How Are Women Discriminated Against?

[durutti]

I've been trying to find good sources of information on this topic. Women make 78 cents to the male dollar -- but the difference isn't necessarily due to discrimination.

So, please post any and all scientific evidence for discrimination against women that you know of. I don't mean personal anecdotes -- I mean legitimate, peer-reviewed social science.

[rasputin1952]

1. I have always felt that women were discriminated against...

in virtually every way imaginable. Things are changing, but the change is slow, unfortunately.

I have always been of the thought that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, religious thought or any other thing that can 'separate' people. To me it is simple, just treat people the same way you wish to be treated.

I know this does not answer your initial question, but statistics to me, hide the problem rather than expose it. Just do it, treat everyone the same; it really is not that hard.

O8)

[radwriter0555]

55. Birth contol pills, NOT covered, VIagra? COVERED... now why IS that?

is a brilliant, classic, and completely unanswerable question.

Boggles the mind.

[outinforce]

76. I Checked This Out With My Insurance Carrier

My insurance carrier will not cover Viagra, but will cover abortion.

Why is THAT?

[noiretextatique]

77. is erectile dysfunction life-threatening...ever?

in some cases, pregnancy can be life-threatening. a more apt comparsion would be to birth control, and even that isn't really that apt...

[sangh0]

213. No, but sometimes it seems like it is

:-)

[Kelvin Mace]

169. because

it is a cost-saving measure as far as the insurance company is concerned. Abortion is cheaper than delivery.

Sad, but true.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[pnb]

89. Must be different from my company

I can get birth control but not viagra

I guess that's what makes your questionable unanswerable, huh?

[tkulesa]

137. Insurance: Pregnancy

Remember the famous supreme court ruling that upheld the rights of insurance companies to NOT pay for pregnancy related claims? They said this did not discriminate against women because if men could get pregnant they wouldn't be covered either.

The outraged forced the government to pass new laws forcing insurance companies to cover pregnancy related claims. Meanwhile, there were no male-only claims that were being denied by these insurance companies. They were covering impotence treatments and a host of other things that only affect guys.

[togiak]

166. Impotence is a medical condition

Impotence is a medical condition while fertility is not.

[grannylib]

187. But infertility often is, and treatment for that is often not covered

[FizzFuzz]

198. oh, I thought infertility treatment often WAS covered

but maybe things have changed? I sure hope.....

[togiak]

215. OK

I'm not sure about infertility not being covered but I'll take your word for it. If that is the case then that would have been a better example than birth control pills.

I was just pointing out that covering viagra and not covering birth control are not due to discrimination but instead have a valid policy basis.

I tend not to believe that the insurance industry is out to get women and discriminate against them. The only religion that these people follow is the dollar.

[Kamika]

2. mainly when looking for jobs

People rather hire guys then women..


Also it's VERY hard for women to become CEO'S etc.. altough imo feminists should concentrate on fixing equality between women instead of trying to get a woman who already makes 10000 a month to become a CEO

[wuushew]

4. Many CEO's are assholes

why anyone would want to aspire to earn 500 times the base salary of the factory worker is beyond me.

[Kamika]

6. it's easy

you can buy ALOT of stuff

[outinforce]

85. Some Folks Feel That They Can

make a contribution to society.

Have you ever done the job of a CEO? Would you like to be in the positon of running a major corporation? Making decisions that could decide whether tens of thousands of factory workers are able to continue working or have to be laid off?

Many CEO's are assholes. But so are lots of factory workers. And I know several factory workers that are much more sexist than any CEO I happen to know.

Are you also suggesting that people should not aspire to make more than a factoryu worker? Or is 550 times the salary of a factory worker just too much for you to aspire to? How much is too much? Ten times the salary of a factory worker? 20? 30? 100?

How about pilots of commercial jets? They make big bucks. Are they crazy because their salary aspirations are much higher than a factory workers'?

People talk about a glass ceiling. I think you are suggesting some sort of ceiling, but I'm not quite sure what you think it should be made of.

[catzies]

78. Kamika, dear, plese explain what you meant.

"feminists should concentrate on fixing equality between women instead of trying to get a woman who already makes 10000 a month to become a CEO."

What do you mean by fixing equality between women?

Are you one of those girls who says "I'm not a feminist, but...?"

Do you think you're not one? What do you think they do, and what do you think they are?

Do you realize that "feminist" has been branded a dirty word in the same way that "liberal" has?

I'm guessing you're young.

[Kamika]

158. What I meant

There are women today who earns 10000 a month

Then there are women who barely make 500 a month.

The feminists of today are just striving to make the already rich educated woman a CEO etc, they should instead concentrate on the poor women.

It's a shame the woman who is a lawyer might not become a partner of the firm because of some sexist men, but atleast she already makes a lot of money.

[catzies]

160. I hope to change your mind/educate you a little more

I'm proud to say I'm a politically active feminist.

I'm my chapter's president of the National Women's Political Caucus. We are a multi-partisan, national grassroots organization with a single mandate: get pro-choice women elected and appointed at all positions from the local all the way up to the national level.

While our primary focus is getting women elected, we are also deeply concerned with several public policy issues. We are a founding partner of a local consortium of interested organizations, the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE).

In response to the growing feminization of poverty in our society and its devastating affects on low-income women and children in California's Central Coast region, in 2001 CAUSE established the Women's Economic Justice Project (WEJP).

Consistent with CAUSE's organizational mission to conduct community planning and policy research addressing the root causes of poverty and economic injustice, WEJP represents an effort to bring together progressive women leaders and low-wage working women from Ventura and Santa Barbara County to affect positive change for low income and working women in the region.

The WEJP seeks to achieve this goal through a four part strategy of public policy research, coalition building, leadership development and support for grassroots community and labor organizing efforts by low-wage working women. WEJP activities include the publication of a regional report on Women in Poverty, Women's Economic Justice Conferences, a girl and women student and worker internship and leadership development program, and ongoing assistance to unionization efforts by IHSS workers.

I view your statement of "The feminists of today are just striving to make the already rich educated woman a CEO etc" as being ignorant which can be changed with a little education. I don't mean to call you ignorant in the pejorative sense, and I hope you see it's to be meant in the sense of "unenlightened." Your blanket, over-general statements paint us all with a very broad brush and it's very unfair to state it as fact when you don't have all the facts.

But thank you very much for posting a response to my questions. I would hope that by providing you with concrete examples I could perhaps get you to stop seeing feminism in such a negative light.

[FizzFuzz]

191. catzies

:yourock:

P.S. I have pet toads, and my nickname is toadsies.

[primavera]

83. Join the nonprofit sector!

I've been very impressed by my experience working in nonprofits: women outnumber men at all levels, including upper management, by a sizable majority. So to all those slaving away in corporate America's male-dominated salt mines, take heart! There is a better way! Assuming, of course, the shrub gets kicked out of his usurped office, otherwise there probably won't be any nonprofit sector after November.

[pmbryant]

204. Not so fast ;-)

Certain non-profits that shall remain nameless are essentially corporations in disguise, and can be just as male-dominated, if not worse.

I'm not sure what the official definition of a "non-profit" is, but several I've seen are essentially ways for pseudo-corporations to funnel what otherwise would be profits into the senior executives' pocketbooks.

But I realize that there are a lot of true "non-profits" out there as well, and I am glad to hear that women are treated well in many such organizations.

--Peter

[highlonesome]

248. what about the pay gap?

Doesn't choosing a career in the non-profits help to maintain the gender pay gap? If you're a woman I mean.

[outinforce]

249. Careful, there,

I'd be reallly, reallllllllly careful there, if I were you, highlonesomeone.

Talk like that will have people accusing you that the wage gap is somehow the fault of women who choose jobs in the lower pay ranges.

It's happened to me.

Or be prepared to answer this question, also tossed my way, "If women don't do the jobs with the lower wages, then who will?"

[tkulesa]

138. I have a friend (female)

who I went to college with. We met because we were in some of the same classes. In class discussions she would sometimes get brushed off when she raised points. On at least two occassions that we remember clearly I raised the same point and was taken more seriously by the other students.

After college shared an apartment (still do). We worded in the same field (before she was hurt at teh WTC on 911) and both applied for the same jobs. When we started out she was more qualified that I was. She had two degrees to my one and she had higher grades. She also had a bit more relevant work experience. I got the offers.

We later ended up working together because I convinced my boss to hire her. We would go to meetings together where people would ask me questions about her projects.

I got paid more than her. My bonuses were more than hers.

Nobody in the office every bothered to give me grief about the style of my professional clothes, but people commented on her clothing negatively all the time. And worse, it was because she dressed well, not because she dressed poorly. Looking professional was held against her. I can only imagine that looking poorly would also have been held against her.

Nobody in the office pestered me with questions about my personal life but she got pestered all the time. Like me, she keeps that stuff private. She got a lot of grief for refusing to talk about her personal life, whether or not we were a couple, who she was dating, etc. Nobody ever questioned or bothered me.

So the discrimination I saw her deal with because she was a woman was of several sorts.

It is odd to have such a good basis for comparison. But these experiences have made it obvious to me that women really do experience a whole lot of discrimination. I notice it a lot more and can't believe people don't see it.

[displacedtexan]

3. Are you a 12 year old boy?

If you are, google "women" and "discrimination."

If you're not, which rock have you been living under?

Edited to include: I don't mean to offend, but I can't think of a single culture in which women are not victims of discrimination. If you live in one that doesn't, please enlighten me.

[togiak]

167. Unfair post

That post is an non-answer to the question. He wasn't saying that it doesn't exist, he was asking for real empirical evidence as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

Also, I think that it is important that we define discrimination here. There is a broad spectrum of views on discrimination against women. It ranges from women who don't want to be chattel to women who think that child birth is a form of oppression of women.

I think that women are placed in a secondary roles in most all societies. But how do we define equality? What is the ultimate goal?

[ikojo]

5. Woman here....

I have never really felt discriminated against on account of my gender. I have had only female bosses so why would they discriminate against me? What I have experienced is discrimination based upon how I dress, because I don't dress all that femmy (I like polos and khakis and no frills) and tennis shoes. That is not a femmy outfit to many women.

I had a FEMALE manager tell us in a meeting, when she was talking about mandatory overtime, that women had no right to complain that it was hard to do just because they had kids. She said, "I've been in this business for 20 plus years and I had kids too so deal with it. I don't want to hear any excuses for not doing to the overtime." Being one with no kids there was a part of me that went "YES!" but another part thought she was being hard and uncaring. Oh in case you were wondering I work in that compassionate field, health insurance (HMO).

If women are discriminated against and if they do earn .78 to every man's dollar I wonder if that is due to the fact that women have babies (maternity leave is mostly unpaid in the US). When the average wage is calculated, the period of time when a woman is earning no money due to maternity leave causes her overall per hour pay rate to be lower.

I think we need paid medical leave in the US. Maternity AND Paternity leave as well as other medical leave should be PAID.

[wellstone_democrat]

8. Very nice synthesis of conservative points

but don't think I'll play. Nice flamebait though.

[Karenina]

18. Psssst.... w_d

who cut the cheese??? Musta been som o' dat FRENCH stuff! ;-)

[LiberalFighter]

52. If you are in a union...

you are not likely to lose time because of maternity. Your seniority will continue unless it is time for time.

[tkulesa]

139. I love to babysit

My friend Jen is a single mom with two kids. I babysit for her all the time. I also hear all the horror stories about how she gets treated when she needs to take time off because one of the kids is sick, or she needs to meet with a teacher, or she needs to go pick up her kid from daycare and can't work late, etc.

Fathers usually (disclaimer) don't get that kind of grief. Why? Because the moms end up taking the time off most of the time. And when a father takes time off it's considered wonderful that he cares so much about his kids.

[camero]

7. Ok, here goes

Women enter and leave the work force on account of having children and other such things. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it if it's the woman's choice. What we should really be asking is why a household needs 2 or more incomes to survive as opposed to one in prior years.

This makes women being in the workforce punitive and not optional.

Sorry, flame away.

Edit: I just want to clarify that what I mean by punitive is that they have to work as opposed to them wanting to work.

[iverglas]

9. gee, guy

What we should really be asking is why a household needs
2 or more incomes to survive as opposed to one in prior years.

This makes women being in the workforce punitive and not optional.

How come this consideration only applies to women? Why is it "punitive" to expect anyone to be engaged in a productive activity in order to meet his/her needs and the needs of his/her dependants??

Women have always been in the work force. The frilly-aproned stay-at-home mawmmie is an invention of the North American 1950s, something that previously existed only in the upper reaches of the class system.

There really was a time when women were producers of goods and services, and not merely consumers. Where do we imagine soap came from before Palmolive came along? Bread, before Wonder? Clothing, and the stuff it's made out of, before WalMart? That time was, in fact, most of human history, when women milked cows and churned the butter, fed the sheep and spun the wool, hauled the water, and made all the products, out of the various raw materials they produced or grew or collected, that their households and families needed in order to survive.

For most of human history, women simply did not focus their energies, for a couple of decades of their adult lives, on childrearing. And in fact even those women who were not engaged in work -- i.e. the upper classes -- seldom had much to do with childrearing either. That's what servants were for. And in the other classes, children both assisted in the household production of goods and services (on farms, for instance) and participated in the rearing of younger children in the family, as did other members of the extended family.

In later societies, working-class women, including mothers, worked producing goods and services for consumers outside their household, just as their husbands did, as paid labour -- either in shops and factories or doing piecework (laundry, sewing) in their homes.

The elevation of stay-at-home mawmmies to some ideal that either women should aspire to or society should promote is a very recent phenomenon, having far more to do with patriarchy and capitalism than women's or children's own interests. Women in the workforce compete with men for jobs, and in the post-WWII period, for instance, a large body of returning young, male members of the military released into the economy without jobs would have had a seriously destabilizing effect on society, and on the ability of the rich to stay in control of it. Women were therefore put back into long skirts, high heels and the kitchens of North America -- in the suburbs that fueled the housing boom that fueled that economy, where they were isolated inside their households in a way that women had never been before and inculcated with the idea that their children needed them 24 hours a day (and that they and the children needed the stream of goods and services that the economy was producing, to sell to them for a profit).


As to the silly remark in a previous post that women leaving the work force affected their average earnings because a time with zero earnings brings down the average, surely it's obvious that those average earnings are calculated on the basis of time in the workforce, not time out of it.

What time out of the workforce does do is reduce women's lifetime earning ability, and not just by the earnings lost during time spent out of the workforce. Women, on average and on the whole, simply never catch up to their male counterparts who do not take time out: they lose seniority and training opportunities, and seldom are able simply to pick up where they left off even apart from what they lost.

Forgive me, camero, but your suggestion that a household should be able to live in comfort on only one income, in an age when women in the home do not produce any significant proportion of the goods and services used by the household, simply gives aid and comfort to those who would keep women in the home, by choice or not.

If wages paid by employers should be sufficient for one individual to support a household single-handed, and if we start from the assumption that it is women who will choose/should choose to stay home (which certainly is the case now, and will likely be the case as long as women earn less on average than men), then obviously:

- any woman employed will be taking bread from the mouths of the kiddies of the man whom she is displacing, and

- and it will be acceptable to pay working women less than men because after all, they aren't supporting families.

And where might we have heard that before?

.

[camero]

11. I'm not arguing that

You are correct. I just think that the families themselves should have the option of who works in the family.

