Feminism, are women equal yet? (short answer, no!)

05/12/2007 02:39:41 AM · #26

Originally posted by rinac:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
EDIT TO ADD: Why is that a choice a MOTHER has to make... family or work, that a FATHER does not? As much as we THINK our society has equalized out, it certainly hasn't. There are a couple good points about this on the male privilege list. Either way the mother has guilt on her back. If she stays at home she is lazy, not applying herself, etc, If she workds she take son double duty and gets the "you aren't spending enough time with the kids" guilt. Fathers receive significantly less of this kind of guilting... I'd venture to say almost none unless he's a workaholic.

Bless you. I've lived with this dilemma for the last 16 years. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

:) I'm not there yet but I know I will be in under 10 years and I still have no idea. The only decision I made for sure about my future family life is that I'm not changing my name. It's an outdated practice. Not against it, I just don't agree with changing my name and becoming "Mrs. So and So" after being me my whole life.

lostisme

Olympus Stylus 720 SW

05/12/2007 02:41:23 AM · #27

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Something about CHOICE.

Choice is not just about the availability of the choices, it is about the consequences of the choices. As I said, a woman has consequences no matter which way she goes ont he family issue.

SAY I CHOOSE to be a construction worker. There are no laws against it. The option is TECHNICALLY there. But if I do happen to get the job (which I wouldn't, I can barely get photo assistant jobs because men think I can't carry their equipment) think of the conseuences. Ridicule at work, sexual harrassment, judgements from female peers, judgements on my work and work ethic that would be much harsher than if I were a man.

Choice not always as easy as "can" or "legal" choices are limited and come with consequences. Consequences that are a result of oppression and an unjust society.

I do agree, but say a man chose to be a nurse, he too would probably have to deal with harassment or at least be made fun of by some of his friends, patients and people in general. so I guess its not really a problem for just women its a problem for society in general.

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

05/12/2007 02:42:20 AM · #28

Originally posted by escapetooz:

The facts just illustrate that we STILL have a male dominated society.

May not seem THAT bad but tie it in with stereotypical male/female roles that are hammered into a child's head day in and day out, toys (girls get dolls and cooking sets, boys build thing and have trucks) with corresponding commercials to show this. TV and movies, damsels in distress, heroic males... the freakin womens channels are nothing but women getting stalked, beaten, raped, killed going insane or starving themselves. What I'm trying to say is IF women aren't aggressive, it's because through MANY society factors they have LEARNED not to be. It is not becoming. Think... DEVIL WEARS PRADA. If that was a MAN as the boss he wouldn't be a bitch or a hag, or whatever you might say to describe the Streep character, he'd be a business man, a dedicated worker, etc.

See where I'm going?

I thought this was mostly about pay... Sure, the facts are we are a male dominated society. No arguing that. However, if you look at every animal species it is always broken down as as either a patriarchal or matriarchal. There isn't a species that is both. Why, I don't know (it probably doesn't work).

Your continuing argument confuses me. Example, if I had a female boss that was a b*tch and instead it as a man. Sure I might not use the term b*tch, but probably a**hole instead. Why would all of a sudden he be a "dedicated worker". It almost sounds like you want a gender neutral society. So I guess the thing to do is not to have gender words like pretty, handsome, etc... Everyone should use the same restroom... Why even have genders, I guess that would make things easier (but boring).

To truly to be equal everyone would technically have to be the same. The reason men are usually heroes in shows is because they are "generally" stronger. This is a fact. In real life if I had the choice to fight the "average" female versus the average male, I would chose the female. You want shows that are less plausible? In the military, if someone gets bullied it isn't the strongest person it is the weakest, it doesn't have anything to do with sex. Sure Hollywood takes it to the next level. This point doesn't have to do with oppression.

See where I am going?

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

05/12/2007 02:46:52 AM · #29

Oh, I studied Anthropology in school. So I do have a skewed vision of how I see the world. :)

05/12/2007 02:48:31 AM · #30

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Something about CHOICE.

