'm not sure how much males in the fields suffer worse opportunities and wages.

—Alorael, who maintains that it's absurd to claim that men having to meet expected standards of dress face the same problems as women. For men, the wardrobe is clear: shirt, pants, tie, coat. For women, there are far more options and pitfalls. Dress? Blouse and skirt? Slacks instead? How much jewelry, and how much makeup, and how high a neckline? For men, the consequences of not having your apparel just so are being considered a slob or having terrible taste. For women, there are all kinds of images that get portrayed, and that come with their own attendant and damaging stereotypes.

[Prince of Kitties]

You're expected to keep your beard and moustache in shape, which is probably a minor annoyance, and is basically a matter of not looking like a complete barbarian. Women are expected to

- Shave their legs, which is a huge pain (trust me on that)

- Show the right amount of skin for a given occasion

- Wear the right amount of the right makeup (also a huge pain)

- In general, pay absurdly more attention to their appearance than men

 

Seriously, if you payed that much attention to how you looked, you would have a lot less time in your life for useful stuff.

 

As for you wearing a short skirt, "wearing clothing normally associated with the opposite sex" is a whole other matter.

[Kreador]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

As for you wearing a short skirt, "wearing clothing normally associated with the opposite sex" is a whole other matter.

Say that to me when I'm wearing my kilt. ;-)

[Men are from Slars]

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

Women are much more rarely rapists, even more rarely the aggressors in non-statury rape, and I'm unaware of (and unable to find in a couple of minutes) any cases in which women have been accused of the violent rape of men. Coercion and drugs come up. Stranger in a dark alley doesn't.

1) "Stranger in a dark alley" constitutes a fairly small minority of all rapes of any gender. Most rapes are committed by acquaintances.

2) Rape isn't incredibly likely to be reported in the first place, and the more a rape differs from the "typical" picture of a rape (woman raped by male stranger in dark alley), the less likely it is to be reported.

3) There ARE plenty of reported cases of sexual abuse committed by women (although there are more committed by men). The line between sexual abuse and rape is pretty blurry; certainly, both can be violent. Given these facts, it would seem strange indeed if sexual abuse was committed by both genders but rape mostly by one.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

—Alorael, who will go ahead and just say that he disagrees with Lilith. He isn't a woman, but those he knows who will happily discuss it are quite clear about the fact that the setting and the people matter. Friends aren't viewed as potential threats. Past behavior matters. But that doesn't fix the stranger problem, or the societal problem.

It's not that they don't matter, but that one is never completely safe, and it's reasonable to take precautions accordingly.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

You have no idea, and for that you have my regrets. I wish you could find the deep, soul satisfying joy that I have.

Many unhappy relationships start out as happy relationships. That's part of the problem. The question is what happens when the relationship stops being so happy and equitable. When the chips are down, who has the power? Alimony helps, but it doesn't fix everything.

Here is the crucial difference between a partnership that will last and one that is doomed to fail. When a company I was working for moved their offices out of town, I took another job in which I took a $1000.00 net cut. This put a major strain on our financial situation. Yet we stuck together through it and came out the end of that near crises more closely bonded than before.

I want to make a clear point here. Happy relationships don't just happen. To make a relationship, Any relationship, last, it takes a commitment on the part of each individual in that relationship. This does not Require that you do certain things, such as remembering an anniversary every year. This commitment is entered into voluntarily. I try to do something thoughtful every day. Not because I am required to, but because I want to.

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

I think the money is really a red herring. It matters, but not so directly. But consider: why are marriages in which the man has higher income much more stable than those where the woman's income is higher? Why is Harehunter's description of his family fairly normal, while a family in which the wife works but the husband has veto power over all matters of importance makes us (or at least me) uncomfortable?. I think it's because there's an understanding that there's magnanimous humoring of the wife at play. Not always, of course; I wouldn't presume to make claims about Harehunter's life. But that's the default: the wives can deliver their demands and ultimatums, and their husbands can smile and humor them. In a real crisis, the husband always has the option to stop being so easygoing and take charge.

You grasp my meaning well and thoroughly.

But I will carry this one step further. To try to make the inequity of earnings an issue is, as I can interpret only one way, an attempt to foment dissatisfaction, and cause a rift between one group of people against another. This is a common theme in politics, and I hold All politicians at fault for this, regardless of party or policy.

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

Originally Posted By: Lilith

I think sometimes it can be useful to shock people awake a bit. Yeah, of course it sucks to be seen as a potential rapist or abuser. You know what sucks even more? That no matter how good your intentions, your previous behaviour or your relationship with a woman is, the state of our world is such that it's rational for her to consider you as a potential threat.

I think there's a terminology problem more than anything else. Women have to be, and are, cognizant of potential danger almost constantly. It's not that they see men as threats, it's that they're aware of men as potential threats. Interestingly enough, look into what many blacks have said in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin case: blacks also must be vigilant and always alert to the dangers of being black, which go from getting skeptical looks and security-minded eyes turned on them to being harassed or shot by police for the crime of being suspiciously black.