It sounds chauvinist I know and I apologize. I just believe that the way the corps are setting this up, the whole family will have to work to make ends meet and children will also be set up as laborers.

That is all. Just one income whether it's the man or the woman working should be enough to sustain a household.

Edit: I just think we need progress on living wages so that the whole family doesn't have to work to survive. That is ultimately what I am saying.

[iverglas]

19. I'm disappointed

That is all. Just one income whether it's the man or the woman working should be enough to sustain a household.

You didn't address anything I said about that. The fact that as long as women *do* make a fraction of what men make, on average, it *will* be women staying home is only one aspect of the problem.

The notion that rearing one's own children is a job, and that one spouse essentially employs the other to do it, is the first problem. This relegates huge numbers of people to "employment" as child rearers for substantial portions of their adult lives, when that is neither necessary nor what many people would like to be doing, and when it is not what the human race ever did before the last half-century or so.

It is bizarre, in terms of what humans and human society had done for centuries and millennia before, to suddenly up and decide that childrearing and productive work are mutually exclusive, and that the childrearing functions in a family should be performed by one person virtually exclusively.

It is simplistic and *wrong* to assume that people work only because they have to in order to support themselves and their dependants at a minimum level, as your proposal necessarily implies. Some people do want more goods and services than that single income can procure -- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And some people want to put their talents to work for purposes that they find fulfilling and not limit themselves for years on end to rearing children.

And the simple fact is that if we *promote* stay-at-home parenting, including by whatever arrangement we might come up with to ensure that a single income is sufficient to support a household in the style which it chooses, we will necessarily be *deterring* people who don't "need" jobs from getting jobs, since they will be viewed as supplanting those who do need jobs. And there will be justification for paying any "secondary" income-earners who are employed (keeping in mind that there has always been and will always be "women's work" in an economy like ours -- work that men do not want to do, for whatever reason) than a "primary" income-earner.

Since women have been the victims of all these phenomena in the past, and none of the factors that contributed to that victimization have been eliminated, there is simply no reason to predict that women would not be the victims in the future.

[camero]

20. Wouldn't a living wage ordinance bring women's wages

up to par? I quite thoroughly understand what you are saying. And yes the one income argument probably would be taken as such unfortunately considering the pay inequities.

As you should know, many people are working just to survive. I admit, I'm putting the cart before the horse.

[iverglas]

25. has minimum wage law

brought women's wages up to par?

I'd surely think that a "living wage ordinance" would reduce the number of jobs. I don't hold with the right-wing argument that this is the effect of minimum wage laws as a whole, but there is such a huge gulf between today's minimum wage and the income needed by a sole wage-earner to support a family decently that I'd expect employment to contract.

In fact, wouldn't that be the whole point? To make it possible for one adult out of every two in households with children to *not* work? What would happen to all the jobs they do now? Maybe women would indeed go back to making soap and sewing trousers, rather than selling them to one another at WalMart. You do know how many mothers are in the labour market at present, right?

Again, the simple fact is that women's labour has always been essential to the economy. The goods and services that women have always produced -- whether in the home or in a factory or in a shop -- have always accounted for a very substantial proportion of the goods and services produced in the economy.

If one person in every two-adult household withdraws from the labour market, *somebody* is going to have to produce those goods and services somewhere. Even if we stopped buying more cars and more TVs and more shampoo, removing half of the adult population from productive employment is going to have a pretty big effect.

And again, you are not addressing the utopian nature of your proposal. Where does this idea come from, that every household should have an adult whose efforts are devoted entirely to child-rearing (and okay, other household-maintenance activities)? When has this ever been the case? Even in the idealized 1950s, women worked outside the home in reasonably large numbers, as nurses and teachers and shop clerks and so on.

As you should know, many people are working just to survive.

If I didn't know you, I'd suspect you of disingenuousness.

You are saying "just to survive" as the flip side of "to prosper and grow wealthy and buy all the good things in life".

I was saying "just to survive" as the flip side of "to do something they find personally fulfilling, enjoyable, meaningful".

I admit, I'm putting the cart before the horse.

I think you're inventing a cart that we've never had before and don't want or need now!

.

[camero]

26. No, actually I'm looking at it

From being on the bottom of the pile for so long. There is just as much class based discrimination as there is other forms of discrimination. From both sexes.

We forget that both men and women are oppressed by the system we have now and that it is powerful men doing the discriminating. The rest of us are just trying to have meaningful lives.

I would like to see all forms of discrimination eliminated. That is not going to happen by beating down someone else with no power.

You probably have come from a different class than I have. Not everybody wants nannies raising thier children. That is what you're leaving out. So what's the answer?

[smirkymonkey]

29. It's not just powerful men doing the

discriminating against women - it is prevalent throughout all races and classes.

[camero]

30. So let's just beat on poor men?

Do you beat a disease by just treating the symptoms? No, you go after the source. I'd much rather go after it by fighting the inequity of wealth than by crushing ants so to speak.

[smirkymonkey]

38. Where did I say that??

"Let's just beat on POOR men??" - what on earth are you talking about. That wasn't a slam, just an observation.

I think the only people from whom you will get the real story from are those who are actually being discriminated AGAINST, whether it be sex, race, class, sexual orientation, etc.

Sexism is not only manifested in the realm of economics, but in almost every aspect of life. The thing is, most of us (men and women) are so entrenched in these dynamics that it is easier to deny it than to face reality and actually have to CHANGE.

There are so many examples of it I wouldn't know where to start.

[camero]

42. Well I have been

Because of disability. Which is a topic that is rarely discussed here and never in this forum. You're right.

I'm just starting to learn now that I don't matter. Maybe that's for the best.

[iverglas]

44. this is simply unpleasant

This thread was about discrimination against women -- whatever the intent of starting the thread was, that's what it's about.

You claim to have suffered discrimination based on disability. I don't doubt for a nanosecond that your claim is true.

You say that the topic is rarely discusssed at DU and specifically in GD.

So?

What has that got to do with a discussion of the nature of discrimination against women??

If you want to discuss discrimination against people with disabilities, start a thread. I can't guarantee I'll participate, not having a great deal of personal experience in the realm.

But I'd voice the same objections to any disingenuous or deceitful or just plain dumb responses to your claim of discrimination as I would to any such response in reply to anyone else's legitimate expression of blatantly obvious well-founded grievances.

Indeed, a lot of people are not very familiar with the discrimination faced by people with disabilities -- not to mention the general unintended hardship that our society causes them and barriers it throws up in the path without actually even thinking. It's entirely reasonable for you to want more people to understand the problem.

But it has nothing at all to do with women's legitimate complaints of discrimination -- unless you want to make a connection involving the common causes of the two problems, perhaps, eh?

You seem to be the one playing "the discrimination you suffer doesn't matter", and not anyone else. No one who objects to the discrimination or hardship s/he suffers may ever be taken as denying or downplaying the discrimination or hardship anyone else suffers, *unless* s/he expressly does so.

Your apparent sarcastic inference from the fact that your statements in a thread about discrimination against women have been criticized means that you "don't matter", presumably in the eyes of the people talking to you or of DU or the world in general, is wholly unsupported by the facts.

To be perfectly honest, I've had some qualms about, shall we say, the emphasis of the board recently. One might think, if one didn't know better, that gay men and lesbians had it a whole lot worse off than African-Americans or women or people with disabilities ... or unemployed workers, or abused children, or Colombian peasant farmers.

But I regard the phenomenon as temporary; it's a function of what's in the news and who's posting. I don't ever presume that anyone posting about his/her own problems denies or downplays anyone else's problems. I don't assume exclusionary *intent* unless there is a basis for assuming it.

So g'head. Start a thread about the kinds of discrimination suffered by people with disabilities. People could certainly learn from it (although I would not put "learning" at the top of what I think many people's purpose here is), and surely there are others who would contribute to advancing general understanding of the issues. I promise to at least read it ... and to unleash my very sharp tongue on anyone who does attempt to deny or downplay your problems.

.

[Ripley]

88. What a great post.

Thanks for that. I've had some qualms about many things on this board recently too. Certain bigotries are accepted.

[ngGale]

66. Camero I know exactly how you feel as...

even my own family doesn't really understand. But don't ever stop fighting. ~Martin Luther King I can say that Bill Clinton made me have pride in myself. Bush has continued to drag down my self-esteem ever since he walked through the door. Get in touch with me and we will talk.

[tkulesa]

140. I have been discriminated against because of my disability too

I think it rarely gets talked about because there are so few of us who can talk about it safely.

So many people with disabilities are dependent on social workers, agencies, charities, doctors and bureaucrats of all kinds that we quickly learn that having an opinion will be used against us.

I have had doctors become hostile because they asked a social or political question and I gave an opinion they didn't like. In two cases, they then stopped taking my medical issues seriously and suggested that it was all in my head.

Doctor who says "it's all in your head" should be taken out and shot.

Back in college there was the imfamous "Office of Services for the Handicapped." The people in that office treated students with disabilities like imbeciles. It was almost assumed that students with disabilities only graduate because of social promotion. And it was taken for granted that most of us would never have careers anyway so why get into a professional degree program? They took horrible liberties pushing people into certain programs (Social Word being the big one) as if we can't work in professional fields with everyone else.

I remember a friend of mind, Kevin, who had 2 undergraduate degrees being evaluated by a bureaucrat with an associates degree who told him that he was only qualified to work on an assembly line in a sheltered workshop. There was no effort to help him get any real career guidance or assistance. It was just assumed that he was useless and had to get used to it.

The worst thing that could happen to you was to be labeled a troublemaker. And this could be for something as simple as requesting a locker on campus because you can't easily carry books. (I kid you not.) Any request could become an issue just because you dared to ask for something. Then you were guaranteed to have a hell of a time getting any of the help that was supposed to be mandated. Everything became a fight.

So college is just another environment were people with disabilities learn that you have to agree with what the non-disabled bureaucrats say or else. Be docile and agreeable, or else.

People who don't have disabilities will never understand the level of dependence can can be forced down your throat, or the pressure that can be put on you to conform to every social worker and administrator's views of who you should be.

So is it any wonder that discrimination against people with disabilities doesn't get discussed?

[iverglas]

150. start a thread?

-- with exactly this post?

Even as a person with the minor disability of coke-bottle glasses (about -7 diopters at their worst ... until I got middle-aged and started needing quadrifocals to do anything) I've encountered a couple of things you mention -- like that dismissive doctor thing. (Never express a social/political opinion to an ophthalmologist, or hint that you'd like some input into the prescription he's giving you.)

And I've certainly had clients whose troubles I could contribute, which certainly reflected what you've said. (No, not a social worker me, the lawyer they retained when they got sick of them.)

See? I *could* contribute something! Not by way of sharing your pain, but by way of "getting it", maybe. Empathy's a good thing, and hitting people where they can identify even a teeny bit can help.

Thanks for an insightful analysis of the problems. Please do start a thread!

.

[iverglas]

32. what are you talking about??

I would like to see all forms of discrimination eliminated. That is not going to happen by beating down someone else with no power.

Did I somewhere suggest that someone else with no power should be "beat down"??

We forget that both men and women are oppressed by the system we have now and that it is powerful men doing the discriminating.

Yes -- who did you think I was saying was responsible for the forced exodus of women from the labour force post-WWII?

I thought I'd made it plain, for one thing, that since a large group of unemployed former soldiers might have destabilized society -- what if they'd actually revolted, as they didn't manage to do during the Depression? -- it was in those powerful men's interests to do everything they did do to get women out of the jobs in question. They invented happy housewives, and suburbs, and clothes driers and all manner of "labour-saving" devices (that women actually spent more time using than their grandmothers had spent doing the work by hand).

Turning women into CONSUMERS in the home, rather than producers, was good for PROFITS.

And yes indeed -- it made MEN more vulnerable to exploitation, since their need for employment was that much greater, with the goods and services that women formerly produced in the home having to be purchased from those who produce them for a profit.

But MEN do not have unequal access to opportunites, or unequal success in the opportunites available, because they are men. It's as simple as that.

There is just as much class based discrimination as there is other forms of discrimination. From both sexes.

Again, we're seeing apples and oranges.

"Discrimination" -- are people discriminated against based on class when they apply for employment for which they are qualified? That doesn't really make much sense. Maybe if we're talking applying for a job at Uncle Bob's law firm, but not applying for most of the jobs where women (and members of various racial and ethnic minorities) find themselves losing out to less-qualified men (or members of the racial/ethnic majority). Or being stereotyped in a way that confines them to low-paying employment ghettoes. Women suffer the adverse effects of both class oppression AND sexual discrimination.

Class isn't a matter of discrimination. It is certainly a matter of unequal opportunity, which is of course a huge issue; but it isn't usually a matter of unequal success in the opportunities available, which is what discrimination is and which is what women and minorities suffer.

Perhaps we are thinking of affirmative action-type stuff. And yes, that is not designed to address discrimination against individuals, it is designed to address the unequal opportunities available to members of certain groups. And yes, the working class is a group that has unequal access to opportunities.

And what any of this has to do with proposing that an ideal world would be one in which vast numbers of adults withdraw permanently from the work force is kinda beyond me!

You probably have come from a different class than I have. Not everybody wants nannies raising thier children. That is what you're leaving out. So what's the answer?

Excuse me? I wasn't aware that we were on terms as bad as these. Or that anything I had said was so objectionable as to make me look like someone raised by a nanny. I think the actual problem is that you don't know enough history and economics to understand the serious problems that patriarchy causes for women, and the problems for women that are inherent in your simplistic "solution".

Fyi, I was born in the early 1950s in a working-class neighbourhood of a very class-conscious little city in southern Ontario, and after I started school my parents were "successful" enough to buy a tiny tract house in a new subdivision, in the wrong end of town and literally the wrong side of two sets of tracks. My dad was white-collar working class: a travelling salesman, who did eventually prosper, over the years in that work. My mum was a secretary before marriage ... but was fired from her job with the federal government when she married, and did not work outside the home after having children. Many of our working-class neighbours did -- as nurse's aides, retail clerks and office workers. I put my own self through university and law school on scholarship, student loan and grant, and part-time employment. And the only babysitters I knew as a child were my grandparents.

What's the answer? Goodness. There are a couple of decades of socialist / feminist writings about that, that we could fruitfully discuss! (Why would you think that I'd think that nannies -- among the most exploited of women workers -- were the answer?) Me, though, I gotta get to work and keep working until about 9 a.m. I'm afraid. The joys of self-employment. At least my employer isn't discriminating against me ...

.


.

[LiberalFighter]

54. Would it be better for a woman making generally less than a man..

to work instead of the man if the woman still makes more than her husband? Provided the man doesn't have an ego problem.

[kayell]

10. Wonderful, just wonderful

As though I wasn't thoroughly enjoying hearing how as a lesbian, I have not been subjected to any real discrimination, now I'm going to get to hear the same tired RW points about women. And all couched in some ultra-reasonable sounding language and no doubt preceded with occasional proclamations that "I just LOVE women, but...". Oh, goody. :eyes:

[historian]

12. form of discrimination

My wife is a speech therapist and as such is limited in her struggle for better wages. Why? Because according to one idiot who denied her raise (even though she had increased his clientele) told her "Speech is a womans field."
That was it. Explanation given.
If that isnt discrimination please let me know what is.

[cedahlia]

31. "woman's field"

Sadly, this is also true of the library science field, which is commonly referred to as a "woman's field," which I guess makes it a field worthy of crappy wages. :eyes: It's pretty sad that one must have a Masters degree in order to even officially call oneself a librarian, and when one does get said degree, you're lucky to make 30k a year. *Sigh*...it's definitely a labor of love for us library gals.