Choice is not just about the availability of the choices, it is about the consequences of the choices. As I said, a woman has consequences no matter which way she goes ont he family issue.

SAY I CHOOSE to be a construction worker. There are no laws against it. The option is TECHNICALLY there. But if I do happen to get the job (which I wouldn't, I can barely get photo assistant jobs because men think I can't carry their equipment) think of the conseuences. Ridicule at work, sexual harrassment, judgements from female peers, judgements on my work and work ethic that would be much harsher than if I were a man.

Choice not always as easy as "can" or "legal" choices are limited and come with consequences. Consequences that are a result of oppression and an unjust society.

Ok but this doesn't just apply to women. Men get picked on just the same. Whenever someone is different from the group the chances of this sort of thing happening increases. That's just human nature. Maybe when humanity acheieves a utopian society we will all value each other the same but that's not going to happen any time soon.

Btw, do you feel you have had an advantage in your life because you are attractive and thin? Do you feel people not as attractive and not as thin as you are "oppressed"? Just curious.

You are right, it doesn't just apply to women, and I chose an extreme example BUT women and minorities face it a lot more on a GENERALIZED basis. Just like the privilege list says, men are not a testament to men. BUT women and minorities are generalized. Example: Women drivers. If a woman gets a in a wreck, it's because women are bad drivers. If a man does, it's because HE is a bad driver. White, males (even more specifically protestant) are the "norm" or "nuetral" and are looked at on an idividual level. If a man in a construction yard gets picked on it's because he personally is weird, outcast, etc, etc... not just because he's a MAN.

Of course being attractive has given me advantages but it has disadvantages as well lol. I am aware of this. I may do better on an interview just because I'm thin, etc but there is also are also negatives associated (i.e. I'm weak, spoiled, dumb, slutt, etc) Attractiveness however is more subjective than "woman" or "black". So back to what I just said, that is a more individually based where as womens issues are generalized. Do I think people miss out on jobs because of looks? Sure... but not as often as because of gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Apples and Oranges.

05/12/2007 02:57:10 AM · #31

Originally posted by jaysonmc:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
The facts just illustrate that we STILL have a male dominated society.

May not seem THAT bad but tie it in with stereotypical male/female roles that are hammered into a child's head day in and day out, toys (girls get dolls and cooking sets, boys build thing and have trucks) with corresponding commercials to show this. TV and movies, damsels in distress, heroic males... the freakin womens channels are nothing but women getting stalked, beaten, raped, killed going insane or starving themselves. What I'm trying to say is IF women aren't aggressive, it's because through MANY society factors they have LEARNED not to be. It is not becoming. Think... DEVIL WEARS PRADA. If that was a MAN as the boss he wouldn't be a bitch or a hag, or whatever you might say to describe the Streep character, he'd be a business man, a dedicated worker, etc.

See where I'm going?

I thought this was mostly about pay... Sure, the facts are we are a male dominated society. No arguing that. However, if you look at every animal species it is always broken down as as either a patriarchal or matriarchal. There isn't a species that is both. Why, I don't know (it probably doesn't work).

Your continuing argument confuses me. Example, if I had a female boss that was a b*tch and instead it as a man. Sure I might not use the term b*tch, but probably a**hole instead. Why would all of a sudden he be a "dedicated worker". It almost sounds like you want a gender neutral society. So I guess the thing to do is not to have gender words like pretty, handsome, etc... Everyone should use the same restroom... Why even have genders, I guess that would make things easier (but boring).

To truly to be equal everyone would technically have to be the same. The reason men are usually heroes in shows is because they are "generally" stronger. This is a fact. In real life if I had the choice to fight the "average" female versus the average male, I would chose the female. You want shows that are less plausible? In the military, if someone gets bullied it isn't the strongest person it is the weakest, it doesn't have anything to do with sex. Sure Hollywood takes it to the next level. This point doesn't have to do with oppression.

