There is a woman near here who either did name, or was talked out of naming her daughter Pocahontas, and her surname was Murphy. Wasn't there also that boy in the states, Adolf Hitler Campbell?
Eh, comparatively what he said was entirely accurate. When you talk about judging what someone is wearing, their sex life or other similar aspects, men simply aren't judged at all compared to how women are treated. The range of acceptable is far broader and the consequences for going outside that range minimal.
I think of myself as a fairly understated guy. I happen to have hair down to my waist (and I'm over 6'). This is a fairly major deviation from the norms, but I have caught effectively zero shit for it in my life*. Girls I know who have had comparable 'different' hairstyles tend to catch far more than that. I get a comment about my hair about once a month, maybe. I know girls who have what seems like every other person they talk to make a reference to their hair. The vast majority (every one that wasn't shouted from a white van going at 40) about me have been compliments. Somehow that isn't true of the girls. People actually comment on their hair to insult it, or say what a shame that they would ruin it like that.
That's a fairly minor example, but to say that guys are judged as well is avoiding the point entirely.
* There was the guy who tried to set it on fire that time, but that was him being bored and boozed with a lighter and dangly flammable thing in front of him. Drunks and cats are predictable that way. And he was incompetent enough he gave up before I'd even noticed. Still not nearly as bad as some of the shit that's happened to female friends of mine.
Worth reading. And yeah, that's Ed's brother. Small web.
But the basic point there is that legitimate men's rights activism is the same thing as strident feminism. Without serious efforts towards practical equality the issues that get MRAs so worked up (other than the ones about why more women won't have sex with them) can't really be addressed. You can't have sensible reform of custody laws while people are still promoting hard and fast gender roles in family raising. And as long as there are practical imbalances in income levels and other issues relevant to custody, even fair laws aren't going to see equality in practice either.
And I don't think my position on child support is going to be particularly popular, but it's broadly suck it up. Women can choose not to carry a child to term, but that isn't exactly an escape from the consequences of sex. They are stuck with that burden as soon as they take part in the initial act. In my view, men wanted to be able to demand an abortion or absolution is shifting that entire burden onto the woman, one way or the other.
My personal preference for this area would be shifting the burden of contraception towards men. Make it his responsibility to use a condom properly. Maybe get some backing for a male contraceptive pill or RISUG. Ideally both partners would take their own contraceptive measures, especially in casual situations. Actually, ideally there would be enough trust and respect between the two to be comfortable and honest discussing these things. But either works.
I think I remember a few instances where a couple have gone to court because the mother-to-be didn't want to have the father-to-be to pay child support. I believe it was a high power businesswoman who had effectively used the guy as a sperm donor and it was something they had an understanding about beforehand. The judge ended up allowing it with the stipulation that he have no involvement in the child's upbringing (though if I remember correctly they remained friends and he was referred to as "uncle").
That sounds odd to me, but what you've probably done is combine child support and visitation/partial custody.
If Child support was all that was in question, that's easy, all the mother has to do is not claim it and the father likely wouldn't be responsible for it.
On the other hand, if the father claims he is a father and demands to exercise parental rights, child support would be the expected norm, but you'd have a very tough fight convincing a court that a biological father has no right to see or visit his kids.
A side note, the cover of Time magazine this week refers to the increasing rates at which women are becoming the "breadwinners" in households. I believe the current number is now at ~39% or something similar, as more and more women are both achieving higher ratios of degrees and filling more and more positions.
The part time wages, women actually make more money than men -- but for full-time jobs, women make $0.81 per dollar that men make for identical work. The gap is closing, albeit slowly. I'm all for equality, but only when it's actual equality.
Part of the article, which I agree with, is that traditionally feminists have argued that economic decision making should be equitably shared in a marriage, regardless of whom is bringing home the majority of the pay. However, some women in these reversed traditional roles are finding it difficult to accept the "sharing" with their stay-at-home husbands. Point being, regardless of sex, people that earn the money, feel they have a right to it.
Equality issues I have are mainly "affirmative action" kinds. I believe the system should have a blind merit-based evaluation when it comes to hiring individuals for positions. One should not get extra points for being a minority, or female, or anything else like that. Similarly, I don't like the dual standards in the military fitness tests, or several other things. It's great they're making concessions for women in the military, but take for instance an aircraft mechanic. Some of those toolboxes weight ~100 lbs. Do we bend over backwards to enable some women to be aircraft mechanics that clearly cannot perform the job, by essentially requiring someone else to do tasks that all other mechanics routinely do?