[outinforce]

87. If the Wages Are So Crappy,

then why did you enter that profession?

This is something I have never really understood. Certain occupations are well-known to offer lower wages.

And still people go into them. Even get advances degrees in order to be able to enter those occupations.

Why?

Why not go into other, higher-paying occupations?

Is it the fault of school placement offiers who don't advise students that wages in certain occupations are low?

[Ripley]

90. So who would teach kids or run day care centers,

or be secretaries or be cooks, or do all the jobs that women do? Men? No, when men do those jobs they get a spiffy new name and they are suddenly more valuable and paid more. See Chef Emeril, see male corporate assistant, see male athletes.

Why do you think women should inherently be paid less than men? Why are their jobs less valuable than mens? I think women who take care of children should be paid more than carpenters. Quite a bit more at stake.

[outinforce]

97. Where Do You Think I Said that

Where is it, exactly, that you think I said "women should inherently be paid less than men?"

I NEVER said any such thing, and I frankly resent your implication that I even think that!

What I asked was why people, knowing that the wages of certain occupations are "crappy", go into those occupations.

As long as people -- male or female -- willing accept employment in low-paying jobs, the jobs will continue to be low-paying. It's really that simple.

You may think (and I may agree) that women who care for children should be paid more than carpenters. I may also think that school bus drivers should make more money than commercial jet pilots, or that Britney Spears or Christine Aquilara make far too much money, and that each of them should make less than the lowest-paid secretary.

You raise the issue of male athletes.

Let me raise the issue of entertainers. Isn't Oprah the most highly compensated entertainer right now? Discrimination against men at play there, do you think? Or could other, gender-neutral, market forces be at work?

[Ripley]

153. Ah, there it is. The token Oprah.

Wow, we have one rich black woman in America and it's considered what? Male discrimination? You seriously need help.

Gender-neutral market forces at work? Why are you here, you clearly are not a progressive.

[outinforce]

156. Thanks for Your Diagnosis

So, Ripley, you think that I need help -- seriously need help.

And you are just certain that I do not belong here, and that I am "clearly" not a progressive.

Why is that, exactly?

I might be inclined to argue (but I won't) that folks who like to wallow in victimhood are the ones in serious need of help.

I would just point out that not all women are in low-paying, dead-end jobs, any more than all men are in high-paying jobs. Women can and do succeed in all walks of life.

[maxanne]

218. how many other

Oprahs can you name? Please, tote out for us the vast numbers of black female millionaires.

Where's the female equivalent of Bill Gates, Ken Lay, Donald Trump,or Alan Greenspan?

Tell me something - who will do the crappy jobs if everyone goes into the "important" job market?

[outinforce]

225. Other Names

Barbara Streisland, Diane Von Furstenberg, Martha Stewart, Britney Spears, Leona Helmsley, Helen Gurley Brown, Gloria Allred.

None of the black, but then that was not the issue, was it? These are all women who are at the top. Making far more money than I.

And it is not abojut "crappy jobs" -- its abojut jobs with crappy wages.

Are you really suggesting that women should continue to accept employment in jobs with crappy wages because if they did n ot, no one else would do them?

That sounds like an awfully strange rationale for having (or encouraging) women to select or remain in those occupations.

[maxanne]

226. try rereading my post

and actually addressing my questions.

[outinforce]

227. I Have

I did.

Good Night.

[maxanne]

232. color me

unsurprised.

[Pithlet]

92. Wow

Who knew it was so easy. Just choose to have a job that pays more. Tomorrow, I'll have to remind myself to change my choice. Tomorrow, I'm going to be a film actress that commands 10 mil a picture. Or, perhaps, a CEO of a huge corporation. No, wait, 1st string quarterback for the New England patriots, except dammit, I'm a woman, so scratch that. Anyway, it's a matter of choice, so the possibilities are almost endless. I have seen the light. No more mediocre middle class for me!

[outinforce]

99. If You Were Advising A Young Woman or Girl

concerning her choice of an occupation to enter, what would you tell her?

Would you tell her that there are certain jobs that are richly rewarding but which have low wages? Or would you tell her that there are other occupations that pay a lot more?

I think it is just wonderful that you are able to become a film actress that commands 10 mil a picture. I might suggest that you hold out for more than 10 mil, though. And I also think it is wonderfuil that you can even think about being a CEO of a huge corporation.

Most people arfen't quite as lucky as you, though. Most of us -- men and women -- simply aren't able to make those changes in our occupations.

That is why those decisions that people make about their first jobs can be so important.

And THAT is why I don't understand why people enter into occupations if they know that the wages are crappy instead of entering into other occupations that they enjoy and which pay higher wages.

[Pithlet]

100. I'm sorry

I know it's hard for some people to grasp that people don't always mean literally what they say. Sometimes they're being sarcastic. I know I was moving a little bit too fast for you.

What I would advise has nothing to do with it. How is that relevant to this discussion?

You really can't understand why people enter occupations with crappy wages? I think maybe you could, if you thought about it a little bit. But, it is easier to deny that there are barriers to those jobs that pay well, that most cannot get past, otherwise we'd all be well paid. It's easier to say "It's their fault. They made that choice", and then be smug and self satisfied about the fact that you didn't choose that way.

Or, maybe you really do think you live in a world where it is simply a matter of choice. I would like to live in that world.

[outinforce]

103. I, too, am Bitter

I, too, am bitter about all those barriers that prevented me from becoming a highly-paid male athlete. And I am hardly smug, because I encountered barriers that prevented me from becoming an unbelievably wealthy rock star, like Birtney Spears.

And my bitterness at the world I live in bubbles up whenever I think about all the barriers in my world that prevented me from becoming an attorney like Gloria Allred.

And I sit around all day, being bitter and feeling like a victim. Because I encountered barriers. Believe me, I understand barriers. They are so paralyzing and they induce such bitterness in me. Life is just so unfair! And, speaking only for myself, it is just so much easier to sit around and look at all the things that prevent me from making more money, and to wallow in my own victimhood.

Smug? Not me. Slef-satisfied? Hardly. Believe that I live in a wolrd where it is all a matter of choice? No, I am a victim who believe that my fate is define by the barriers I did not or could not (or perhaps even would not) overcome.

[Pithlet]

105. Who said I was bitter?

I was only pointing out the fallicy in your argument that anyone can overcome anything by simply making a choice. Just find a better job. You make it sound so easy. By pointing out that it isn't isn't bitterness, or wallowing in any kind of victimhood.

[outinforce]

107. No One.

But then, who, other than you, said that I was smug and self-satisfied?

See how that works?

You, I guess, get to deduce from things that I have written, that I have certain traits that most people would find unattractive. And, I guess, you get to post them.

But if I read what you write, and make certain deductions about your traits, I guess that's just out of bounds, isn't it? After all, all you were doing is pointing out one of my fallacies.

You get to say that I am "smug" and "self-satisfied". Perhaps if you were to focus on the issue -- and less upon what you perceive to be my character flaws -- you might find me less likely to suggest that your posts seem to me to demonstrate some bitterness.

Nonetheless, I will do what decent people do when they have offended other people.

I will apologize.

I am sorry, pithlet, that I misinterpreted your comments and said that I, too, am bitter, thereby saying that you are bitter. And if my comments caused you any hurt, I apologize for that also.

[Pithlet]

110. I was not offended.

Just pointing out that I'm not bitter. I do apologize for the smug and self satisfied remark. You should realize, however, that people who say the same things that you do often come off that way. Most of the time, when people put the blame where it doesn't belong, it is to make themselves feel better. I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt when pointing out your error in doing so, a long time ago in another thread. You're continued arguments, here, and in other threads, come across in a bad way.

[outinforce]

114. Thanks For Being

so judgmental.

It appears that you get to decide arguments that are "good" and "bad", and that you've decided that my arguments come across in a bad way.

I find this most offensive.

I could have made a similar comment about your arguments, but I happen to think it is very offensive to say that someone else's argument is "bad" -- precisely because that puts the person who makes that comment in the position of judging the "goodness" of someone else's argument.

It is one thing to say that I disagree with another person's comment, and to state why I disagree. But to call another person's argument "bad" is to judge another person. And if I were to call another person's argument "bad", it would sort of imply that I, along with my arguments, am "good", right?

And I thank you as well for the apology. But when I apologize, I try to do so without trying to defend myself for what I am apologizing for. I don't say things like "I apologize for suggesting that you were bitter, but you should realize, however, that people who say the same things that you do often come off that way. Most of the time, when people put the blame where it doesn't belong, it is to make themselves feel better." If I were to say something like that when I apologize, I think my apology would be less than genuine. I would, I think, be saying, "It's your fault I suggested you were bitter.", and that would not be a real apology, in my book.

[Pithlet]

115. No

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be guilted into feeling bad because I disagree with you.

Yes, going into a "Are women discriminated against" thread, and suggesting that discrimination is their fault because they choose those low paying jobs sounds bad. If that makes me judgmental, then so be it.

[outinforce]

122. On Being "Guilted"

Talk about wanting to make another person feel guilty!

You suggest -- no, you actually say -- that because I go into a "Are Women Discriminated Thread" and (according to you) suggest that discrimination is their fault, that I am bad.

Where is it, exactly, that I suggested that discrimination is the fault of women?

You charge against me pre-supposes, I think, that low-paying jobs are, by themselves, proof of discrimination. If that is so, then are males who are in low-paying jobs that are mostly male somehow the victims of discrimination?

You also seem to suggest that the only appropriate post in a thread such as this is to say "Why, Of Course!" That, for you, appears to be the only thing someone ought to say in response to the title of this thread.

And you want to make me feel guilty because I asked a question about why a person would become a librarian if she knew that librarians were low paid? I can think of many answers to that question, and I was frankly waiting to hear some.

[Pithlet]

125. Oh, brother.

You were the one begging for an apology, not me.

I don't care if you feel guilt or not. You respond to a thread. Others who disagree with you respond, and point out where you're wrong. If you do feel guilty, then maybe you should reexamine your opinion on the matter of women and equality.

[outinforce]

152. LOL!

"Begging" for an apology?!

I rather think not. I extended you an apology.

Thanks for your admission that you do not care about my feelings. I find that I am sometimes accused of being "insensitive" to the feelings of others here. It is somewhat refreshing to see that there is a person who is honest enough to admit that she doesn't care about my feelings.

I understand perfectly that this is a discussion board. And I also understand that people will disagree. What I find a trifle offensive is when someone says that "others disagree and point out where I"m wrong".

They do not point out why I am wrong, anymore than I point out where someone else is wrong.

What they point out is where they disagree. And I would never suggest that when I disagree with another person, that I am right and they are wrong. That is the mark, in my view, of a bigoted, narrow-minded person who has closed her/his mind to the possibility that another person, with a different point of view, could be correct.

I never feel guilty about disagreeing with another person. There are several people here on DU who, through their posts, have shaped and formed and helped me to modify my opinions about a variety of things.

But anyone who takes the approach with me that they are correct and I am wrong -- and there are more than a few of them around -- will have little success convincing me.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbieinok]

108. like IT with very high wages once but now no jobs???

...

[maxanne]

214. oh, good

so only some occupations actually matter? Elitist much?

[LiberalFighter]

57. That is a different way of enforcing wage discrimination

What should be the criteria to be considered in setting the salary?

The field? Not by gender!
Education? HS? College degree? Master's degree?
Bringing in more business/clients?
Experience? Specialized?
Availability of those qualified?

Back to the "Speech is a woman's field" I would rebut and say that means you have fewer speech therapists if men don't pursue that profession.

[mantis49]

113. Whether a field is dominated by women or men

has a lot to do with their pay. Example: Nurses, who have to have some kind of college education (different levels) and are responsible for people's lives, get less pay than, say, garbage collectors or flagpersons on road construction sites. Those jobs have been traditionally male, but don't require an education.

Why that discrepancy? Sexual discrimmination is the only explanation.

[outinforce]

157. Why Do You Think

that sexual discrimination is the only explanation?

It could just as easily be that garbage collectors have a stronger, more aggressive union than nurses.

[highlonesome]

185. it's the free market

I'm a little skeptical that garbage collectors earn more than nurses. Do you have any stats on this?

Salaries have a heck of a lot more to with money than whether or not it's usually women doing the job. By that I mean occupations that generate profit tend to yield higher pay than those that don't.

Take a field like elemetary school teaching. Of course it's necessary and highly important and is also prediminantly a woman's field. But it is paid for either with tax revenue in a public system or with tuition in a private institution. Tax dollars aren't profit. It's money that politicians limit as a means to stay in office or we won't vote for them. The fact that it's part of their job to keep taxes low is what also keeps teacher salaries low.

Another factor is desirability of the job. Ask yourself: why is she a nurse when she could make more as a trash collector? Because it's an undesirable job.

[FizzFuzz]

189. service jobs

have always been dominated by women....and the pay stinks, usually.
You're right about the pay being proportionate to the profit factor.

I don't agree that the free market is actally free, though. Unfortunately, I haven't read much in the field, so I can't back that up.

Gee, now I'm kind of curious...I work at a medium size college; I wonder how I could get some numbers on pay?? Like, a male-dominated job and female-dominated, even though they are rated at the same pay level, where do they stand WITHIN that level? (there's alot of variablility within each range)...hmmmm

[highlonesome]

186. found it!!

Check this link:

http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm

It's the bureau of labor staistics. The closest I could find to garbage collectors was building grounds cleaning and maintenance...mean salary $20,800/yr

Licensed practical nurse...mean salary $32,300/yr

Registered nurse...mean salary $49,840/yr

So much for that theory

[FizzFuzz]

203. gee I'm looking at that page now

at a long list of various jobs, and for every occupation I look at, Men earn more than women, looks like on average, by $200/week.

Even in fields dominated by women, like real estate and paralegal...men still out-earn.

How 'bout dat theory?

[Skittles]

15. KAYELL, WHO SAID LESBIANS DON'T FACE DISCRIMINATION???

I WILLKICK THEIR ASSES.

[kayell]

24. I forget who they all were, although I think several are now tombstoned

They were actually saying that gays and lesbians in general (probably bi and transgendered too) didn't suffer discrimination under any accepted sense of the word. They believed that people can not be discriminated against because of
a. differences are not visible like skin color.
b. gays and lesbians are incredibly well off financially (nice myth that, wish it were true), so not discriminated against
c. any trouble we get is because we make "lifestyle choices" that are disturbing to other people.
d. assorted other reasons like glbt people make non-mainstream clothing choices, so our appearance (see a.) puts people off. I never said they were consistant in their reasoning. :eyes:
e. Forgot a biggie - there is no such thing as discrimination against a choice. Cause we all know that there is no such thing as religious discrimination.

You are sure to see more of it, even from long term posters. Most of the high count people who do it, have figured out how to word these points nice and subtly, so far affording a funeral.

I hope you do kick their asses. There are always more asses that need kicked. :kick:

[Skittles]

27. HEY! WHY DO MY GAY FRIENDS BORROW MONEY FROM ME ???

IF THEY ARE SO WELL-OFF FINANCIALLY !!!! :7

[kayell]

48. Um, because it's a myth?

Are you meaning to yell?