See where I am going?

lol. I like the ending. You are getting dramatic there with the why have genders bit. You misunderstood my "boss" example so I'll use a simpler one. The single woman versus the single man. Younger years the man is "bachelor" if he gets lots of chicks he's a "stud" "lady's man", etc. Females are whores, sluts, etc. etc. Rarely are these terms directed at males there is the rare "man whore" or "gigilo" but you rarely hear those words as much as the female ones. Fast forward to middle or old age. Males are still considered "bachelors" while females have all sorts of aweful words "spinster" "old maid" etc. Basically women are expected to be what society thinks women should be... married, having babies, etc or they are not acceptable and have all sorts of nasty names thrown at them while males have very few nasty names that are specifically for males (and the ones they do have are comparissons to females (p**sy), knocks at their mother (mother fer, bastard) or comparisons to homosexuals (c**k sucker, etc.)

Basically my point was the LANGUAGE used in stereotyping. Basically woman bad, man good.

The species arguement doesn't work for me. Please translate that into how women are still allowed to get paid less. It's so much more complicated than just "men are more dominant". Genetics is a VERY simplistic arguement.

Message edited by author 2007-05-12 02:57:47.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/12/2007 03:02:03 AM · #32

Originally posted by jaysonmc:

Oh, I studied Anthropology in school. So I do have a skewed vision of how I see the world. :)

I'm used to it! lol. My boyfriend is obsessed with evolution and always debates this topic with me... "Look at primates" he says. Some of the male species eat their young.

Yes, let's look at the primates! While we're at it let's go back to worms, lizards, and wolves, they are all in our DNA somewhere... sorry. I study psychology and sociology, your fields and mine pitted against eachother in the classic "nature vs. nuture" argument.

It's BOTH! But I guess it's so much funner to argue. lol.

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

05/12/2007 03:08:32 AM · #33

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Oh, I studied Anthropology in school. So I do have a skewed vision of how I see the world. :)

I'm used to it! lol. My boyfriend is obsessed with evolution and always debates this topic with me... "Look at primates" he says. Some of the male species eat their young.

Yes, let's look at the primates! While we're at it let's go back to worms, lizards, and wolves, they are all in our DNA somewhere... sorry. I study psychology and sociology, your fields and mine pitted against eachother in the classic "nature vs. nuture" argument.

It's BOTH! But I guess it's so much funner to argue. lol.

Yes, I was going to reply to the previous email and noticed you were a psych major. Fundamentally, we both think a bit differently (no harm in that). While we probably won't agree on everything, I still give you kudos when you said we are a Male dominated society. That is true. Where feminism and current gender gaps differ in todays society we would probably disagree on some of the finer points. Though it is always refreshing to talk about it. Cheers and good night.

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/12/2007 03:12:56 AM · #34

i saw a bumper sticker that said "any woman who wants to be equal to
man has no ambition in life" :)

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

05/12/2007 04:09:31 AM · #35

Originally posted by lostisme:

In England, nursing is now a perfectly normal career route for men, and completely acceptable, so no he wouldn't be likely to ' be made fun of by some of his friends, patients and people in general'. What he would be more likely to be 'though, is employed in one of the more prestigious areas of nursing such as accident and emergency, ITU, paediatrics, and not in the general day treatment and outpatients clinics.

It has been interesting reading this thread, as I hadn't realy appreciated just how far apart America and Britain were on these issues. I haven't got time to contribute now, but shall return to the thread later today to give a view from 'across the pond'.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/12/2007 08:42:12 AM · #36

Originally posted by goodman:

i saw a bumper sticker that said "any woman who wants to be equal to
man has no ambition in life" :)

zxaar

05/12/2007 09:19:00 AM · #37

In india, i feel the biggest enemy a woman has is another woman.