This is another situation that is regrettable and reprehensible.

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

Most men aren't really potential rapists. Most women don't see most men, most of the time, as potential rapists. But many men become offended when women describe being wary of men if they're walking alone at night. More importantly for daily life, women are often more aware of how they present themselves. Too staid and frumpy? Too overtly sexual? The implications and effects just in the workplace are substantial, and until men understand that and try to do something about that, there's a major stumbling block to equality.

Here is indeed the crux of the problem. I would theorize that the turning point of this dicussion began during WW II. Prior to that, the traditional roles of men and women were still very the same as they had been for centuries. When the men shipped off to war, and the women were recruited to fill in for them, suddenly there became an appetite among women to continue in the work force. That event has happened only yesterday in terms of cultural shift. There is much to learn and unlearn among the male population in order to completely eradicate the cultural bias that exists today.

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

—Alorael, who thinks independence is also getting used with two different meanings. Any relationship requires the sacrifice of independence; after all, you're choosing to in some way subordinate, or at least coordinate, your desires with another's. But there's a distinction between that offering of cooperation and the loss of the potential to be independent. If A needs B but B does not need A (for financial security, for emotional well-being, for whatever), there is no way for the relationship to be equitable, and the potential for even unintentional coercion is high. Lilith is right to look at worst-case scenarios; the best cases take care of themselves and work out fine even if the circumstances aren't ideal. There are happy marriages even where wives are essentially chattel slaves. But there are also the marriages that end in horrors. That's the case that needs to get attention so it can't happen.

Another good summarization. I have nothing more to add.

Hello, ShieTar. I don't believe we've met before.
It is true that I am an emotional person. I see no shame in expressing it. The shame would be if I felt that I had to conceal it and pretend that I am as unemotional as a Vulcan. I don't remember making any overt mention of religious beliefs; you are astute in seeing very plainly that I do have them.

I wish to clarify, that by wishing Lilith well, I was not trying to imply that the only means for happiness is to sacrifice their independence. While I am perfectly comfortable within my own skin, so to speak, I didn't particularly like the loneliness I felt prior to meeting my wife. That being said, I recognize that what makes me happy has absolutely no bearing on any one else' life. I merely wish her well, as so I wish for all those whom I meet.

[Men are from Slars]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

—Alorael, who will go ahead and just say that he disagrees with Lilith. He isn't a woman, but those he knows who will happily discuss it are quite clear about the fact that the setting and the people matter. Friends aren't viewed as potential threats. Past behavior matters. But that doesn't fix the stranger problem, or the societal problem.

It's not that they don't matter, but that one is never completely safe, and it's reasonable to take precautions accordingly.

If we accept the "one is never completely safe" line -- which I am willing to -- doesn't that apply to anyone regardless of gender?

I thought your argument was that women are more likely to be in a situation where they are less than completely safe. That, requires there to be both safe and unsafe situations, at least for men. But if the definition of "completely safe" is so stringent that it can't ever apply to women, even in a trusted and sequestered situation, surely that definition is also too stringent for men to ever meet it.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Here is indeed the crux of the problem. I would theorize that the turning point of this dicussion began during WW II. Prior to that, the traditional roles of men and women were still very the same as they had been for centuries. When the men shipped off to war, and the women were recruited to fill in for them, suddenly there became an appetite among women to continue in the work force. That event has happened only yesterday in terms of cultural shift. There is much to learn and unlearn among the male population in order to completely eradicate the cultural bias that exists today.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Because on a literal reading of what you wrote, the first part of this seems to come dangerously close to blaming those uppity women for men's violence against them. If only they didn't look for jobs, none of this would be happening!

But obviously that can't actually be what you mean. For one thing, violence against women has happened throughout human history. If anything's changed recently it's that it's finally now being seen as a serious problem.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Iconoplasia

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Men are raped and abused by women.

Women are much more rarely rapists, even more rarely the aggressors in non-statury rape, and I'm unaware of (and unable to find in a couple of minutes) any cases in which women have been accused of the violent rape of men. Coercion and drugs come up. Stranger in a dark alley doesn't.

[...]
3) There ARE plenty of reported cases of sexual abuse committed by women (although there are more committed by men). The line between sexual abuse and rape is pretty blurry; certainly, both can be violent. Given these facts, it would seem strange indeed if sexual abuse was committed by both genders but rape mostly by one.

The key point in regards to this discussion on sexism is that, on the whole, more men are in a position of authority where they can commit sexual violence while more women are put in situations that expose them to sexual violence. For instance, prostitutes face an incredibly high risk of sexual violence, and there are far more women working as prostitutes than there are men. Women's clothes and appearances are sexualized and fetishized are more often than the clothing and appearances of men (after all, male victims of rape aren't told by society that "they were asking for it" based on what they happened to be wearing). So while men do get raped by women, that's not an issue of sexism, reverse or otherwise. Those are issues of other axes of privilege and oppression. And those are important issues that need to be focused on, but trying to claim that women raping men is reverse sexism doesn't help solve those issues. It only distracts from real cases of sexism and real cases of other oppression and so hurts all victims of sexual violence.