[Skittles]

71. I yell a lot kayell

it's my nature :)

of course I know it's a myth. One of many, many silly myths. :)

[Woodstock]

33. I was just thinking the same thing

First gays, now women. And this is supposed to be a progressive forum. Next, I guess it will be, show me scientifically how African Americans are discriminated against. You see, it's all in their heads.

[smirkymonkey]

13. I can't even believe you are asking this

question (and the racism post as well)? I think most of us are unable to respond to your question due to the fact that our responses would be yanked by the mods immediately.

Do some research and open your eyes. It's everywhere.

[Kamika]

16. why?

Why would your answers be yanked by the mods?

[Woodstock]

34. Agree. I thought this was a progressive forum

There are certain things we hold self-evident.

To the people asking all these "innocent" questions demanding scientific proof, we are looking through you. You are not fooling anyone.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

61. This is a privately run message board. Think of it like a

party; like minded people gathered to chat amongst themselves. A few disagreements, yes, but if you don't care for the discussion, you are perfectly free to find the door.

And no, we won't bend the rules for the tiny minority.

I see your true colors...

[smirkymonkey]

40. Exactly...

I see an agenda here, and it's not about information gathering.

This is usually a progressive forum until you bring up the topics of race, sex, sexual orientation.... then the freeper-esque among us come crawling out of the woodwork.

[Ilsa]

14. Lip service to ideals:

"Our children are our future," yet teachers are paid so poorly. You don't have to look any further than the professions labelled as "women's jobs", even if they require a Master's degree.

Many professions held primarily by women have a history of being underpaid because it was always presumed they had a husband to bring in the main salary. Nurses do better now, but only because so many left the field that they had to start offering more money. Men entering Nursing also helped bring wages up, I bet.

I've seen women with better performance records get passed over for bonuses given to men with only average performance. The supervisor even admitted that it was "because he has a family". My friend considered suing, but didn't want to be professionally blackballed by her professional community. Also, I remember it taking years for cases to be heard by the EEOC. It isn't a very encouraging wait.

[Cleita]

17. Well, the fact that they are making 78 cents to the dollar should

scream discrimination to you if you feel those statistics are scientific enough for you after all you stated them. If you posted your source it would give someone something to work with.

[blondeatlast]

21. Please pay attention to this post, as it will be my only future reply.

[retread]

22. You have to ask?

*

[boobooday]

23. Look at the Senate

13 female senators out of 100.

We are more than 50% of the population.

Taxation without Representation!!!!!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[togiak]

170. Not discrimination

I wouldn't define that as discrimination. Women represent more than 50% of the population. That gives them a majority. If they wanted to elect a woman president or more women legislators then they could.

[boobooday]

233. would they have the support of the party?

There are plenty of qualified women. Would the machine get behind them?

Or does the machine always get behind white male Yalies? Women aren't allowed in Augusta, the golf course of the movers and shakers, women can't go to their frat parties at Bohemian Grove. Aren't they forming their networks in places where women are completely excluded?

Doesn't that seem like a pattern?

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[togiak]

237. Does it matter?

What I was trying to say is that if all women wanted a woman president or a woman congressperson then they could do it. They (you?) are the majority. Women don't need the democratic party or the republican party to run for congress or president.

That gets to a broader issue that I often try to illustrate. It is always very easy to blame external forces for ones situation (in this case men for exluding women from politics), but it is more revealing and relevant to look at internal forces. The strongest step towards change is from within.

Obviously we are distilling the issue here and in doing so we are oversimplifying our arguments. But, having said that, I hope I get across what I am trying to say.

[Lars39]

28. Is Ashcroft going after vasectomy patients' records?

[cedahlia]

36. Thank you, Lars39!

Here's the reality for women: There are dangerous groups of hateful individuals who make it their life's work to ensure women will someday have no say over what happens to their bodies. I don't recall any such movements so fervently hell-bent on controlling men. A woman must worry about the fact that legislation exists that limits the control she has over what happens to her own body. Do men live with such worries?

[nolabels]

67. Asking why a bag of hammers doesn't pass an intelligence test.............

Is not the best question in itself.
There is that one question though,
how do you lose a debate and election to a dead man?

[bleedingheart]

196. bingo!

[Woodstock]

35. Try Google

[catzies]

82. Google helped me remember something this monring

I googled "I'm not a feminist but" and found what I was looking for:

[tkulesa]

141. That is awesome

I often wonder why people why owe so much to feminists are so hostile to them.

Just like I can't understand why people who enjoy their 8 hour work days and 5 day work-weeks are hostile to unions.

[Scout]

147. Women's Work

Because woman's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important
than what we do and if we get raped it's
our fault and if we get beaten we must have
provoked it and if we raise our voices we're
nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're
nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if
we love women it's because we can't get a
"real" man and if we ask our doctor too many
questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and
if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we
stand up for our rights we're aggressive and
"unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married
we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're
unnatural and because we still can't get an
adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk
on the moon and if we can't cope or don't
want a pregnancy we're made to feel
guilty about abortion and...for lots and lots
of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement.

[depakid]

37. Does the income difference really scream discrimination?

Not necessarily.

However, it SHOULD lead people to ask "why" there is a disparity- and it seems to me that, despite some poor choice of wording, that's what the original poster is trying to ask.

I've heard the 78 cents to the dollar figured bantered about for some time- and though I'm not sure where it comes from, if you go to UC Berkeley's GSS database site and run a comparison of means using "rincome" as the dependent variable, you'll see that on average women do indeed earn less that men.

But why is that? Is it discrimination? Maybe. You'd certainly think so from some of the reactions on this thread. But is it really? We've all heard anecdotes and some of us doubtlessly have been discriminated ourselves, but in a social science context, that kind of evidence doesn't go very far toward proving general and systematic discrimination against women.

Moreover, people's experiences in the past may or may not accurately reflect the current state of affairs. For example, women have for the past decade or so been attending college at roughly the same rate as men, and have been pursuing degrees in traditionally male dominated professions such as law and medicine in much greater numbers than in the past. It takes time to reach the upper the higher paid echelons of those professions- and this would be true even if all of the other variables (including mentoring opportunities) were equal.

One poster brought up the issue of comparable worth, i.e., the notion that more women have traditionally been employed in lower paying professions such as nursing or teaching. This is a tricky issue- some say this reflects discrimination, others don't. Either way, it underscores the fact that it's not always easy to define exactly what equal work for equal pay is (or should be).

There are other variables at play as well. For example, some women choose professions and lines of work that allow them more flexibility to raise their children, and given that the number of single mothers is far greater than the number of single fathers, you'd expect that choice to be reflected in the overall earnings numbers.

The point I'm trying to make here is that it's easy to jump to visceral conclusions that may not be entirely supported by the facts. The conventional wisdom isn't always so. Social issues are usually much more complicated than we care to admit.

The question isn't whether I believe that women are generally discriminated against in the workplace, but whether I can prove it. In some specific contexts I can- and have. I've seen reverse discrimination as well. As Howard Dean pointed out, people tend to hire or promote people like themselves, and this (in my opinion) holds true across the board.

My hope is that as individuals and employers, we can learn to recognize these tendencies in ourselves and others and work through reason to lessen our prejudices. Only then can we as a society get over our past vestiges of discrimination.

In the meantime, we need to be able to marshal our arguments and ensure that laws stay in place to provide equal protection for all of us.

[smirkymonkey]

41. However, requiring statistical

or scientific proof of something as subjective as discrimination (it is in the eye of the beholder) is in itself a form of discrimination and has been frequently used to deny discriminated individuals their rights. (i.e. - prove it - burden of proof is often on the one claiming discrimination - as evidenced in the original post.)

Though this truth may bear out with hard data, the real damage done to the individual is often hard to quantify (i.e. discrimination that is institutionalized or woven into the very fabric of one's society.)

I agree that this is very complicated issue, yet the damage it causes is undeniably palpable.

[depakid]

49. I agree with you that qualitative issues are important

I was just trying to address the original poster's question and throw out some of the wrinkles in the equation. Social science has a hard time with qualitative measures that embody value judgments and so of course should not and cannot be the only way we look at issues like discrimination against women. Oldcoot lays the case out very well below that we as a society have devalued women's roles as caregivers and I'm in complete agreement.

Like Micheal Moore, I understand that next to parents, teachers are the most important people in kids lives and we should be asking things like "what do you need" and "is there any way we can help you," rather than cutting their benefits and increasing their class sizes. The same goes for the home care workers who help our seniors maintain their dignity. The lack of respect for people in these professions and what we pay them for their very trying work is insulting- though this being America, people typically only find out just how insulting it is once they need help themselves.

[pnb]

93. Why is that burden a bad thing?

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person claiming descrimination? Is this no longer a society of innocent until proven guilty?

[tkulesa]

142. Because of the high bar it sets

If you have to prove definitively, 100% that you were descriminated against and you have to prove how and why and by whom you are set up to fail.

This is like the old standard for rape trials where you had to have witnesses. Who is going to commit rape in front of witnesses? So the crime becomes impossible to prove.

Similarly, there are too many ways to cloud the issue so you don't know exactly why you were treated the way you were. There is a slim, rediculous chance that there is some legitimate reason for the treatement you received, but because you can't prove beyond any doubt that it was discrimination you loose. A standard has been set that makes this crime also becomes impossible to prove.

At some point there has to be a "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" standard. If it looks like it was probably descrimination, and if descrimination is the likeliest explanation then at some point you need to assume that it's probably discrimination and take it seriously. Otherwise, the discrimination just keeps getting ignored.

[pnb]

161. The high bar doesn't matter

Saying that there is a slim, ridiculous chance is not a fair thing to say in the situation though. It makes general assumptions about guilt or innocence in a situation without even looking at the facts.

Its not right to just dismiss any number of possible reasons just so you can claim discrimination (although you of course can't just dismiss the discrimination either), even if it does make the case harder to prove. We don't just ignore other possible pieces of evidence in other cases...this should not be any different...even if this does make it harder to prove.

[tkulesa]

162. I would agree with you if..

"you can't just dismiss the discrimination either." But people do dismiss the discrimination.

Prove the unprovable. Eliminate every improbably possibility, ever rediculous justification, or your discrimination claim is considered groundless.

[depakid]

163. er... the standard is a preponderance of the evidence

What typically gets argued about is model specification, i.e., which set of statistical measures most accurately accounts for the wage disparity.

[wellstone_democrat]

43. same job, different money

more excuses. Try searching the back issues of professional journals within career fields. Engineering not long ago had something in one of theirs (saw it in a library). The Chronicle of Higher Education has examined this with all the variables considered and found that pay discrimination for same job, same rank, same qualifications: women still lag behind men. They do it every few years when someone wants to "prove" that either more women and minorities get tenure track positions than "white men" or that women are paid the same (or even more.

Every single time "conventional wisdom" is disproven when it is systematically examined.

But, then again, we have a poster asking inflamatory questions in a "flamebait" manner---throw them out there and watch 'em fight!---and makes no point of his own ("his" because his profile says "male")

What is a matter of curiosity and even disbelief to you is what others live with every grinding day of their lives.

[depakid]

47. You're missing my point

If you're looking for a remedy for discrimination, whether in house, in court or in the legislature, you're going to have to deal with all of the variables and all of the arguments- and they are extensive.

In any contested sex discrimination case, the defense will be trotting out statisticians using all sorts of analysis and if you and your experts can't debunk their conclusions and provide convincing evidence of your own, you will lose your case.

As to comparable worth, Washington State went through a long period of controversy over job classification throughout the 1970's and 80's. All of the arguments I mentioned and countless more were taken into account before a final settlement was reached. Do I think it went far enough? Probably not, but at least it did manage to narrow the wage gap among state employees. Of course, many professions are still drastically undervalued- librarians I think, being one of them. Secondary school teachers another. It's tough to know what, in practical terms, to do about that.

And yes, I'm curious- and a skeptic. I have my opinions and beliefs- which may well be to the left of yours, but when I analyze issues, I try look at them from all sides, using all of the tools at my disposal- if sometimes for no other purpose than to disprove what other people are asserting.

[wellstone_democrat]

53. no I'm not missing your point

I'm talking not about "equivalent" jobs but same job/differnt pay and I *did* mention that in the sources I referenced, the variables were controlled to arrive at the most objective possible measure.

Librarians as you mention: academic librarians---often requiring a PhD in a subject area as well as an MLS---are indeed underpaid as a group. But, as I noted, when the CHE did a full investigation they found that women with the same qualifications (degrees, experience, years in service) had fewer opportunities than men for the top jobs and at each rank earned less.

Same with college professors: same degrees, publications , rank---a definte trend of lower salary. This was particularly evident in the starting pay.

I'm not saying that you should not be skeptical or demand empirical evidence, what I am saying is that the evidence from professional organizations and through journalistic investigations withing a number of professions does indeed exist.

[depakid]

59. If that's what the evidence shows, then the question becomes

if someone's being discriminated against, then why isn't it being pursued under Title VII and/or applicable state laws?

AAUW (The American Association of University Women) is almost always willing to help with cases like that.

[wellstone_democrat]

63. AAUP would be better

more clout, more money
But, money is the rub. The burden of bringing the suits is on the individual. AAUP, AAUW and others might donate and lend support with amicus briefs but the individual has to sue her employer. For a university professor without tenure---well, you ask: is it worth my career. I've yet to see AAUW lend more than "moral support" and AAUP has a censure list but I've also yet to see it have much effect---you can look it up on their site. Some U's have been on it for decades.

But, this is a bit of a red herring. Anyone paying attention for the last 40 years knows that EEOC cases (including Title VII and IX) take years---unless Clarence Thomas is the chair of the EEOC and then he sat on many until they expired and people were stranded and ruined. That is public record.

Still many many do file and occaisionally, as a former colleague of mine did, the potential threat of a lawsuit when the U already has a *big* problem with a discrimination case that the NAACP backed (mainly with speaking out) caused her university to raise her pay to comply with the law. Smart of them, to bring themselves into compliance with federal law, they had to merely raise her 200.00 per year to match NOT men in her field and with her same professional degree, but with the lowest paid man in a full time instructional capacity. Not *quite* in compliance, but enough to make it suicidal for her to procede.

Anyway, what does it really matter? If you think that things are grand in the US, you are probably on the wrong forum---unless you are one of those DUers who has a pet peeve (oddly, usually to do with women, abortion and sexual preference. )
who knows? all I know is I'm done with this foolish thread and off to bed. I'm flying to DC at 6am and need the sleep

[oldcoot]

45. Examples of sex discrimination

1. Reproductive freedom. It is frustrating to see how women are currently fighting many of the same battles that they were fighting during the twentieth century for control over their bodies.

For a recent example of this struggle, check out LBN. There is a story about Planned Parenthood and Attorney General John Ashcroft(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x391217) that you should really read. Ask yourself why Ashcroft thinks that it is acceptable to try to gain access to women's confidential medical records. At the same time, you should also do some research on why women pay more for birth control pills than men pay for Viagra.

2. Violence and Crime. Rape victims (who are usually women) are still stigmatized more than victims of other crimes such as robbery and manslaughter. Many newspapers do not publish the names of victims because of this stigma. Unfortunately, the victims of such crimes are still blamed for what happened to them. A very recent example of This is the University of Colorado football coach's comments.