When a woman get married, its her mother in law, that pester her for male child. Its her mother in law who makes her life hell, if she comes with less dowry. Its her mother in law who burns her alive for dowry.
Its her mother in law, who create most of the troubles for her.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/12/2007 09:22:36 AM · #38

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by goodman:
i saw a bumper sticker that said "any woman who wants to be equal to
man has no ambition in life" :)

That's not funny, that's my whole damn company in a nutshell, men, women, black, white, Pakistani, Indian, whatever. They're all determining their equality on what they can get away with instead of what they can achieve. Those Koreans though, they've got a killer work ethic.

There's some oppression there too, when you work hard, pull your weight, and you're smart, all the slackers work harder to take you down to make themselves look good than they would ever do to actually try to make something better.

Maybe the same ideal applies to women, and the sexual difference is just an easy target, same for other cultural minorities. The good-ole-boys club has more victims that just women.

One note on the salary: some say that the inequality is because more women choose to stay home and have children and get a later start on a career. You have to consider that anyone coming into a company is going to be restricted by their experience, that's always true.

Take for example me (what? just go with it) I was laid off from a fortune 100 company a few years back (illegally, I found out later, but don't mind that) when I came back to the company I was treated as a new employee, and I had to take a salary that slightly less that I was getting when I left. I was okay with that because I had been dealing with a salary that was significantly less in the interim. Now, after a few raises, I'm making still significantly less than those that had retained their jobs here. Why? because they all got promoted, that's why.

Now, for a woman who decides to take a few year off for the kiddo's sake the situation will be about the same as mine. Even if I did get hired into one of those other higher positions, missing out on the annual performance raises, and the random out-of-cycle raises puts me at a disadvantage in pay grade to them.

To use another example from my department, I know that one other person, who is a woman, is being paid significantly less that I am for doing essentially the same job. She found out my salary and seems a little bitter about it sometimes. But, the reason is that she came in from another entry-level department where they all get paid less. In my company, they usually cap any inter-company promotions or job moves to an increase of 10% in pay, or the base salary of the new job. This is the policy of many other large companies. In my case, when I was re-hired a few years back, I bargained to get back to my salary level when I left, which is 20% more than the base pay. A few raises and a small promotion later, and I'm making 20% more that than again.

Then, there's Jane Doe #2, also in my department, who bargained when she came in (because I told her to) and is nearly at the salary level I am already. Jane1 is 22, Jane2 is 45.

And then we get into ageism.... and reverse ageism.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/12/2007 10:43:50 AM · #39

Originally posted by wavelength:

Entire post was spot on Wavelength, but the first paragraph hit the nail on the head.

Far too many people (men, women, race, creed etc) sit around and bitch about what they do not have and how they are mistreated yet put no effort into obtaining it. They invest more time in feeling sorry for themselves than enhancing what they have to offer a company.

They form groups of like minded people because they believe there is power in numbers and bitch about it more, meanwhile those that haven't fallen into the follower mentality move on, get promoted, excel at what they do and get paid for it.

I got more but I got a group shoot I have to attend right now, I'll be back...

jonnienye

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/12/2007 10:52:39 AM · #40

no cookies being baked at that house....lol

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

05/12/2007 11:42:12 AM · #41

My point way back there before I went to sleep was, Rosa Parks didn't just sit and talk about a change. She didn't tell everyone what a victim she was and how unfair it was that she had to sit in the back of the bus. She got up and moved to a better place on the bus. She didn't just verbalise about a problem and then expect it to change because she said so. She didn't ask everyone around her for validation. She acted. She changed the world. That is what it takes. If you don't like what is going on, go out and actually do something about it. If you don't like the salary earned by a nurse, don't become one. If you want progress, be the fulcrum for change. All of this doesn't mean I have closed my eyes and don't comprehend what is going on.
To me, any conversation that starts with the premise that one group is being kept down by another group becomes a conversation about victims. It can't be anything other than that because the oppressed group has been defined as being acted upon which implies they have no control. As soon as Sally says she isn't the person she wants to be because her boss/lover/society/family keeps her from it, Sally is placing herself in the role of the victim. She is saying that she has no way of making decisions about her life, she has to follow the orders of someone other than herself. A more realistic way to view it, to me, is what choices has she made? How can she change her life with different choices?
This is not taking such things as rape into the conversation. But then, it's also not taking random shootings and car accidents into it either. There are things that are out of a person's control, whether they are male or female.