Dikiyoba.

[Callie]

Violence against prostitutes would be greatly reduced if they could simply call the police.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Violence against prostitutes would be greatly reduced if they could simply call the police.

Unfortunately, the experience of places with legalised prostitution has largely been that being able to call the police without fear of legal retribution is still no guarantee that the police will take prostitutes' complaints seriously. That's not to say that legalisation or decriminalisation is necessarily a bad idea, but it's no panacea.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I want to make a clear point here. Happy relationships don't just happen. To make a relationship, Any relationship, last, it takes a commitment on the part of each individual in that relationship. This does not Require that you do certain things, such as remembering an anniversary every year. This commitment is entered into voluntarily. I try to do something thoughtful every day. Not because I am required to, but because I want to.

Sure, I agree, but I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. Unhappy relationships happen, and they're the ones that produce unhappiness, abuse, powerful struggles, heartbreak, and financial meltdown. Those are the concerns. The fortunate couples are doing just fine.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

If we accept the "one is never completely safe" line -- which I am willing to -- doesn't that apply to anyone regardless of gender?

I thought your argument was that women are more likely to be in a situation where they are less than completely safe. That, requires there to be both safe and unsafe situations, at least for men. But if the definition of "completely safe" is so stringent that it can't ever apply to women, even in a trusted and sequestered situation, surely that definition is also too stringent for men to ever meet it.

Those jumped-by-a-stranger rapes? They're the minority, but up to 25% minority (depending on the source of statistics, of course). And women are more likely to be mugged than men as well.

Even that's not really the point. Even if the threat to women has taken on outsize proportions, it's a real threat, and women really do feel substantially unsafe in situations that men do not feel unsafe in. There's no hard threshold, but if you surveyed, the women would check the "somewhat unsafe" box and the men wouldn't.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Can you explain what you mean by this? Because on a literal reading of what you wrote, the first part of this seems to come dangerously close to blaming those uppity women for men's violence against them. If only they didn't look for jobs, none of this would be happening!

I think Harehunter's saying that the shift in women entering the workplace and trying to be equal is new, so cultural attitudes are still in flux. This isn't about the violence, it's about employment. (And if that's what he means, I agree; culture has a great deal of inertia. About a lifetime's worth.)

—Alorael, who notes that discussions tend to implode under their own weight when the quote pyramids show up. He's doing his best to try to avoid it, but it may be a matter of time before just replying becomes a Herculean task.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Violence against prostitutes would be greatly reduced if they could simply call the police.

Unfortunately, the experience of places with legalised prostitution has largely been that being able to call the police without fear of legal retribution is still no guarantee that the police will take prostitutes' complaints seriously. That's not to say that legalisation or decriminalisation is necessarily a bad idea, but it's no panacea.

I'm not familiar with legalized prostitution in other countries, so this should be taken with a grain of salt. In Nevada prostitution is only legal in brothels, and said brothels have security cameras and sometimes guards. So the workplace violence is mostly eliminated, but I'd imagine that said prostitutes are still vulnerable outside of the workplace.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

I'm not familiar with legalized prostitution in other countries, so this should be taken with a grain of salt. In Nevada prostitution is only legal in brothels, and said brothels have security cameras and sometimes guards. So the workplace violence is mostly eliminated, but I'd imagine that said prostitutes are still vulnerable outside of the workplace.

Ah. Australia's laws are considerably less strict: soliciting in public is illegal, but most other activities related to prostitution are legal and regulated. In any case, legalising prostitution only in brothels isn't going to do anything to help the situation of prostitutes who, for whatever reason, don't work out of brothels.

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

You're expected to keep your beard and moustache in shape, which is probably a minor annoyance, and is basically a matter of not looking like a complete barbarian. Women are expected to
- Shave their legs, which is a huge pain (trust me on that)
- Show the right amount of skin for a given occasion
- Wear the right amount of the right makeup (also a huge pain)
- In general, pay absurdly more attention to their appearance than men

See, and this is the part where you unrightfully generalize the expaectations that women are facing in the part of society that you have experience with to be a general probleme of gender, regardless of the progress on equality. In short, in my personal environment:

- Women are not "expected" to shave their legs. They are not. They are not even "expected" to wear skirts or dresses, so who would even know? And I do not need to trust you on the pains of shaving ones legs, I have done it often enough, as most enthusiastic bicyclists tend to do sooner or later, regardless of gender. I never heard a comment about my shaven legs somehow being a female quality.