3. Occupational discrimination. You give the example of women earning 78 cents to the male dollar. Conservatives love to tell us that it is because of the choices women (blaming the victim, part II) make. However, they never ask themselves why women make these choices. Why are women the ones who are suppose to make the choice of family versus career? Indeed, this can be a lose-lose situation for women. If they decide to keep their careers, society places a big guilt trip on them for "ignoring" their kids. If they decide to stay home with the kids, they better make sure that their husbands do not divorce them. If their husbands do divorce them and they are thrust into the job market for the first time, employers are likely to ignore their applications because they "do not have experience." If for some reason these women cannot find employment and have to get some form of government aid, they are "welfare queens" (thank Reagan for that one).

Many view women as natural caretakers and women are frequently encouraged to enter fields that require them to take care of others such as social work, teaching, and taking care of the elderly. These fields also tend to pay very little. Now why is that? Is it because these jobs are easy or is it because society does not value these jobs? Would we value these jobs more if we did not view them as "women's work?"

These are simply just some examples. If you go to a university library and search the sociology journals, you will find more examples. For a historical background on women's rights, you might want to start with Born for Libertyby Sarah Evans.

[sangha]

46. A couple more - no links

1) Females in school get called on by the teacher less frequently than male students. This disparity is greatest in math and science classes.

2) Females are still discriminated in employment, particularly in certain specific fields

3) Women's sports are not as well-funded as men's

4) Certain occupations traditionally held by women (ex. teachers and nursing) are underpaid and overworked

[Nobody]

50. Let me count the ways

And you want scientific evidence.

Read the book "Mismeasure of Woman". Some of the facts from this book include:

Medical studies: Medical students have everything in class geared toward the 140 kilo person, usually this is the size of a male.

More medical studies: Most tests are conducted with male only subjects. Why? Because a woman's menstrual period will muck up the results. If this is true, then prescribing medicine that is untested on females could seriously damage women's health. Women who have heart attacks are more likely than men who have heart attacks to die because the warning signs that you are having a heart attack tend to be different with men and women.

Keeping it somewhat short and sticking to one issue. There are tons and I could be here all night.

[LiberalFighter]

51. It depends on what situations.

In some cases they are not discriminated.
In some cases the discrimination is slight.
In other cases they are severely discriminated.

[Digit]

58. More...

Women pay more for health insurance
Women pay more for haircuts
Women pay more for drycleaning

[NashVegas]

117. In Some States, Women Pay a Tax on Being a Woman

(think: feminine hygiene products)

[KG]

56. ridiculous question.

[FizzFuzz]

60. I'll try to limit myself ....

as "Nobody" did, cuz I don't want to be here all night either...

First: Read "Failing at Fairness", an extensive study of systematized gender discrimination in the educational system, from elementary through post-graduate.

Second: See http://www.plannedparenthood.com/library/facts/030114_waronwomen.html
Planned Parenthood's page delineating Bush admin's war on women.

Actually, did "durutti" ever come back to reply to all this wisdom offered in answer to his question? Hmmm? (she asked, cynically)

[smirkymonkey]

64. No, he never does - typical

hit and run. Starts a potential flame war and then flees the scene of the "crime".

[FizzFuzz]

ah, I see

Well I learned some good stuff from the responses, so I guess that louses up his little plan, eh?

Bwa ha!

[FizzFuzz]

68. ah, I see

Well I learned some good stuff from the responses, so I guess that louses up his little plan, eh?

Bwa ha!

[blondeatlast]

62. Drive by is a drive by--regardless of the poster's post count.

Nothing to see here; move along...

And yes, I fell into it earlier, I'm sorry to say.

[Katie]

65. durutti how about ashcroft subpoenaing women's health records?

Planned Parenthood Refuses To Hand Over Records

In the subpoena, attorneys for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) asked that San Diego and Riverside Planned Parenthood produce all records of surgical abortions performed 20 weeks after the last menstrual period in the last year.

Salo said the Department of Justice (news - web sites) overstepped its bounds three days ago when it subpoenaed confidential medical records regarding abortion patients.


"We're getting calls in our centers and our front reception desk from terrified patients saying, 'Will my name be given to the Justice Department?' Our answer to the question is, 'No,'" Salo said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=ibsys/2028155

[togiak]

171. That is not an example of societal discrimination

That is the example of one wacko from an exec branch full of wackos trying to push their anti-abortion agenda. I don't think that it gets to the heart of the issue which is the fear of widespread societal discrimination.

[durutti]

69. I am NOT denying that sexism exists.

I was just looking for references to research on the topic, for purpose of compiling information on the topic.

Of course we still live in a patriarchal society. That's beyond debate. I was just looking for data to help back up that point.

The reading comprehension skills of some DUers leave much to be desired.

[togiak]

172. I support you

Durutti, I support you on this one. I am sad to see that many people on this board react the exact way that the radical right reacts to polarizing questions. They just automatically attack anyone who is asking questions that require any kind of definition or backup to what are their deeply held beliefs.

People, attacking him for asking isn't getting us anywhere. If your side is right then the facts and logic will bear that out.

[rasputin1952]

70. This, like all 'discrimination' threads, has become a hot topic...

as it should be. We must always bring the disparity forward into the light, that is the only way we can change things.

I have worked for women that have made more than me, no problem. They earned their way up, just as every person should be afforded that opportunity. I do have a problem when people are promoted over someone else more qualified, but that is "office politics", and generally speaking, something that should go down the toilet.

As for women in this country, we should never forget that women were not given the 'right' to vote until 1920. To put this into perspective, in 1866, former male slaves were permitted to vote. 54 years later, women were accorded the same right as former slaves, makes you wonder about the social classifications there.

Understand, I have nothing but revulsion at the institution of slavery, no one has the right to own another human being. But looking at this in context, it just shows the disparity of women and others in this society. I use the comparison just to show how far backward we truly are. Worse yet, we are starting to return to the Dark Ages.

O8)

[FizzFuzz]

73. I have always thought that women are the one group its "OK" to bash

socially speaking that is. That's how its always seemed to me; you're about the only person I've ever seen actually speak about it. It becomes so much more complex because titilation is entangled in the problem. The power-holders seem to have a hard time separating sexuality and humanity. They seem to need to isolate their sexual urges and project them, contemptuously, on the other half of the species. (Of course I realize that not all men are this unconscious, but still, there are plenty; and its seems that they are the ones who control our social instutions)

Even well read, knowledgeable, insightful men will virtuously defend the rights of every minority, then turn around and make grunting jokes about bimbos. Specific example (obviously I'm still pissed about this :mad: ):

A local film reviewer received many letters from angry women (including me) to the editor of our local Alternative weekly newspaper. Finally the writer resigned after a few years, but ya know what? Neither he nor the paper ever published an apology. In fact, on his resignation, the editor wrote a long paragraph extolling this guy's flair and bemoaning the loss of such talent. :wtf:

This same guy who wrote a half page article on black dignity couldn't seem to speak of female actors as professionals, but was only capable of contemptuous sexual comments. Young talentless hotties were of interest to him--he liked to remark on how their names were not worth remembering, but they did make him drool.

Talented women of substance whose roles were not sexually focused would receive peripheral mention. Middle aged actresses only caught his attention if they appeared nude, in which case he went to great lengths not to speak of their work in film, but to creatively describe his violent reflexive repulsion.

How dare a woman exist, impose herself upon his vision, outside the narrow boundary of his Penthouse fantasy!! (Middle aged naked male actors didn't cause any eruptions of unvarnished brutal hate--he was too busy writing about their career apart from their flabby butt)

The letter I wrote them said that this guy's writing was a disappointment in a liberal paper that regularly exposes brutality and hate, calling for the rights of every possible minority....

.....After that, there was no apology, no admission of error, but I saw his reviews take on a different tone. However, his by-line changed. Instead of directing readers to his website for "more of his ramblings", it had changed to "more of his UNSANITIZED ramblings". And as I said, No Apology!!

..So yes, clearly there is something about insulting, dehumanizing and even endangering women (as we are seeing in current affairs), that is permissible, even among people who would be revolted at ugly stereotyping of any other group.

Was it Maya Angelou who said, "Women's suffering doesn't matter" ?

[iverglas]

74. glad to see you

Some newbies are indeed very worthwhile additions! More, please. ;)

.

[FizzFuzz]

80. geee thanks!

hey iverglas :hi:

thats awfully nice of you; and I was starting to think I was sounding like a polysyllabically pontificating one-note poster.
--also, I admit, I don't know as much about gov't and policy, so I CAN'T really blather unless we're talking about sexism---

But, the feminist viewpoint so often is absent from social discourse......

.....da-da-duh-daaaaaa... FizzFuzz to the rescue. :smoke:

[smirkymonkey]

144. Thank god you're here....I was really

losing hope that there was any point on challenging sexist, misogynistic remarks on this board. Although, it's not all men - some are very understanding and empathetic - I am shocked by how many men on a supposed liberal message board have such neanderthal attitudes when it comes to women.

Hearing men whine about sexism is like hearing white people whine about racism (and, for the record, I'm white and I think it's ridiculous).

[Pithlet]

86. Even here

Even here at DU, some of the attitudes amaze me. There was a thread today in the lounge decrying how women rule the world, and we bully and intimidate men into agreeing with us. I see female DUers say things like "I'm not a feminist". I hear that feminists are man haters. I hear that women aren't discriminated against any longer in the workforce. It makes me so angry, sad, and frustrated.

[tkulesa]

143. I agree with almost everything you say

But I think there are several groups that it is okay to bash in society.

Women
People with Disabilities
GLBTs
Athiests
and, of course, Liberals.

There are more, I'm sure. But these are the groups I think it is most okay to bash most openly.

[noiretextatique]

81. correction: SOME former slaves were WOMEN too!

female, former slaves could not vote either.

and as we all know from 2000, having the right to vote never stopped those who were intent on stopping former slaves and their progeny from voting.

[SaddenedDem]

72. A question for DU males

A really simple question for you:

If there was a law, in any manner, governing what control you had over your own body, would you call that discrimination?

Let's do an example:

If there were a law on the books that required a male vascetomy after you produced 2 children would you call that discriminatory?

You see, because as women, we are discriminated against every day of our lives as long as MALE government passes LAWS about the control of our own bodies. We're told by MEN we don't have the common sense to make our own medical decisions.

What if the roles were reversed and we had a female government making laws affecting male reproduction? Would that be discriminatory?

[FizzFuzz]

75. we're told by men

that their moral universe is more important than our LIVES, goddammit.

men run the gov't, the corporations and the media.... (what were the statistics I read? Less than 1 percent of television execs are women? Can't remember the exact number, but I remember the feeling of a rock dropping into my stomach when I read it)

As it pleases men, so shall the world be run.

I don't understand why pro-choice people don't focus less on rights to privacy, and more on life or death...Safe legal abortion is a LIFE OR DEATH issue for women. Christofascists don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about rights to privacy or medical authority. Hell, they barely give a fuck about life.

[catzies]

79. Welcome to DU, FizzFuzz!

:hi:

And thanks for my new favorite word, "Christofascists!"

Good one!

[noiretextatique]

84. it sure is about life and death

and the ability to control one's own body and make one's own decisions. if men could get pregnant... :grr:

[outinforce]

91. I Might Suggest That

Many of us men do understand that abortion is a life and death issue. It involves the life or death of unborn children.

I might also suggest that if abortion were actually limited to those cases in which the life or death of the pregnant woman was actually a real issue, there might be more of a consensus within the USA on this issue.

And, one more thing. You suggest that there are people who barely give what you so eloquently term "a flying fuck" about life. I know several pro-life folks who say, in less eloquent terms, the same think about people who support abortion as a means of dealing with unplanned pregnancies.

[dryan]

95. Sex Discrimination

I work in the arts. I am sorry to say that women artists (in all fields) are subject to discrimination. I personally witnessed a violinist in a major orchestra being asked "who did you sleep with to get this position" by a member of the orchestra's board. My friend was the first female violinist for this orchestra -- which shall remain nameless -- and even though she won the position on merit she left after three sesons because she couldn't stand the snubbing from her male colleagues.

A few years ago the winner of the World Flute Competition was a woman from Eastern Europe. After she was named the winner several members of the jury said that perhaps there should be a "relief winner" -- whatever the hell that is -- because "surely this young lady will not follow a concert career".

There are countless other examples.

[outinforce]

101. It Sounds to Me

It sounds to me as though the orchestra which your friend worked for did not discriminate against your friend in the hiring process. The orchestra did hire her through a competitive process which no doubt included men violinists as well. And I assume you friend received pay consistent with being first violinist.

What is outrageous is the comment from the member of the orchestra's board. Did your friend go to the Board's Chair with this? And I would guess it is almost certain that many of the men who snubbed your friend competed for the first violinist chair as well. Perhaps their snub had more to do with the fact that they themselves did not get the job, and less to do with the fact that your friend was a woman.

And, from what you've said, it is a bit hard for me to deduce any real gender bias in the cooments of the jury that awarded the prize to the young Eastern Europena floutist.

You assume, I think, that the jury members were commenting on her gender as the reason that she would "surely not follw a concert career". Could it have been something else?

[noiretextatique]

116. a hostile work environment = DISCRIMINATION

i believe the courts have held :eyes: this is the kind of stuff that some people have to deal with everyday. it's not always quantifiable, and someone will always claim it's "not what it seems," but after a lifetime of it...you know it when you see it.

[noiretextatique]

98. unborn, being the operative word

women, on the other hand, are already born. the concern is ________________, considering the lack of regard some anti-choice fanantics have for the already born, e.g., doctors who perform abortions.
oh what a tangled web...the deception, of course, is that concern for "the unborn" is what motivates you folks :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

134. "undead" being an equivalent operative word

Why do "undead corpses" wish to impose their control over other "undead corpses" when it comes to "unborn children"?? :silly:

Fewer vouchers? I gotta wonder. :shrug:

[Retrograde]

149. subtleties

There are a lot of anti-woman subtleties in the anti-choice arena that go beyond the desire to prevent a large part of the population from controlling their own bodies.

"Unborn person" as opposed to fetus: well, an "unborn person" has a 50% possibility of being male and thus potentially more important than a mere mother.

"Abortion is allowable in case of rape or incest": well, she really wasn't having sex for the fun of it so we'll allow it. Besides, it could bring shame on her (male) relatives, and if it's a result of incest we certainly don't want the father exposed for what he is. How the anti-choice faction manages to reconcile this with "life begins at birth, all life is sacred, abortion is murder" I just don't understand: apparently one is a lesser person if conceived in certain circumstances.

"Partial birth abortion": gives the impression that the mother changed her mind halfway through the birth process rather than a harrowing and difficult decision no one would ever want to have to make.

linda

[Mushroom]

132. Consensus?

Then perhaps men should stop impregnating women who don't want to be pregnant.

[outinforce]

155. That's The Ticket

I think what I hear you suggesting is some sort of system where a man, before he has sex qwith a woman, firsts asks her if she wishes to become pregnant. If she says no, then there is no sex.

I think that is a bit extreme, but if you think it would gather a lot of support from women, then I'd be in favor of it.

[Nobody]

133. It's my choice as to how much risk I'm willing to take

If it's my body, I am the only one qualified to determine whether a 25% chance of death is too much or whether 5% chance of death is too much.

Just curious, do you support exceptions in the case of risk to the life of the mother, and where would you draw the line? Who gets to decide? Will you trust a woman to know for her own self how much risk she is willing to take?

I for one am the world's worst when it comes to odds. If there's a 5% chance of something bad happening, you can bet I'll be in that 5%. Unfortunately it never works for good things. Even when I buy lottery tickets, I have yet to match a single number. It's why I no longer buy lottery tickets.