05/12/2007 02:45:09 PM · #42

Originally posted by pcody:

You are seriously misinformed. Look at the consequences of Rosa Park's actions. Sure she became a legend, but I can gaurantee a lot of other people found themselves in similar situations and did NOT get this status. They got punished and that was the end of it. We don't all have time to risk ruining our lives and getting arrested to be matryrs. People are more comfortable staying where they are safely. THAT is why open discussion. Discussion can lead to action, writing your legislators.

I'm sorry is there something WRONG with spreading knowledge and awareness? That's not asking for validation.

You are making everything too simplistic. I don't like it so I change it. You are not seeing the bigger picture. A woman doesn't want to get paid less as a nurse don't be a nurse? This is so rediculous. Not everyone can be a rich business owner or doctor, etc. Shall I mention the fact that people with the money keep the money and spend the money to educate their children so they can move up and make money while the underclass (a huge part of which is women and children) get stuck barely making ends meet, cannot afford luxuries like education. Sure there are loans, but again getting them is a problem and then being poor with mountains of debt.

You live in a lala land if you think this problem is as easy as "get a better job" or "stop being a victim". Not all situations turn out like Rosa Parks and not all Jenny's from the block are gunna turn out to be multimillion dollar super stars. Shall I even mention rights activists that got murdered? Please.

If you are not Sally, you do not know what Sally is dealing with. You are Larry or Harry or Bob or I don't care who. Read the privilege lists please. They are really helpful to show what I'm talking about. The male privilege one written by a MAN and the white privilege on written by a WHITE woman.

Do not tell me that a middle class male has the same opportunities as a poor black woman. It is not true. THere are exceptions and miracle stories, but those are exactly that EXCEPTIONS. NOT the rule.

05/12/2007 02:56:31 PM · #43

Originally posted by awpollard:

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by goodman:
i saw a bumper sticker that said "any woman who wants to be equal to
man has no ambition in life" :)

That's not funny, that's my whole damn company in a nutshell, men, women, black, white, Pakistani, Indian, whatever. They're all determining their equality on what they can get away with instead of what they can achieve. Those Koreans though, they've got a killer work ethic.

snip...

Entire post was spot on Wavelength, but the first paragraph hit the nail on the head.

Far too many people (men, women, race, creed etc) sit around and bitch about what they do not have and how they are mistreated yet put no effort into obtaining it. They invest more time in feeling sorry for themselves than enhancing what they have to offer a company.

They form groups of like minded people because they believe there is power in numbers and bitch about it more, meanwhile those that haven't fallen into the follower mentality move on, get promoted, excel at what they do and get paid for it.

I got more but I got a group shoot I have to attend right now, I'll be back...

You know what. There ARE people like that. White ones too. Those are individual issues. What I'm talking about is much more complex and takes place on a societal level. There are also people that work their asses off their whole lives and never make it to a comfortable place. And there are people that are never raised to expect better for themselves, basically they don't know any better.. Most of the people in government, ceos, all the powerful people, and even MOST of the people on TV and in movies are WHITE males. You think that has no affect on peope that are not white or male you are mistaken. I am not trying to BITCH. I am living my life the best way I can and trying to become a successful individual. Have I encountered career setbacks because I'm a woman... YES! Is that was this is about... NO! Women are OVER HALF the population and yet how many of them are represented in power? Not to mention minorities. White, middle class, protistant males are BY FAR over any sort of reasonable ratios in power. And the women that are in power have to try and maintain nutrality and be in "mans" world to even make it. You think Hilary would be looked at too kindly if she had a strong platform of women's rights? NO. Tell me how women are not oppressed? Ever heard of the glass ceiling?