- Women are also not "expected" to show the right amount of skin for a given occasion. If they decide to wear a suit and tie for a socieal event, thats generally considered cute rather than by any means inappropriate. As a matter of fact, the range of outfits that a woman can get away with a huge number of clothing variations on formal and business meetings, where men are basically only free to choose the color of their suit and tie. But while women are never expected to show a minimum amount of skin, they are of course expected to show a maximum of it a professional events, like work. This part of the rule applies exactly the same way with no differences to men.

- Women are also not "expected" to wear the right amount of the right makeup. Less than half of the women I know personally use makeup at all. The only social convention I am aware of is that any noticeable amount of makeup would be considered to be out of place at work.

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Seriously, if you payed that much attention to how you looked, you would have a lot less time in your life for useful stuff.

And here you are, having never seen or met me, assuming that I logically spend less attention to my looks than you do. Why? Because I am just a man?

I have to say, I would love to see the original poster of this thread make a comeback into this discussion. Somehow I can't imagine that if she as a woman was facing discrimination on basis of her way of dressing on a regular basis, or if she even was facing the constant threat of aggressive and unwanted sexual advances by men, that the pressing topic on her mind would be "not enough female professors".
I would rather assume that this topic wasn't chosen by her as a random example, but that she rather identified it as one of the few remaining points, that she has a personal experience with, where equality hasn't achieved yet. Since the rights of a woman to choose her way of dressing and to choose to work and to choose when and how and with whom to have sex all having been secured by efforts of our parents and grandparents generations in the part of the world and society in which I, and presumably she, live.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

I have to say, I would love to see the original poster of this thread make a comeback into this discussion. Somehow I can't imagine that if she as a women were facing discrimination on basis of her way of dressing on a regular basis, or if she even was facing the constant threat of aggressive and unwanted sexual advances by men, that the pressing topic on her mind would be "not enough female professors".
I would rather assume that this topic wasn't chosen by her as a random example, but that she rather identified it as one of the few remaining points where equality hasn't achieved yet, with the rights of a woman to choose her way of dressing and to choose to work and to choose when and how and with whom to have sex all having been secured by efforts of our parents and grandparents generations.

Um, what? The original poster of this thread is Student of Trinity, who isn't a woman.

[ShieTar]

In that case, Oops, sorry for making that assumption.

 

I would go and defend myself by stating that "she" is an acceptable pronoun for a person of unknown (to me) gender, but that won't work since I explicitely said "woman" I guess.

 

So, allow me to change that to :

 

I have to say, I would love to see the original poster of this thread make a comeback into this discussion. Somehow I can't imagine that if he was experiencing the discrimination of women on basis of their way of dressing on a regular basis, or if he even knew about the danger of women in his parts facing the constant threat of aggressive and unwanted sexual advances by men, that the pressing topic on his mind would be "not enough female professors".

I would rather assume that this topic wasn't chosen by him as a random example, but that he rather identified it as one of the few remaining points, that he has a personal experience with, where equality hasn't achieved yet. Since the rights of a woman to choose her way of dressing and to choose to work and to choose when and how and with whom to have sex all having been secured by efforts of our parents and grandparents generations in the part of the world and society in which I, and presumably he, live.

 

Better now?

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

I never heard a comment about my shaven legs somehow being a female quality.

Perhaps it's not in Germany, but it certainly is here in the US. I am an avid cyclist myself, and I can guarantee that if I were to shave my legs, my friends would joke about it. It would be good natured joking to be sure, but there would be jokes all the same. Your point about no one having any way to know if a woman wears pants is valid though.

[Harehunter]

@Aloreal, I didn't intend to derail this train of thought with that first part you remarked upon. It is just that for some reason I can't explain, I felt that it needed to be said.

 

And once again, you cut straight and true to the actual meaning of what I was trying to say re. the sudden change of women in the workplace. No, Lilith, I don't accuse women of being "uppity". What happened during WW II was nothing more than a catalyst. Once the doors that had hindered women from entering the work force in any significant way had been ripped from their hinges, it was only natural and normal for women to desire to be more in control of their own lives. I also understand their thinking that having one's own source of income separate from anyone else, while maybe not the foundation, is nonetheless a critical factor in achieving that independence.

There are still plenty of Archie Bunkers out there who curmudgeonly refuse to change. But eventually they will be replace by slightly less dower curmudgeons. But consider this; the so-called "Western World" culture, which includes Europe, the U.S. and the British Commonwealth nations, as well as a few others, is not the only game in town. There are other cultures who, to my mind, subordinate the role of women in society almost to the level of mere chattel. I make no judgement of those cultures, but I certainly don't agree with them. Nor will I contend that there is still much to change in our western culture. Compare, if you will, the disparity of how women are treated in those cultures and the society you live in now, and determine where you would rather live. There is no right or wrong answer, just a personal choice.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

But consider this; the so-called "Western World" culture, which includes Europe, the U.S. and the British Commonwealth nations, as well as a few others, is not the only game in town. There are other cultures who, to my mind, subordinate the role of women in society almost to the level of mere chattel. I make no judgement of those cultures, but I certainly don't agree with them. Nor will I contend that there is still much to change in our western culture. Compare, if you will, the disparity of how women are treated in those cultures and the society you live in now, and determine where you would rather live. There is no right or wrong answer, just a personal choice.