Throughout history, women have not been trusted to make their own decisions. They've been told who to marry, they've been told they can't have hysterectomies even when a pregnancy has a 100% chance of killing them (I know this woman's sister), they've been called sluts and whores for reporting rapes (check out the history of the Magdalene Laundries, girls who were too pretty, rape victims, etc have been branded as whores in Ireland as late as the 1980s and sent away by their own families to slave away for no pay in these laundries for the rest of their lives). Assuming that Roew v Wade is overturned, with an exception for life of the mother and rape/incest victims, who decides? Will it be the woman? Somehow I think that a bunch of men will be the ones making life and death decisions about a woman's very survival.

[ngGale]

106. Welcome to the board FizzFuzz--one reason they keep women...

down is because when pulling together we do make up over 50% of the vote. Most men do not care about the privacy of a women's body. But they sure can holler loud when 'gun control' comes up as an issue.

[CBHagman]

128. Speaking of the media, FizzFuzz...

Many years ago TV Guide (hardly the bastion of progressive politics) quoted a study done regarding 30 or 40 years of television programs. It turned out that 80 (eighty) percent of characters depicted were male. Eighty percent! What kind of world is that where only 20 percent of the population is female?

I don't know what the figures were for women employed in broadcast journalism, but we can make some educated guesses.

One thing I've noticed is that advertising often takes for granted that the recipient of the message is a male. For example, the abysmal "Belt your wife and save her life" seat belt campaign slogan.

(Let us all pause to hurl.)

Then there are the films that are marketed specifically to men and from a certain point of view, even if the film itself is very different from the chosen advertising message. For example, I was aghast to learn that the recent film "Something's Gotta Give" was about a woman who attracted two men, one older and younger. The advertising campaign suggested that Diane Keaton's nude scene was the object of the Jack Nicholson character's disgust, his frank embarrassment.

They've done the same thing with a number of movies, playing up an angle that will be humiliating to women.

[FizzFuzz]

136. oh yes absolutely CB

misogyny in media is my all time favorite rant topic...

I've already got bunches of threads here about that, even one specifically mentioning Diane Keaton's role ..but a different context: woman-bashing from a local film reviewer

Harper's magazine has an editorial this month analyzing the hate of "reality shows" ...for example, re. "Average Joe" : describes the networks sadistic glee in making a woman the butt of a nasty joke. Seems there's alot of that...those shows for knuckle-draggers never get a laugh off at the men's expense. The article talks about how the attitude of derision fits the Republican schadenfreude.

[outinforce]

159. You Must Be Kidding!

"One thing I've noticed is that advertising often takes for granted that the recipient of the message is a male."

You're joking, right? You really do not see all the ads that take for granted that the recipient of the message is a female? Or which are completely gender-neutral?

"Then there are the films that are marketed specifically to men and from a certain point of view, even if the film itself is very different from the chosen advertising message."

There are also, I hope you will agree, films that are marketed specifically to women and from a certain point of view. Films like Thelma and Louise, Steel Magnolias, and a host of others come to mind.

And do you really think that the culture is free of angles that humiliate men? Fox's series "Married With Children" almost went out of its way to portray men as mindless, hormone-driven losers.

[iverglas]

165. I just gotta wonder

why someone would take the statement (and I add emphasis to point to my point):

One thing I've noticed is that advertising often takes for granted that the recipient of the message is a male.

... and then ask:

You're joking, right? You really do not see all the ads that take for granted that the recipient of the message is a female? Or which are completely gender-neutral?

If I said:

One thing I've noticed is that it often snows in January.

... would his response be:

You're joking, right? You really do not see all the days when it doesn't snow? Or when it rains?

I mean, I'd wonder why he seemed to think that I'd said:

One thing I've noticed is that it snows every minute of every day in January.

... when I hadn't said that at all and I can't think of any way to mistake what I did say for that.

'Course, I'd also wonder how an ad for toilet cleaner that took it for granted that the recipient of the message was female was even comparable to an ad for a fast car that took it for granted that the recipient of the message was male ... the latter being what the speaker was pretty obviously speaking about ...


And then I'd wonder why someone would read this statement (again, emphasis added for emphasis):

Then there are the films that are marketed specifically to men and from a certain point of view, even if the film itself is very different from the chosen advertising message.

... and respond:

There are also, I hope you will agree, films that are marketed specifically to women and from a certain point of view.

... like as if that underlined part weren't even there. Of course, when the statement it appears in is taken out of its context, it might be hard to understand what it did mean. But he was the one who took it out of its context, after all.


And then there's just the standard bumph, thrown in for good measure:

And do you really think that the culture is free of angles that humiliate men?

I think I'll say:

I really love bananas.

... and wait for someone to ask:

Why do you hate oranges??

...

...

...

Somebody tell me how to do that snoozing stupidfacethingy, eh?

.

[outinforce]

94. Could You Be A Bit More Specific, Please?

You are suggesting that there might be law that required male vasectomy after a man sired two children. What law currently on the books does that equate to in terms of females? Is there some law that I am unaware of that says that women cannot produce more than two children?

You ask, "What if the roles were reversed and we had a female government making laws affecting male reproduction? Would that be discriminatory?"

By posing the question this way, you get the only answer possible. Of course it would be "discriminatory, since it would affect men only, and not women.

You might want to think about this, though, because iot is something that many people do think about -- are there any decision men coulod ever make concerning their own bodies which could possible result in the destruction of innocent human life? If so, what should be our society's view of the possible destruction of innocent human life by males who choose to do so simply as a matter of choice?

[Pithlet]

96. I'm against ending innocent human life as well

and I don't care if it is a man or a woman who does it.

Now that I got that over with, I'll deal with the actual issue at hand: If men ever gain the ability to get pregnant, then they should have complete control over their bodies and reproductive systems, as well.

[outinforce]

102. I'm Confused Here

You say that you are against ending innocent human life.

And you say that if men ever are able to become pregnant, they should have complete control over thier bodies and reproduictive systems.

Who, in your opinion, should have complete control over the bodies of unborn children?

[Pithlet]

104. I'm moving too fast for you again, aren't I?

I apologize. I really should consider who my posts are intended for.

You aren't going to convince anyone who is prochoice that they are pro-baby killing, so if you're really interested in an intellecual debate, using loaded words like "unborn children" are counterproductive (no pun intended). But, I don't think you're really interested in debating.

[outinforce]

109. Yes

I'nm afraid you are.

Since you are apparently against what you term "loaded words", would you mind terribly if we did not use the term "pro-choice" in a debate on abortion. Would you mind too terribly if we instead used the more accurate term "pro-abortion as a means of dealing with unplanned or problem pregnancies"?

And just who is it that said that I was (a) trying to "convince" anyone, or (b)suggesting that folks who are pro-abortion as a means of dealing with unplanned or problem pregancies are pro-baby killing?

I think all I did was to ask a question.

[noiretextatique]

111. still up to your same old tricks, i see

:boring:

[Pithlet]

112. Because

using the term pro-abortion isn't correct. Those who are for allowing women to have control of their bodies and their lives aren't necessarily pro-abortion.

If you aren't trying to convince anyone, then why do you show up in just about every abortion thread, and even one's that aren't, like this one? This thread wasn't even about abortion in the first place, and I do believe that you were the first one to mention it. It seems like a pretty hot button topic for you.

[outinforce]

118. So Now YOU Get TO Decide

what threads it is appropriate for me to post in??

You ask: "f you aren't trying to convince anyone, then why do you show up in just about every abortion thread, and even one's that aren't, like this one? This thread wasn't even about abortion in the first place, and I do believe that you were the first one to mention it. It seems like a pretty hot button topic for you."

Go back and look at post #72 in this thread: "SaddenedDem 72. A question for DU males A really simple question for you: If there was a law, in any manner, governing what control you had over your own body, would you call that discrimination? Let's do an example: If there were a law on the books that required a male vascetomy after you produced 2 children would you call that discriminatory? You see, because as women, we are discriminated against every day of our lives as long as MALE government passes LAWS about the control of our own bodies. We're told by MEN we don't have the common sense to make our own medical decisions. What if the roles were reversed and we had a female government making laws affecting male reproduction? Would that be discriminatory?"

And then try telling me how it is that I was the first one to mention abortion in this thread.

A question was asked. The question was addressed by SaddenedDem to DU males. I am a DU male. I responded to the question. You replied to my post. It seems that this is a hot button issue for you, too. Why is it, exactly, that I should not comment on a question asked by another DU member? Or is it that you object to the way I responded, since my response is not directly from the NARAL catechism?

And weren't you the one who objected to th euse of what you call "loaded words"? I can see how the term I have suggested instead of the loaded word pro-choice might cause some confusion. Let me suggest that we use instead this term "Pro-abortion as a possible means for dealing with unplanned or problem pregnancies." I think that ismore descriptive, donm't you?

[Pithlet]

121. You can post wherever you like.

I never said otherwise. I was merely making an observation, in response to your assertion that you aren't trying to convince anyone. Where are you getting the idea that I ever said you couldn't post, or comment on whatever you want? You're right, it is a hot button issue for me; I've never pretended it wasn't.

You're right. Your abortion post was #75, and his was #72, so you weren't the first one. It's just that yours fell higher up on the thread, so I saw it first.

As far as pro-abortion/pro choice goes; I don't think either is any more or less loaded than the other, it's just that the second one is more accurate, because there are people who are against abortion, but support a woman's right to choose.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

126. I don't know.

Kinda like banging your head against a wall. It feels good when you stop, and all that.

Oh, and welcome to DU :cheers:

[noiretextatique]

127. LOL...from the mouth of babes

as in new to DU. welcome, Meowser :toast: i couldn't have said it better myself :7

[Meowser]

131. Thanks for the welcome

How come this guy is still around? :shrug:

It appears that he has a real axe to grind with "feminazis", which to him is probably any woman that works outside the home and chooses to have control over her reproductive destiny.

Is sexism allowed on DU? I noticed he patronized another poster's comments by calling them "cute". That was right before I put him on ignore. What a great function! :D

[put out]

119. Maybe the poster had a bad experience with

Birth control? Frustration about not controlling every aspect of conception and pregnancy? A woman in the poster's life asserting her right to self-determination where reproduction is concerned?

Or, perhaps, having someone say to the poster "No. You cannot control this body, nor my life. You will now need to be quiet and sit down. I will decide for myself, and if it goes against your ideology, so be it".

[outinforce]

123. A Suggestion, If I May

Here's a gentle suggestion, put out.

If you have a question about my history or my motivations, just ask me.

I thought your post was....well, "cute" is the word that comes first to my mind.

But I don't understand why you think or felt it necssary to speculate, when all you really needed to do was ask me.

[noiretextatique]

129. alright: what's your dog in the abortion fight?

you are a gay man, correct? like straight men, you can't get pregnant, and i'm assuming you aren't sleeping with women. so...what's with the complusion to control women's reproductive choices?
punishment, perhaps?

[noiretextatique]

130. alright: what's your dog in the abortion fight?

you are a gay man, correct? like straight men, you can't get pregnant, and i'm assuming you aren't sleeping with women. so...what's with the complusion to control women's reproductive choices?
punishment, perhaps?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[put out]

135. I was flip in my reply. I apologize for that, however,

I would not ask you very personal questions about your reproductive decisions, nor your history.

I would not, is the term "call you out" on anything at all. Please don't call posters "cute".

It is demeaning.

[outinforce]

151. Demeaning

Thanks for the information about calling posters cute.

If you re-read my post carefully, I think you will see that I said nothing at all about any poster. I'm pretty sure I said that what some one posted was "cute".

Since you were kind enough to share with me your feelings concerning something YOU consider to be demeaning, please do allow me to say that speculating about another poster's motives is demeaning.

And it is also demeaning, when someone offers to respond to questions, to have someone say something like "I would never call you out".

[put out]

173. Well, again, you are correct.

You did not call me cute, just my writing. I should have chosen my words with more discrimination. I will not ask you to respond to questions about your reproductive choices. I think the calling out is not warranted in this instance.

Happy Day to you.

[smirkymonkey]

145. Hmmmmm.....

"You might want to think about this, though, because iot is something that many people do think about -- are there any decision men coulod ever make concerning their own bodies which could possible result in the destruction of innocent human life?"

Gee, I don't know - maybe...using their hands to sign off on a preemptive phoney war, or the Death Penalty, etc., etc. But then again, I guess if it's for "the better good" it's ok to suspend moral judgement on such acts.

[noiretextatique]

168. here's one that's to the point: masturbation

as in expelling an essential component of the "unborn" for "selfish amd careless" reasons. male mastrubation (leading to ejaculation, of course) causes the destruction of potential human life just as abortion does.
all anti-choice men should stop this murderous practice immediately :eyes:

[togiak]

174. A misread of conservatives

I think that the abortion issue is one of the most misunderstood on both sides of the argument. The pro-choice movement makes it out to be about rights over their own reproductive means and a fear of a male dominated group trying to control women. The pro-life movement sees women as murdering children as a quick and easy way out of an inconvenience. The feeling are obviously very strong on both sides.

You guys totally misunderstand the conservative side of the argument. The christians believe that human life begins at conception. They believe that to abort a baby, no matter how soon after conception is killing that child. They truly believe it is murder. It has nothing to do with controlling women (though I'm sure that is the case for some people). It is about protecting what they view as a human life. Are they right? Does human life begin at conception? I don't know? But at what point is it a baby in there? Would you guys feel comfortable getting an abortion at 8 months? How about 7 months? At some point it becomes a human life in our minds, for them it happens at conception. There is no argument that you can make to them to convince them that abortion is okay. Not rape, not incest, not poverty, not inconvenience, not college, not that your too young or old. The only thing that I think they would maybe agree with would be abortion for women or babies who's lives are in danger. But let's face it, that is a very small fraction of abortions performed.

I'll admit that I am on the fence on this issue. I don't know when human life begins. I have three kids and I have watched the stages of development and I'll be honest. It's hard for me not to see it as a baby after only several weeks of development.

So, the whole point of this post is that if you are going to argue with someone it would help if at least you understood their position.

[FizzFuzz]

211. yes I do know

about their belief that its a child from the moment of conception...

I think I would be a little more open to listening to their argument if they treated ALREADY BORN children with the same tender concern.

How many anti-choice people do you know who adopt children in need, rather than add to the population burden by breeding their own? If they love babies so much, why can't they help those who are here and are suffering?

Hard-line wingies want to prohibit abortion even in cases of rape and incest. (I'm sorry I can't remember where I read that..It was some cant from some way far extreme nut.)

How many do you know who are even aware that the No Child Left behind rhetoric is a sham, and that no sooner does Bush make speeches promising support to school programs in struggling counties, than he turns around and cuts the program?

etc. etc...my head hurts

(I don't mean to sound like I'm yelling at you personally, togiak..you've added some great messages here and I have appreciated your understanding of misogyny)

[togiak]

219. Agree

I agree with your statement about children who are already born. I've had this argument with them OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again (I go to another board and post. It is full of Christofascists, a term I'm borrowing from someone else on this thread).

Anyway, I've argued again and again that if they have so much concern for children then why do they fight so hard to cut healthcare benefits, food stamps, education programs, etc, etc from the needy. I mention to them the millions and millions of children who live below the poverty line and how the right has attempted to remove any kind of safety net from them. It's a good argument because they tend to speak so negatively about people who are poor and in need. I then go on to tell them that they treat these poor hungry children as collateral damage in their war against liberalism.