NEWS FLASH: Women are not a "special intrest group" we are over half the popuation. It is such an american ingraned thing that this is the "land of opportunity" and that ANYONE can succeed and that is simply not true. So if anyone tries to point out that the white male has advantages we are bitching and moaning and being victims. This is not true. I study sociology for christ sakes. It's in text books, written by white men in fact. This is not nutty talking. There are studies, facts statistics. You should be more informed if you are going to try and label something you know nothing about what you are labeling "bitching".

05/12/2007 03:01:27 PM · #44

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by goodman:
i saw a bumper sticker that said "any woman who wants to be equal to
man has no ambition in life" :)

That's not funny, that's my whole damn company in a nutshell, men, women, black, white, Pakistani, Indian, whatever. They're all determining their equality on what they can get away with instead of what they can achieve. Those Koreans though, they've got a killer work ethic.

There's some oppression there too, when you work hard, pull your weight, and you're smart, all the slackers work harder to take you down to make themselves look good than they would ever do to actually try to make something better.

Maybe the same ideal applies to women, and the sexual difference is just an easy target, same for other cultural minorities. The good-ole-boys club has more victims that just women.

One note on the salary: some say that the inequality is because more women choose to stay home and have children and get a later start on a career. You have to consider that anyone coming into a company is going to be restricted by their experience, that's always true.

Take for example me (what? just go with it) I was laid off from a fortune 100 company a few years back (illegally, I found out later, but don't mind that) when I came back to the company I was treated as a new employee, and I had to take a salary that slightly less that I was getting when I left. I was okay with that because I had been dealing with a salary that was significantly less in the interim. Now, after a few raises, I'm making still significantly less than those that had retained their jobs here. Why? because they all got promoted, that's why.

Now, for a woman who decides to take a few year off for the kiddo's sake the situation will be about the same as mine. Even if I did get hired into one of those other higher positions, missing out on the annual performance raises, and the random out-of-cycle raises puts me at a disadvantage in pay grade to them.

To use another example from my department, I know that one other person, who is a woman, is being paid significantly less that I am for doing essentially the same job. She found out my salary and seems a little bitter about it sometimes. But, the reason is that she came in from another entry-level department where they all get paid less. In my company, they usually cap any inter-company promotions or job moves to an increase of 10% in pay, or the base salary of the new job. This is the policy of many other large companies. In my case, when I was re-hired a few years back, I bargained to get back to my salary level when I left, which is 20% more than the base pay. A few raises and a small promotion later, and I'm making 20% more that than again.

Then, there's Jane Doe #2, also in my department, who bargained when she came in (because I told her to) and is nearly at the salary level I am already. Jane1 is 22, Jane2 is 45.

And then we get into ageism.... and reverse ageism.

Are you kidding me? All of the generalizations you just through out there in the first parapraph illustrate my point. No one is aware of all the stereotypes we think of as FACT. Koreans and their good work ethic. That may seem like a compliment but generalizing never is. How many Koreans do you actually know? Not enough to say that as fact. You are in one part of the world, in one company, with a few Koreans around and suddenly think you know something about the people of an entire COUNTRY.

Doesn't it anger you when people say Americans are all fat lazy rednecks? TRUE there might be a lot of them here, that doesn't mean the WHOLE country is all that. My point. Stereotypes may ring true in some instances but they are never for ALL people and white men have significantly less stereotyping because they are seen as neutral or normal in our society.. You don't have a lazy white dude you work with and say "man all white guys are so lazy" you say "that dude is lazy". But when a woman, black person, Korean, acts a certain way, it's a credit to that entire group. It's absolutely absurd.