I'd rather be beheaded than burned at the stake, but that doesn't mean I'd be okay with either, or that I should be okay with the former just because the latter could also happen.

How is the fact that I'm not living in the absolute worst place on Earth in which to be a woman relevant at all to this thread? Seriously, I'm baffled as to why you even brought it up. I'm reluctant to even speculate, because every possible explanation I can think of is pretty unflattering.

[Student of Trinity]

Our convention here is that original posters don't own the threads they start; the threads are free to run off and marry into biker cults, so to speak, if they want. But for what it's worth, my interest in professorships for women was just because that's something I personally may be able to do something about.

 

In practical terms of sheer numbers, the STEM professoriate is certainly a bastion of male domination. In terms of attitudes, I don't think it's really any worse than the rest of society. Maybe even somewhat better, inasmuch as we can't help but acknowledge that we've still got problems.

 

It's still bad that women are more worried about dark streets and dark hallways than men are. Heck, a lot of university buildings are pretty scary places in the evenings. And the most articulate thing I can think of to say about the difference between what clothing and physical appearance mean for men and for women is, that it's just this big weird thing.

 

My motivation in this thread, though, has been to argue against letting huge and general problems distract us from concrete measures that may actually work. We need to prioritize; we may even need some painful triage. Crying down gender distinctions in general may be magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

 

I'm frankly agnostic about a lot of gender issues. I suspect that some subtle and arguably innocuous differences in how men and women behave will actually turn out to be serious obstacles to fairness and efficiency, that need to be rooted out, perhaps by mass indoctrination of children. I suspect that some differences that are currently correlated with injustice will prove to be innocuous in themselves, and will remain even once fairness and efficiency are attained. I am pessimistic about identifying these two kinds of differences in advance. My strategy is essentially just to give our daughters power, by whatever means seem to work best at the moment, and then let them decide what to do with it.

[Harehunter]

I still do not contend that much change still needs to be effected in our society. Your efforts to improve the lot of women in our society are worthwhile and a laudable cause.

All I was just saying was, "it could be a lot worse."

 

And while I would agree that being beheaded is indeed preferable to being burned at the stake, IMHO being stoned to death is by far even worse. (I have not heard of any such executions being lately, but I've been in deep hibernation.)

 

And the only thing I can see that could be interpreted as unflattering, it was certainly not directed at the women in those societies, but rather at the men who control those societies with uncompromising relentlessness.

 

Edit: @SoT, You are doing a fine job of bringing this topic out onto the surface. If we don't discuss issues such as this, then nothing can be done.

I applaud your motivation and effort.

[Kreador]

To expand on Lilith's point. I like my car, but I'd like it more if it got 4 times the gas mileage. Telling me there are cars that get 1/4 the gas mileage is completely irrelevant to the equation.

 

To say to a woman that she should be happy being 70% equal because there are cultures still on Earth like the Taliban where women have about 5% equality (a step up from dogs, because if I recall correctly Muslim religion preaches against allowing dogs in the home) is both not useful and actually insulting.

 

I'm glad that you and your wife are happy in your current relationship and I hope that it remains so for whatever the length of both of your lives is. That doesn't mean it should be the goal relationship for all people any more than my liking steak extremely rare means that all people should be told to eat their steaks extremely rare.

 

Freedom and equality means that each individual can choose how they wish to be treated and the types of relationships they want and everyone else does their best to mutually respect the other's choices so long as they're not directly harmful (clearly we're not going to respect a homicidal maniac's wish to end every "relationship" with the death of the other person). It can be messy and complicated and we'll never be perfect at it, but I think that's the goal.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

My motivation in this thread, though, has been to argue against letting huge and general problems distract us from concrete measures that may actually work. We need to prioritize; we may even need some painful triage.

This! Although I don't think it's necessarily triage, but rather doing what seems doable and then seeing what the field looks like later. Maybe more will need to be done. Maybe the pressing concerns then won't be the pressing concerns now.

Let me turn to utilitiarian ethics. It doesn't matter that equality has come a long way. It doesn't matter that things are probably improving. What matters is what can be done, right now, to improve things most, and most quickly. We should identify those things and do them; anything else is irrelevant. This isn't easy, of course; we can argue for pages about it, and the experts can argue for book after book. That's the issue.

—Alorael, whose hunch is that artificially imposed workplace equality will bring along increasing belief in fundamental equality of personal value. When women are really seen as being equal to, and just as good as, men, generally speaking, they're less likely to be seen as objects or potential victims. If they're not victimized and objectified, they're better off. That may be a distant goal; it may even be a utopian goal at an infinitely distant point. It's still worthwhile to try to asymptotically approach it.