So, I agree with you that they are concerned with the unborn but not with the born.

[FizzFuzz]

230. dat was me!

"...It is full of Christofascists, a term I'm borrowing from someone else on this thread)."

...Hey dat was my term!!
but I'll let ya borrow it. I'm just an egomaniac who wants credit for her wittiness. heh heh

[togiak]

238. Cool

Hey cool, I quoted you to you (like that line in when harry met sally)

[FizzFuzz]

120. Reply to OUTINFORCE

outinforce,

There is no question that abortion is a tough issue. As we evolve, we learn to deal with life as ambiguity. Complex issues are not black and white; neither is abortion a question of good or bad.

Confronting the reality of abortion requires evaluating what represents the least harm. Please try to understand that forcing a woman to bear a child can result in lifelong suffering for the woman, the child and their family and friends.

Also, please understand that ever tightening restrictions on the agencies that provide safe medical abortion service result in destruction of other services to women such as gynecological and general health care, reproductive education and birth control services. (attacking clinics cuts off what for many poor women is their ONLY access to health care, including cancer screenings and referral)

Surely, you don't approve of the present situation where women are denied birth control, denied education, and then forced to bear the children of pregnancies they were barred from preventing?

When safe affordable reproductive services are available, the rate of abortion drops.

Anti-choice arguments tend to gather their force based on the image of irresponsible women dismayed by the unplanned result of their unbridled activity and seeking an easy solution. This is a dangerous myth. The reasons for abortion are numerous and individual. I implore you to expand your research. You will find reasons compelling abortion include rape, incest, fetal deformity, extreme youth, and financial crisis besides what you refer to as "dealing with unplanned pregnancy".

You refer to the death of innocent children. Surely, you must realize that a 13 year old girl, pregnant by her father, or a woman pregnant as a result of rape are innocent?

Or would you force this CHILD, this RAPE VICTIM to consider finding an illegal method, and then dying a slow and bloody death?

#Many of us men do understand that abortion is a life and death issue. It involves the life or death of unborn children.# This is another sentiment-driven argument put forth by the anti-choice community. It makes no distinction between a potential human being and an actual human being and in fact puts the potentiality above the reality.

The facts are, science makes a distinction between a fetus and an embryo. Eighty-eight % of all abortions are performed before the 12th week. An embryo is a mass of undifferentiated cells, a possible child but not an actual child.

Cases of abortion occuring after this time are usually due to delays imposed by barriers such as lack of local medical service, financial barriers, late discovery of fetal anomalies, and legaly imposed delays which sabotage efforts to obtain abortion services within the earliest possible time-period.

Lastly, I'm sorry if my language offends you. I hope that you believe, as I do, that one's ethics are more clearly delineated by one's ability to apply foresight and wisdom to a broad array of life circumstances, than to one's preferred figures of speech.

[Retrograde]

146. Seen Comedy Central recently?

Or watch many action movies? Or read the web?

We're past the times of legal discrimination: I'm old enough to remember when "Help Wanted, Male" ads were legal, when athletic scholarships were almost exclusively for men, and so forth. The example some else brought up, of Viagra being covered by some insurance policies while birth control wasn't, happened within the last 10 years (and, thankfully, these policies have mostly changed - but not without a lot of public outcry).

What we are facing now is a more subtle yet very pervasive form of ingrained discrimination, which a lot of XY-people find hard to recognize because they're not subjected to the constant pinpricks and the relative invisibility. Take a good look at popular culture: Sean Connery a sex symbol and bankable star at whatever-age-he-is while women in the same position are lucky to even get roles, the derogatory term "Chick Flick" to refer to films in which most characters are not suffering from testosterone poisoning, the general absence of more than a token female character or two- your local bookstore will have a number of studies: look under Women's Studies or Feminism. A particularly good - and short - book on on particular area is Joanna Russ's "How to Ignore Women's Writing".

linda

[outinforce]

154. A Little

But my favorite cable channel is Lifetime. Not too many characters there who suffer from testosterone "poisoning".

You'll please kindly exucse me for a few minutes. I'm being poisoned by testosterone even as I type these few words. Oh, it's just too much to bear! Help!

[togiak]

176. You had me at the first paragraph

I agree. I don't think that we men can really understand or see descrimination against women since much of it is subtle. That's a really good point and one that I hadn't really thought of before.

But, I find it highly ironic that you would call it discrimination when someone calls a film a "Chick Flick" and then in the same breath you would use the term "testosterone poisoning". That term is equally discriminatory.

[Retrograde]

223. a medical condition?

Or an example of how one gender throws around terms about the other without thinking?

No, I don't think "Chick Flick" is so much discriminatory as much as demeaning -and it's these little constant digs that wear you down.

linda

[Scout]

235. "Dick Flick"

no, not porn ... it's those movies with not much plot, not much character development, the only female characters are girlfriends or hookers, and there's lots of explosions and fighting!

I use that term only after someone else has used "Chick Flick"...

[togiak]

240. LOL

like all of those movies that have been coming out recently with the car racing or motorcycle racing....I hate those.

[thinkingwoman]

164. even 3rd world countries...

have female leaders once in a while.

I know that may sound flippant, but, to me, it is indicative of the fundamental discrimination that exists against women.

Yes, there are some women serving in congress. Yes there are female governors. Yes, yes, yes...tokens all over the place.

But no women presidents. No women vice-presidents. I think I'll see a black man as president first. And that saddens and angers me in ways I cannot explain.

We have achieved very little actually, and what we have gained shows signs of slipping away. If you'd told me 5 years ago that any court in the country would reopen a three-decade old court case I'd have laughed in your face.

My daughter will be 18 in a couple of years. I cannot put words to my disappointment at what she faces, except:

Even 3rd world countries have female leaders.

[togiak]

175. I'll take it one further

Even Latin American societies, which are derided as being sexist societies have women presidents. So what does that say about our society? Maybe we are looking at discrimination the wrong way? It is my humble opinion that in this society discrimination has come to mean "not being treated like a man". I think that is a shame. What that does is deny any differences between women and men. It takes away from women what are their natural strenghts. After all, women and men didn't evolve (or be created depending on your beliefs)to be independently operating units. Women and men are symbiotic units that together create a perfect being. From an instinctual and biological standpoint we need each other. Men have what women lack and vice versa. So why are we spending so much time trying to deny that. I understand where the denial originated, as those differences were often used in the past to subjugate women. But it is time to move beyond that. I think that we are doing ourselves all a big disservice by trying to deny the differences between us. And worse yet, I think that we are all doing women a disservice to try to define success and equality solely from the terms of what has been historically a man's definition of success. We have come to a point where childrearing is looked down upon. THAT IS OUR BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE. Women have always been the caregivers as they have better physical attributes (ie breasts for feeding) and in my opinion better psychological attributes. I'm not saying that all women should just sit around making babies. That isn't the calling for everyone. But the point I'm making is that it is the utmost in discrimination to denegrate a woman's biological role.

Sorry for the long flow of thought type post. What's worse is I didn't even proof read it so forgive the spelling and grammar errors.

[Nikia]

180. But all individuals should have rights

Your ideal of a married couple perfectly complimenting each other's strengths and weaknesses is not really much of a reality. Maybe, for some couples, that situation exists and could be happy for them as long as they both live (although devestating when one of them dies years before the other). I don't think that is really true in most cases, and I don't think that it is the perfect human situation either. Why specialize when we humans are so multitalented? Although there may be some talents in which men as a group are above average or women as a group are above average when compared to the other sex, it does not mean that some individuals are not as or more talented in a certain area than the average member of the opposite sex, which on average is more talented. Some people may also enjoy activities that are traditionally practiced by the other sex. There are some activities such as hunting for men and taking care of young children for women that are generally practiced by that gender across cultures. There are many other activities which are stereotypically practiced by one in gender in some cultures but practiced by another gender in another culture. As a society which claims to uphold individual freedoms, shouldn't members of both genders have the right to particiapte in activites which are compatible with their individual talents and preferences?

[outinforce]

181. You Raise an Excellent Point

and that is that "success" and "equality" for women are often defined solely from the terms of what has been a man's definition of success.

How is success for women judged in the business world? By the same way men have always judged success -- by being at the top of the corporate ladder. Not by any other standard, and certainly not by any standard that could be called exclusively feminine.

The message to little girls? You, too, can be just like the litte boys - -you can compete and win in sports. You can be as tough and as agressive as the meanist little boy on the playground.

Are messages ever sent to little boys that they can be just like little girls? If they are, then I miss hearing them.

Even the notion of sexual equality is cast in terms that are masculine -- if a woman wants to be sexually liberated, what does that mean? It means that she, just like a man, can have sex and then just walk away, unburdened and free.

[FizzFuzz]

195. messages to little boys

are that they have to be masculine at all costs. Come on we all know what happens to little boys who display feminine traits. So right, you're missing POSITIVE messages that little boys can be like little girls, because there are none. Yet.

To be feminine is to be reviled.

I think that gives a clear idea of endemic misogyny.

and the sexual equality thing...yes, lots of male support for women's sexual equality, as long as it means MEN GET MORE. Very disingenuous celebration of equal rights, I'd say.

[outinforce]

201. I Don't Disagree

As a gay man, I am well aware of what happens to little boys who display even the slightest feminine trait. I am also aware of what can happen to grown men who display even the slgithest feminine trait.

And you get, I think, precisely my point, which is that even the most ardent of feminists revile feminity. It seems to me that often those who clamor the loudest for women's rights want women to have the same thing that men have, or to be "just like the men". They want women in the top positions of corporations. They want women being "just as good as" the men -- as though masculinity were something to be valued at the expense of femininity. Girls are encouraged to engage in competitive sports -- and often not the sort of "team" sports that encourage and foster nurturing and sharing.

So if you want to talk about endemic misogyny, it seems to me that oyu might want to include a number of the people who push so hard to have girls and women be just like the guys.

And that includes people who think that women should be liberated sexually, so that they can get as much as guys, with as few complications.

[Pithlet]

205. That is a very distorted view

of the feminist movement. It's not about being like men, it is being equal to men. I've never known a feminist that reviled femininity in my life, and I've known a lot of feminists. I've read much about the subject. And I've certainly never met one that thought we needed to be more masculine in order to advance. That is ridiculous.

As to your last sentence; do you really think that women should be more repressed sexually than men? That it matters more how many partners a woman has? Should they be held to different standards in their sexual behavior?

[noiretextatique]

208. distorted, indeed

someone cannot separate his own misperceptions and hostility from the SHIT he projects onto women. at least he's finally being honest.

[outinforce]

212. Someone Else Mentioned

something abojut "endemic misogyny" and femininity being reviled.

It is my own observation that many who call themselves feminists want women to be "equal" to men - -and what that really means to them is that they want women to be able to compete and win. And isn't that what men do? Isn't part of the thing that makes men men is that, instead of being nurturing and cooperating and co ncerned about the community (the way woem are), we compete and strive against each other?

Your final paragraph proves my point exactly. You suggest that I think that women should be nmore sexually repressed than men. I do not know what I said that would make you think that women should ever be more sexually repressed than men. Perhaps in suggesting that sexual equality for some women means being "just like men" -- able to have a lot of partners and to be able to walk away without any complications, you think that that means that I think women should be more repressed than men. But your comment implies that men's sexual nature is the paragon, and that if that is not reached, women are "repressed".

I might argue that it is only the type of relationship that is nurturing and committed -- the sort of relationship that some hold as a feminine ideal -- that provides true satisfaction. That the sort of "one night stands" that lots of guys say they enjoy is bascially unfulfilling and pathetic. And that for women to strive for that type of sexuality -- instead of insisting that men change their sexuality to that of women, is indicative of the sort of endemic misogyny that exists even among people who call themselves femininists.

[Pithlet]

229. You've got it wrong.

We want to be like men, because we don't want to be discriminated against? That is your interpretation of what we want, and it is wrong.

It certainly sounds like you think the standard should remain as is. Your last paragraph speaks to that. You could only argue for yourself that there is only one type of relationship that provides true satisfaction. I do think that is the case for many people, myself included. But, the double standard that exists, where men are just being men, but women who have one night stands are sluts, is sexist. Pointing out that double standard does not mean we want to be like men.

[outinforce]

247. My Point

"But, the double standard that exists, where men are just being men, but women who have one night stands are sluts, is sexist. Pointing out that double standard does not mean we want to be like men."

Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with point out that there is a double standard.

THe question is what do you do after you've discovered it and pointed it out?

My point was that all too often, some feminists repond to this double standard by saying, "If men can be satyrs without being called sluts, then women should be able to sleep around -- just like men -- and not be called sluts."

My point was that it is exactly that mindset that sets male sexuality as the standard to which women should also aspire.

What I find lacking is a postulation of a feminine sexuality that males should aspire to. Is it because some might view such a form of sexuality to be "repressed"?

[Nikia]

206. I am all for males with feminine traits

I think that humans are multitalented by nature and members of both sexes have a wide variety of talents which include both traditionally feminine and masculine traits. I think that we should not discourage boys who want to dance ballet or girls who want to play sports. We should not take dolls away from little boys or toy trucks away from little girls. We should not tell girls that they shouldn't want to be engineers or boys that they shouldn't want to be nurses. We shouldn't tell girls that girls aren't good at math when some are or that boys aren't good at reading when some are.
I do think it is unfortunate that while girls are applauded for breaking into the maculine world that boys are often ridiculed. My husband and male friends have expressed that they have felt lots of pressure to be "masculine" at all times and express hurt and sadness as anger and to always appear strong.
Are men willing to publically say that this isn't right though?

[Nobody]

182. I do understand your point, however

I don't think anyone should be defined solely by biological traits and denied opportunities based on it. There is also the issue of value. What does a society value? What traits, what occupations, what virtues? Whose accomplishments are sung about around the campfire? Who gets the accolades and who gets the scorn?

Look this one up in the Guinness Book of World Records: The champion mother of all time was a Russian woman in the 1800's who gave birth to 69 children. She was listed as Madame (I forget her husband's name) and HER HUSBAND got to meet the Tsar. She didn't, her husband did. She went through several pregnancies (yes they were all multiple births, including several sets of quadruplets), endured the labor, and HE GETS THE CREDIT. She isn't even listed under her own name.

This is the only example I can think of when someone got recognition for having children.

Also, take a look at any anthropological textbook. They're fascinating. It makes little difference what culture you choose to look at, no matter how highly regarded women are in said culture, it's always men's accomplishments that become legends, men's accomplishments that earn honors, men's occupations that are respected. No little boy would help out mom, if his friends see him, they will tease him mercilessly for doing women's work.

[Nikia]

183. Men's work is always valued more

In my gender focused anthropolgy class, we learned this. As I said in the other post, men hunting and women raising small children are really the only activities that are consistently done by the same gender across most cultures. Whatever other activites men do are valued more than the activities women do. For example in cutures where men weave, weaving is a valued activity, but is undervalued in socieities where women weave. The same is true of farming, pottery making, dancing, and everything else. In modern culture, we can see it too. If a particuliar occupation has a high percentage of women, the occupation usually is paid less than a male dominated occupations requiring the same amount of education and experience.

[outinforce]

202. What Measure Is Used To "Value" Work?

What measure did your "gender-focused" anthropology class use to determine that men's work, across cultures, is always valued more? Money? Status? Prestige? Emotional attachment? Who, exactly, made the determination that women's work, in any given, culture, was valued less? Members of the culture themselves? Or academics from the west who went in with some pre-conceived notions?