I could elaborate further, but I'm rather tired at the moment.
No, I understand what you're saying from this. I think for once, I actually kind of agree with you on this topic. I'm all for equality and women's rights, but I've never understood the part of the feminist movement that isn't just demanding equality, they're demanding something more. It's like they want to erase the previously poor treatment of women by having women get special treatment.
I had actually said something to an acquaintance, who considered herself a feminist, and she accused me of not really being a feminist or for women's rights.
regardless of whom is bringing home the majority of the pay.
regardless of who is bringing home the majority of the pay.
Grammatical nitpicking aside, I do kind of agree with you. There is an issue with affirmative action and employment; does that person have a job because they were the best candidate, or because the employer had a quota to fill?
On the other hand, affirmative action is still necessary as racism and sexism remain quite prevalent in this generation.
I'm not sure I agree about affirmative action though. We already have laws against not hiring (or firing) based on someone's race or gender. It just seems to perpetuate the idea that certain groups should be treated differently if we also add in quotas. If I apply for a job and a man applies to the same job, I am more qualified but he gets it, there's a problem. But if we are equally qualified and he gets it, can I really be upset? If I want to be treated equally, that means I should be okay with being rejected just as much as anyone else. I shouldn't get the job just because I'm a woman and we're worried people are being sexist.
On the other hand, I do think there should be very rigid enforcement in cases where there has been discrimination. I realize that's something that is hard to prove, but I also don't like the idea that anyone who feels slighted could jump on the "let's sue everyone" wagon.
I think there is a real difference between quotas and affirmative action as it is (and/or should be) practised.
Affirmative action is about recognising that diversity is inherently a good thing for most organisations (with a few obvious exceptions) and that acknowledging this in recruitment can benefit the organisation greatly.
The traditional example is colleges. Students show significant educational gains from studying in a diverse environment. In addition to this, schools usually see minimal minority recruitment until they reach a threshold population of minorities in the first place. Minority students simply aren't encouraged to go to a school with no minority population. Getting to that threshold requires serious incentives and actual work.
Bringing this back to gender, you see some of the same things in male dominated fields and communities. Physics has long had this problem. Gaming culture has it in spades.
And I've got more on this but I have to run for a bus.
But it is very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce those employment laws. Here in Ireland, it seems that the number of women in employment has decreased, because laws relating to maternity leave are actually putting a large strain on companies.
How do you prove that that kind of discrimination is taking place?
Quotas, on the other hand, are very easy to enforce. That is how you can be certain that it is not just white men hiring more white men.
I view affirmative action and quotas as, not so much a solution to a problem, but rather as a placeholder until our society matures to the point where we actually recognise the problem.
I would imagine wondering just why you have your job is better than not having a job.
I may be a cynic but I don't think people are ready to judge one another based on their merits rather than ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs/lack of, or gender.
Yeah, I see where people are coming from. I just don't like it personally because I don't think it really helps further the push for equality. As I said, I realize it's hard to prove discrimination in many cases. But then people also sue in cases where it truly isn't.
I hate to sound like my conservative family, but it is that "sense of entitlement". We all feel it. We think that we're qualified for the job and deserve over the other people applying and if we don't get it, we wonder why. Some people immediately jump to "well it's because I'm a woman" or "it's because I'm black/latino/whatever". Now there are people who immediately jump to "it's because I'm a white male" as well.
We'll go back to the example of the white male and myself both applying for a job that we're equally qualified for. How is it not discrimination against him if I get the job because of pushes for affirmative action? How is that equality?
I agree, it is not the perfect solution, but it is necessary.
You could look at it as a small bit of discrimination put in place in order to prevent a lot of discrimination.
All these quotas are there to provide opportunities to groups who might otherwise be denied them. They are just a foot in the door at the moment. Maybe in our children's time, or in our grandchildren's time, people will be ready to judge one another based solely on their merits, but not now. We are still to racist and sexist to be trusted.
That's bad math. Assuming for the sake of argument that 75% is correct, the statistic is that women "on average" earn 75% of what men with similar educational levels earn.
That's still a problem, but a much more complicated one than women just being paid X% less than men across the board.
I'm absolutely certain there are many scenarios that result either from explicit or implicit discrimination, but I'll present two scenarios that I see as benign (and feel free to contest that). Tell me what employers are obligated to do (morally) to fix them.