[Dikiyoba]

Hey dudes, this thread started because Student of Trinity decided to be a sexist ass who knew more about sexism than Lilith who is, you know, a woman. Why the hell are you all encouraging him and giving him praise? He's like the textbook example of how not to go about attempting to end sexism.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Harehunter]

My point about the condition of women's rights does in no way contend that women need to just "sit back, shutup, and be content with what you have." I merely point that, while women in our society have a great deal of liberty to freely choose what they desire in life, I think it is important to not forget about the abuses of liberty that exist through out the world. All too often in these discussions, the focus is solely fixed on our own world. I just wish to remind us all that as long as there exist societies that abuse women's rights, the job will not be complete.

 

I also did say in an earlier post that I do not hold my life up as standard that should apply to everyone. I was saying that the financial independence that Lilith seemed to be insisting as the final solution, alternatively, is not the universal standard by which other women measure their worth.

 

Speaking of steak, I couldn't agree with you more. My wife insists on well done, but I prefer mine rare.

 

I also agree whole heartedly with your summary. Interesting thing though; you talk about freedom and equality, which is something I am all for, you didn't say anything about independence. While I recognize Lilith's insistence on economic independence is how she defines as the foundation for her liberty, I merely contend that her life goals are no more universally applicable than my interdependent relationship with my wife.

 

--Aloreal, your summarizations are a work of art. You take away all my thunder.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I also did say in an earlier post that I do not hold my life up as standard that should apply to everyone. I was saying that the financial independence that Lilith seemed to be insisting as the final solution, alternatively, is not the universal standard by which other women measure their worth.

Whatever standard a woman measures her worth by doesn't change reality. And if the reality of her life is that her lifestyle leaves her dependent on one specific person in order to meet basic survival needs, then for anyone to say that she's free is absurd, and to say that she holds most of the power in her relationship is beyond absurd. The fact that she's chosen that life of dependence, judging the alternatives to be even worse, doesn't make it a free choice.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Hey dudes, this thread started because Student of Trinity decided to be a sexist ass who knew more about sexism than Lilith who is, you know, a woman. Why the hell are you all encouraging him and giving him praise? He's like the textbook example of how not to go about attempting to end sexism.

Even if this were a factually true statement about the original post (which I don't think it is), this would not be the way to deal with it. Don't crap on someone who is making a genuinely good-faith effort to talk about a problem and fix it. That's your ally. The only effect that you're going to have is to polarize the discussion into most people who don't want to talk to you and a much smaller group of people who already agree with you. This makes your side lose.

If someone is wrong, explain why and lead that person to a better understanding of the issue. Don't just crap all over the person. You may satisfy your anger, but you hurt your cause and thereby hurt everyone else who cares about this issue.

Also, your reasoning is grossly flawed and offensive. Some men do in fact know more about sexism than some women. That's not surprising; a women who hasn't discussed or studied the issue would have access to only her anecdotal experience, whereas a man who had discussed the issue extensively and studied might have access to the experiences of many, many people. Obviously, all other things being equal, a woman would know more than a man about the issue, because one experience is more than zero, but saying, "You're a man, so you can't even have a differing opinion than the women you're talking to," is itself egregious prejudice.

In the great words of Judge Kozinski, "The parties are advised to chill."

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: poor Earth, caught in the middle

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

My motivation in this thread, though, has been to argue against letting huge and general problems distract us from concrete measures that may actually work. We need to prioritize; we may even need some painful triage.

This! Although I don't think it's necessarily triage, but rather doing what seems doable and then seeing what the field looks like later. Maybe more will need to be done. Maybe the pressing concerns then won't be the pressing concerns now.

Let me turn to utilitiarian ethics. It doesn't matter that equality has come a long way. It doesn't matter that things are probably improving. What matters is what can be done, right now, to improve things most, and most quickly. We should identify those things and do them; anything else is irrelevant.

Of course I agree to the middle part of that sentence, "do what can be done". That is almost trivialy true.

What is not true, in a rather dangerous way, is the rest of your statement, the "it doesn't matter if things are improving" part.

Let me compare shaping society to raising a child for a moment. When you try to raise your child to become a good person, you will do three things: You punish bad behaviour, you suggest and reward good behaviour, and you make sure that the child always fully understands the correlation between its actions and your response. The last part may sound like an afterthought, but it actually the most important part of it. Punishments that are not understood lead to psychoses, rewards that are not understood lead to addictions.

The same things need to be done when you attempt to improve the behaviour of a society. You make active discriminations illegal and punish the offenders. That one is trivial enough. But it is often, and in our case of the professors, not enough. So what now, you go and punish those that profit from the remaining inequity? They have not caused the inequity, and thus you deal out random punishment. That will not improve their behaviour by any means, as they have experienced that they will not profit from correct behaviour. It can also send a horrible signal to the ones that will profit from the counter-action. Whoever is helped by an enforcement of equity might either end up assuming that they would have achieved less without the help of the enforcement, or assuming that the ones doing the enforcement are not taking her serious. Neither will help the profiteer to consider herself as an equal.

Rewarding the progress of society on the other hand could be as easy as just admitting openly and repeatedly that such progress exists. Let men be proud of being part of the best generation yet, instead of being ashamed of being part of a neverending crime. Tell women that not only they don't have to accept discrimination, but they don't have to except it either. Allow them to be surprised and outrage in the face of discrimination, so they can confidently demand a change and refuse to act along. Do not teach them that the world, despite all efforts, remains as unfair as ever, leading them into a fatalism where they will live their whole life declaring that a lot of things are "expected" from them by society.

In order to maintain these opinions, let me get back to the point of the low number of female professors. As I said earlier, there was a very impressive interview with a number of female professors from germany. And when asked how they got to their position, not a one of them declared that they had needed legal support to fight discrimination. Not one of them, to their credit, declared that she had to work much harder than the men to get to the same position. But almost every single one of them declared that the most important factor of her career was the fact that she found a mentor early on, who would continue to encourage her to follow this path, giving her the confidence she needed to try.

I really do believe that if that was all that was needed in these cases, than the same thing can do a lot of good in other fields, on a wider audience. Of course it can not be the first step in the fight against inequality, but it is an immensly important second step, and without it, we will forever keep a lot of leftover victims long after the crimes have stopped.

[Alorael at Large]

I think you took a lot out of one perhaps ill-advised sentence. I don't mean that we shouldn't recognize and celebrate the improvements that have been made, and that are still being made. Hold them all up as examples of the fact that change can happen, and it can happen because people make it happen! But the fact that things are getting better does not mean enough has been done per se. Maybe steps should be taken to improve equality faster. Maybe the current trajectory isn't enough to get all the way there.

 

Maybe it is! And if it is, in one particular area, then doing more is a waste of time at best and counterproductive at worst. But I think in most realms we're still in the better, but not done category.

 

—Alorael, who would also take these interviews with a grain of salt. The professors' anecdotal experiences are not data. They may not perceive discrimination but still suffer from it. Mentors are certainly necessary, but they may not be enough. And he's still waiting for you to produce a source for your data.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

Don't crap on someone who is making a genuinely good-faith effort to talk about a problem and fix it. That's your ally.

Allies listen to oppressed people. Allies educate themselves on the problems oppressed people deal with. Allies educate themselves on how to be an ally so they don't inadvertantly let their privilege do harm to oppressed people. Allies are willing to drop an idea they have when oppressed people point out that the idea doesn't make sense. Allies recognize when they mess up and apologize for it. Student of Trinity has done none of those things. Therefore, he is no ally. The fact that you and other people here think he is one is a problem.

Dikiyoba.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I also did say in an earlier post that I do not hold my life up as standard that should apply to everyone. I was saying that the financial independence that Lilith seemed to be insisting as the final solution, alternatively, is not the universal standard by which other women measure their worth.

Whatever standard a woman measures her worth by doesn't change reality. And if the reality of her life is that her lifestyle leaves her dependent on one specific person in order to meet basic survival needs, then for anyone to say that she's free is absurd, and to say that she holds most of the power in her relationship is beyond absurd. The fact that she's chosen that life of dependence, judging the alternatives to be even worse, doesn't make it a free choice.

It is quite fascinating, your position that (Marriage=Slavery). Lilith, I still hold that you and you alone can truly decide what makes you more satisfied in your life. But you leave me the impression that what makes Lilith happy is unconditionally true for all women. After all,"Whatever standard a woman measures her worth by doesn't change reality." I find that imposition to be truly fascinating.
In addition, I interpret the inference that in a marriage, the man gains everything while giving up nothing, but the woman gives up everything. The concept of one spouse holding Power over the other is a total non-sequiter. I don't know where you get that impression, but growing up I was always taught that a marriage is a partnership, a partnership based upon mutual trust and respect.

When I met my wife, she was as you like to say "financially independent". She had a job, earning what she felt was a fair wage, living in a nice apartment and with complete autonomy and freedom to go and do what she pleased and when it pleased her. She was living the life that you propose to be the ideal one. And then we met. She had the choice of staying footloose and fancy free or to commit the rest of her life to being my wife. We all know what Her decision was.

The smell of Red Herring is becoming overwhelming. This has less about women's equality and freedom and more of an attempt to devalue and discredit the concept of marriage. I also find it indicative that you have not said word one about my backup DBA. But then she is doing what you feel is necessary, working and earning her own pay, not being financially dependent on her husband. Oh, did I fail to mention that earlier?

And now, Lilith, we have, as I predicted, circumvented the globe and wound up exactly where we started. I have enjoyed this discussion with you, it has been enlightening for me.