Scenario A - Person 1 (male) and person 2 (female) are in the sales department of a corporation. They have similar sales territories. Their compensation is tied into their sales commissions. For reasons outside of the Corporation's control, the market of potential buyers is friendlier to male salesmen. Person 1 achieves more sales and earns a higher compensation as a result. The corporation sees this and will not discriminate in hiring, but feels that it cannot fairly give females higher commission rates.
Scenario A - Person 1 (male) and Person 2 (female) are mid level executives at a corporation. Their jobs are in areas that are not susceptible to ready financial determination, however their performances are generally similar. At the annual performance review, both are given good reviews and offered a 4% raise. Person 1 aggressively promotes his work and asks for an 8% raise. Because the corporation wants to retain him, he is offered a 7% raise instead. Person 2 accepts the 4% raise. Although the same person made both decisions, there is no "overall review" and the fact that Person 1 and Person 2 are recieving different salaries doesn't explicitly come to his attention.
Well, we better get working on building robot interviewers, that can compute the workplace harmony coefficient and conflict probabilities, as well as factoring in performance and proficiency quotients. They could just do "blind" evaluations prior to the interview, and maybe be subject to audits/oversight.
The problem is the switching back and forth between general and particular perspectives. Everybody's for equality until it means their unequally high share gets cut down to size.
I would imagine wondering just why you have your job is better than not having a job.
Also, I'd say that, to me, I think t would be just as bad to be hired because I'm a woman than to be rejected for the same reason. It means I'm still not on an equal field as men. It's just my personal opinion on it though.
I took that into consideration, but having some form of income was the deciding factor.
Right now I am unemployed. If a family member, or friend, offered me a job because they felt sorry for me, I would take it. Having proper income, and a real job, would make me feel better than understanding how the reason I got the job would make me feel bad. If that makes sense.
I don't see them as being the same. It's like getting a job thorugh contacts or networking, in a way. I get that you'd rather have a job regardless of why you got it over being unemployed.
I'm just speaking from the standpoint of wanting equality in the workplace. I feel like a part of that is having a truly equal standing. Not having preference over a man simply because my gender. I think that's an important part of the fight for equality and I don't see quotas as achieving that.
Don't get me wrong though, I understand where you're coming from when you say our society just isn't there yet and it's a stop gap measure. It's just that I would almost rather the stop gap not be there because it makes it seem like women are being hired or moving ahead because they are women, not because they are accomplished.
I had worked in a lab in undergrad for a semester for a course, so it was free labor for the lab. Come summer, the PI hired me on to continue working, but this time paid (though not much). When I mentioned to my then co-worker at the coffee bar I worked at that I would be leaving because my PI hired me, the guy said "well of course he did, you're cute. I'd want to have you around too." I know he was part flirting and part joking, but it was still offensive in a way.
If you reread one of my earlier comments, I think it looks like I can't make up my mind whether I am for or against affirmative action. That is because I see the merits of both sides.
So I haven't been active on this site in, literally, years, but this looks interesting enough. So here I am in all my womanly glory to join in for at least a bit. I'll be honest, I'm lazy and I skimmed, but here are some general thoughts before I get to making dinner and studying.
Someone on the last page mentioned MRAs and how sexism hurts men. I agree, the rigid gender binary and strict gender roles and definitions of masculinity and femininity hurt both men and women, but let's not kid ourselves. The way society deals with gender hurts men and women, but it hurts women more. And often, when men are hurt by the gender binary, it comes from misogyny. Men are often degraded when they stray from masculinity into femininity - whether it's disliking football or wanting to wear make-up and dresses - because society sees femininity as a degrading thing.
As far as affirmative action, the situation is definitely complicated. A great deal of the wage gap comes from subconscious sexism, because women are perceived as being less productive/successful even when they are equally as productive as their male counterparts. A study on postdoctoral job applicants comes to mind - female applicants had to publish three more papers in prestigious publications, or twenty more papers in less prestigious ones, to be judged as productive as the male applicants. I can look that up if anyone wants the details.
I think it's interesting (read: pathetic/sad/awful) that despite equal wage laws, equal opportunity employment, and affirmative action, that women are still making less than men for the same quality work. So the question of discrimination in the workplace is really a question of discrimination period, and why we all still harbor these subconscious beliefs that reinforce gender inequality.