I wish you well with whatever brings you happiness.

[Sudanna]

EDIT:

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

Don't crap on someone who is making a genuinely good-faith effort to talk about a problem and fix it. That's your ally.

Allies listen to oppressed people. Allies educate themselves on the problems oppressed people deal with. Allies educate themselves on how to be an ally so they don't inadvertantly let their privilege do harm to oppressed people. Allies are willing to drop an idea they have when oppressed people point out that the idea doesn't make sense. Allies recognize when they mess up and apologize for it. Student of Trinity has done none of those things. Therefore, he is no ally. The fact that you and other people here think he is one is a problem.

 

Dikiyoba.

 

I. . . really haven't gotten that impression from anything SoT or Lilith have said. I thought you were being facetious with your first post on this issue, because the two of them differ in their focus and approach, not the side they're on. Regardless, though, your tone is really not what I would expect here, least of all from a moderator. Please don't get this topic locked, it's a good one.

 

And, well, I hate to say this, but Lilith is a transwoman, and has not, I think, lived and presented as her gender for most of her life, if indeed she does now. Experience with oppression may not be a card she can play very effectively at this point. And she hasn't, you have played it for her, and I'm not sure why. Of course, I apologize in advance if I am mistaken.

[ShieTar]

Originally Posted By: poor Earth, caught in the middle

—Alorael, who would also take these interviews with a grain of salt. The professors' anecdotal experiences are not data.

It is points of data. Given a sufficient sample size, determined by the laws of statistics, it becomes data. Unless you can suggest an automated measurement system that quantifies and records discrimination of women, asking a group of women for their experience is about the only thing you can do.

Originally Posted By: poor Earth, caught in the middle

They may not perceive discrimination but still suffer from it. Mentors are certainly necessary, but they may not be enough.

They may have been actors paid to mislead the interviewers, too. I choose to believe their statements since I have no reason to disbelief them. Reading materials with a bias towards disbelief seems like a waste of time to me.

Originally Posted By: poor Earth, caught in the middle

And he's still waiting for you to produce a source for your data.

Which I would love to do, if it wasn't for the fact that I read the interview in a paper journal which has long since been recycled. I asked google to try and help my memory to relocate the interview, but did not exactly find it. But it seems likely that it consisted of extracts of the book "Professorinnen in der Mathematik" (ISBN 978-3-89370-421-7), from how the abstract of that book reads.

[Sudanna]

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Originally Posted By: poor Earth, caught in the middle

Alorael, who would also take these interviews with a grain of salt. The professors' anecdotal experiences are not data.

It is points of data. Given a sufficient sample size, determined by the laws of statistics, it becomes data. Unless you can suggest an automated measurement system that quantifies and records discrimination of women, asking a group of women for their experience is about the only thing you can do.

Weren't you doing that with the statistics for female professors earlier? There's data and there's data, and while anecdotal accounts are not without value, it's also advisable to not base everything on them.

Originally Posted By: ShieTar

Originally Posted By: poor Earth, caught in the middle

They may not perceive discrimination but still suffer from it. Mentors are certainly necessary, but they may not be enough.

They may have been actors paid to mislead the interviewers, too. I choose to believe their statements since I have no reason to disbelief them. Reading materials with a bias towards disbelief seems like a waste of time to me.

It's not that you should disbelieve everything by default, but you should remain aware of the potential of flawed information, especially in personal testimonies. Again, such testimony is not without value, but should also not be relied upon entirely or accepted without at least the acknowedgment of the possibility of misleading or incorrect information. That you're basing your position off of this one source is not the best endorsement for it.

[Prince of Kitties]

Wow. I think this thread has exploded.

 

I'll admit that I didn't read much of Student of Trinity's posts because they were... Extremely verbose. And, to be blunt, I am weary of verbosity, because it can be used to cloak nonsensical or dangerous ideas. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull," and all that.

 

Skimming through the OP, though, another quote kind of struck me:

 

Originally Posted By: "Student of Trinity"

The point of all this is that it's not enough just to demand identical treatment for men and women, and rail against patriarchal society if we don't get it. We need to figure out what's really going on, if we can, and act on the information. If we can't figure out what's really going on, we need to be prepared to act on our best guesses, rather than just let things slide along. The possibility that men and women do act and choose in significantly different ways, for whatever reasons, cannot be ignored.

 

I think this basically presents a false dichotomy. There may very well be significant, biologically ingrained differences in the way men and women think and act...

 

But this does not nullify the fact that modern human civilization is still mostly patriarchal. And it does not change the fact that providing equal rights and opportunities for men and women - in practice, not just in theory - would be a very good thing.

 

Look at it this way: everyone knows that there are huge differences between the ways different individuals think. All humans are not created equal. But all humans must have equal protection under the law, or really bad things happen.

 

TL;DR the existence of differences between men's and womens's brains does not in any way provide justification for legally different treatment.