For instance, how do you personally vaule the contributions to your own upbring made by your mother as opposed to your father? Which do you personally value more? Why?

[Nikia]

209. Money, status, prestigue

The usual things that yes Western academics see as value. In stratified cultures, isn't that how we usually determine value?
I am trying to understand your question. I don't know if your last question is very relevant to helping me understand because of my particuliar situation. My parent were divorced when I was very young. My mother was always a rather competitive, anxiety driven type who held a variety of professional positions while my dad was an easy going musician who had trouble finding steady work and cared nothing about money or status. I lived with my mother until my teens when I moved in with my dad to escape an abusive step father. I am like both of them and feel that conflict within myself.

[outinforce]

216. I Don't Mean to Push

and I want to be sensitive to your own background.

But you said that men's work is always (or generally) more valued than women's.

Each of your parents made some contribution to your up-bringing. Which did you "value" more?

The reason I ask this is to point out how really difficult it is to place a true "value" on the work of either sex. And I think it is especially difficult for western academics to do this in a culture that is not their own.

A western academinc, for example, may observe that women do weaving and men do farming in a given culture. They may see that men get more money than women for their products, and from that deduce that men's work is more valued than womens. But that is true only if money is used as the measure of value. If the members of that culture somehow value weaving in ways that make sense to them (but which a person from outside that culture cannot understand) then all the western academic has done is to verify her own pre-conceived notions.

[Nikia]

231. The value of things

I suppose that you are going to say that although these "masculine" activities are valued by money and status that members of the society privately and emotionally value the "feminine" activites just like the whole man working outside the home and woman taking care of the household having equal but different value. I am trying to look at that way for a moment but I don't think that I buy it.
With my parents, there isn't a nice dicotomy like that. Don't we tend to think in dicotomies. I guess that things are more complicated than that. Maybe that was your point, but why have the masculine/feminine dicotomy to begin with. Why shouldn't we celebrate the diversity of traits within individuals rather than saying men are generally a certain way and women are generally an opposite way and people should deny the aspects of themselves that aren't gender appropriate? Why can't people be who they want to be? American society is suppose to be about the rights of the individual regardless of their status at birth, isn't it?

[togiak]

243. Industrial Revolution/Consumerization

I think that if we go back to pre-industrial US (or farming families post industrial, pre-1900s) we see how the value of "women's work" and "men's work" were distributed. The family operated as an integrated unit. Both women's and men's work were absolutely essential to the survival of the family and both were absolutely highly valued. We have always had a Patriarchal society (as are most societies) and as such men were always put in a higher position (ie, head of the home) but there always a sense of high value from both sides.

Fast forward to today. Our society has become so differntiated, our labor so specialized and our tastes so commercialized that our main definition of value is money. That puts the role of "bread winner" at a much higher value than the role of "homemaker". I don't think it is the result of discrimination as opposed to our own consumerization.

My personal opinion on the matter is that we place WAY to high a value on money and consumerism. Looking back, how many of us wouldn't have been happier in life if our parents spent less time working and more time with us. We have traded our family bond for toys and other possessions. The way I see it, the industrial revolution has devalued my role while that of the traditional mother has increased.

So that you understand my beliefs better I will tell you that in my home I am the one who had a paid job while my wife stays at home and raises and educates our children. She is generally in charge of the household and we all share the chores as a family. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think that her role is by far the more important one.

Obviously not everyone is interested in having kids or giving up a career to have children. We are all different people with different goals. But what does bother me is when women (and for some reason it is always women) look down on my wife for staying home. They are the ones who treat her like her job has no value (or worse, yet, like she is somekind of leech off of me).

[Nikia]

244. In your opinion, should it always be the woman who stays home?

I and other young women make more money or have more marketable skills (for those who might be staying at home). My husband has had some bad luck with the companies which he has chosen to work for and does not have as marketable of a resume as I do. If things go well in my career, I might be able to make enough money for him to raise children if we have them and still live a middle class lifestyle. Although my attitutdes might change if I were raising children, I tend to get bored and depressed if I am not working somewhere where my accomplishments are recognized by multiple people, while he seems less inclined to that.
We know another couple where the husband believes that it is important that his wife care for the children at home and that he as the husband be the breadwinner even though he makes roughly $9/hour and does not see any better prospects monetarily while his wife has a master's degree in counseling and has made double that before having their children. They often have to take advantage of charity like food and clothing banks. Do you agree that is the right course of action?

[togiak]

245. Not at all

I think that people have to do what makes the happy. That is the most important thing. No one should stay home because they feel that they have to and no one should work just because they feel that they have to.

My wife doesn't want to work. What she does is more important and fulfilling to her than a job would be. So that is what is important to her. For me, it is important that one of us stay home and raise our kids. Heck, I'd happily do it.

As for the other couple that you referenced, what are the wife's feelings? Does she want to stay home with the kids or is she just doing it for her hubby? If that is what she wants to do then I think that the situation is fine. If that isn't what she wants then she and her hubby need to have a talk.

[outinforce]

246. Here's My Response

"We know another couple where the husband believes that it is important that his wife care for the children at home and that he as the husband be the breadwinner even though he makes roughly $9/hour and does not see any better prospects monetarily while his wife has a master's degree in counseling and has made double that before having their children. They often have to take advantage of charity like food and clothing banks. Do you agree that is the right course of action?"

It depends on what you mean by "that" when you ask "is that the right course of action.

I see nothing at all wrong with a married couple deciding that the husband will work outside the home and that the wife will care for the children -- even if it means that the couple, along with their children, have to "take advantage" (I might prefer to say "avail themselves") of charity like food and clothing banks.

What I see as potentially wrong in the example you cite is that the decision about who does what in that marriage was completely one-sided. You don't really say, but it appears as though the husband somehow decided unilatelrally that he was going to be the breadwinner and his swife was going to stay home and take cafre of the kids. THAT, in my book, is just wrong. However, if both the husband and the wife together decided that that is the way they wanted their marriage to work, then that's their decision -- arrived at mutually.

ANd I have no problem with that at all.

[catzies]

177. thinkingwoman, THAT IS POWERFUL AND ELOQUENT.

What's more, not only are there no American women presidents, or vice-presidents, even when one woman steps up to the plate from time to time she is met with derision.

And that simply should not be. And woman candidates shouldn't be rare. We have enough talented, powerful, effective women already in positions of power that we should have them as candidates every election cycle!

We can't accept women as presidential candidates yet, yet alone actually winning the office. That's a shame too.

[outinforce]

178. Please Speak For Yourself

"We can't accept women as presidential candidates yet, yet alone actually winning the office. That's a shame too."

"We" can't accept women as presidential candidates yet?

Just who is this "we" that you are speaking of?

PLEASE do not include me in this "We" that you think is unable to accept women as presidential candidates yet.

And I guess that the USA is not much different from Canada, France, Germany, and Russia, and Great Britain -- none of whom have had elected women as Presidents or Prime Ministers.

Oh, wait, there was that woman who was elected to lead the UK......

And wasn't it as woman who ousted Daniel Oretga in Nicaragua?

[iverglas]

179. I guess you're right

Canada did have a woman Prime Minister, but we didn't "elect" her. Of course, we don't elect any of our prime ministers -- we elect our local members, and the party with the most members in the House chooses which one of them will be prime minister. When that one resigns, the party picks another one. That's how we got Kim Campbell. She probably wouldn't have been all that bad, but she had to call an election, and she had just replaced Brian Mulroney as leader of a universally hated majority government ... and her party went on to get 2 seats in the House that time, not including hers.

Of course, we've had women party leaders at the federal level, any of whom could have become prime minister if their party had got enough seats.

But as to who that "we", was, it seems you need some help.

The "we" that, quite obviously, can't accept women as presidential candidates in the US yet, is (note that "is") the USAmerican people. Collective noun. Engaging in certain activities collectively. Like electing a president. The USAmerican people is not ready to elect a woman president.

Some USAmerican people are. But the USAmerican people isn't.

Collective nouns are funny things. A member of a collective, speaking for the collective -- or the collective itself, speaking for itself -- will say "we", there not being another pronoun available for a member of the collective to use. Perhaps we need a singular first person pronoun for a collective to use; an organization that passed a resolution could say, maybe, "Is (capital "i", pronounced "eyes") -- or "wa" (singular of "we"?) -- resolve that the organization be disbanded". Confusion like yours might be avoided thus.

Of course, confusion like yours might not actually be widespread.

Now as to your Thatcher and your Barrios de Chamorro, I'm confused. Is it a bad thing to elect women?

Given Bush and Mulroney and Blair and (name your favourite), it would have to be a pretty obviously bad thing to elect men, too.

Goodness, where does that leave us??

.

[FizzFuzz]

190. good explanation

of the collective noun thing.

We develop our maps of language very early in life, like in toddler hood, and that use of "WE" is taken as part the rules of communication that we all "agree" upon, as speakers of english.

Speaking up to remove oneself from the group reference is fine, but using it as an excuse to get defensive and scornfull is irritating.

[highlonesome]

184. I've yet to see

....anyone answer the question posed. Admittedly I haven't been able to view every post, but in 183 responses not one person has offered any statistical information. Why is this? All these passionate responses and no numbers to back it up. Why? Because it's mostly based on passion and emotion. We can decry that women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. Yet it's well known in the field of advertising that even given this, women actually control much more than half the wealth in the United States. Which is more important?

When I turned 18, I immediately registered with the liberal party. After that I've been a registered Democrat my entire life -- mainly to have say in the primaries. One thing I note in my 20 years as a left leaning voter: liberal causes have been wildly successful and the downside of that is that it seems in order to keep power and money many left leaning organizations prop up phony arguments through the dubious use of statistics. To me, feminism and the women's movement has probably been the most wildly successful movement for social change in the history of humanity. If anyone can think of one that's been more successful in such a short amount of time I'd like to hear it.

Are women discriminated against health care? On average they outlive men by around 7 years. They have a much lower rate of suicide. Female specific diseases are funded at a much higher rate that male specific diseases.

Are women discriminated against in education? Girls and women outperform boys and men at every level of education. They earn more high school diplomas, more college degrees, more advanced degrees, and outnumber men on college campuses -- especially in law and medical schools where they number close to 70%.

Are women discriminated against in the work force? Well the pay gap is probably a good indicator to use, but still it's a combination of factors that leads to this: time off for child rearing (I don't think companies calculate based on a three month maternitiy leave BTW), degree of hazard associated with work (mining, construction don't usually attract women), and the biggest being the difference in pay scale in what's considered female dominated jobs (teaching, nursing, services, helping fields). Much of this has to do with personal choice which is not always best measured by income. However, it is also important to note that women are making incredible strides advancing in nearly every single professional career. As new businesses grow at a rate of 5%, women owned businesses are growing at a rate of 11%.

[FizzFuzz]

188. I have mentioned several books

on this and other threads, recommending books of research that refute your statements.

"Failing at Fairness"--research delineating how girls and women are shortchanged from elementary through post-grad education. I highly recommend this bok. It is only about 5 years old, and it is backed up with extensive research. This one was very upsetting, in that it gave a clear picture of widespread, insidious and serious discrimination. There was absolutely nothing subjective about it.

In my message above, "reply to outinforce", I made a number of statements...I got my information from Planned Parenthood's website, which provides a wealth of statistics and research on reproductive and health discrimination. Sorry, I should have included that in the message, though I have referenced P.P. in other messages.

Read "Backlash", Susan Faludi...intensive research into the 1980's climate...Many many case studies, statistics, references.

Class-action suit in progress now, against sexism at Wal-Mart. Systematic refusal to promote women, etc.

You said: "degree of hazard associated with work (mining, construction don't usually attract women), and the biggest being the difference in pay scale in what's considered female dominated jobs (teaching, nursing, services, helping fields)...
There is a message above mentioning garbage collectors receive higher pay than nurses. I think thats a good example that doesn't fall in line with your statement.

Lots more out there. If you think its all just emotion-driven opinion, then you must be trying to goad people.

Geez, this is like Wingnuts claiming liberals never offer facts! Christ!! Don't they read Al Franken or Molly Ivins or Greg Pallast or Arianna Huffington?

[iverglas]

192. highlonesome, statistics ... and what were those other things?

Let's just take one tiny one of your claims here, old friend.

Yet it's well known in the field of advertising that even given this, women actually control much more than half the wealth in the United States.

That one was bruited about in Civil Rights a few months back. Here's a thread -- started by you -- where I addressed that claim and one source that was cited for it (you cite no source, and I don't generally take "it's well known in the field of advertising" as much in the way of substantiation of an assertion).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=113x3737

I direct your attention to my post number 13, which neither you nor your fellow arguer bothered responding to. (That post just kinda killed the thread.) Maybe you'd like to now.

Let's have some authoritative substantiation for your assertion that women "control much more than half the wealth in the US" -- and citing your good buddy Warren Farrell without addressing my already done demolition of his claims just won't cut it.

"Are women discriminated against in education?" you ask.

Well, let me ask you: are men discriminated against in garbage collection?

I thought that your reason for why there are so many fewer women than men in garbage collector positions was that women preferred other work.

So I guess all I have to say about this business of women comprising majorities in post-secondary educational institutions would be: men prefer to do something else.

Like getting one of the secure, decently-compensated jobs that are more available to men without post-secondary educations than they are to women, for instance ...

Anyhow. Let's just have it. Prove the truth of your statement that "women actually control much more than half the wealth in the United States", if you would be so kind.

.

[FizzFuzz]

197. advertising

claiming that women control much more than half the wealth....

ha.

I think what advertising councils look at when they see women is a class of consumers that they are out to sway. Men hold CEO positions, but women "shop" (geez, I hate the way ads show women in states of thrill-overload at the thought of shopping. Particularly when women are shown actively doing so little else.)

Consumers are a class of people to be manipulated and patronized, and bilked when possible, but certainly not accorded respect in the way that the "control half the wealth" statement attempts to misleadingly imply.

[noiretextatique]

200. he's been reading warren what's his name again

i believe that's one of his (hysterical) claims, per the link in iverglas' post.

[iverglas]

222. yup

It's such fun, saying the same thing over and over again as if it had never been proved to be utterly and totally false already. I mean, some people must think it is!

I'm assuming that highlonesome's statement that it's well known that advertisers believe that women own the vast majority of stuff in the US ... or however it went, I'm not reloading this damned thread again to find it! ... was intended by him to be a statment that what they believe is true (else why would he have brought it up??).

Now of course, perhaps he was referring to the notion that women control how wealth is used, even if they don't own it. They spend their husbands' money. What fun ... but what that would be relevant to, I dunno.

I do hope he'll come back. I can think of some who might welcome the company, particularly now that Mr. Roe has departed this realm. But then, there's no shortage of that company, these days.

.

[noiretextatique]

193. where is your statistical information?

and the sources for the percentages you provide? hmmmm?

[Pithlet]

194. I have in the past.

Not that long ago, this subject was discussed, and I posted many links. I've done it more than once.

Women are making strides, no doubt about it. But it is because of the feminist movement. A movement which is suffering more and more because of misinformation, and the perception that non discriminatory reasons can explain away the majority of the wage gap, such as the ones you describe.

I always hear how emotional and overly passionate we women here are at DU about women's issues, when it simply is not true. Many sources have been given here, and in many other threads. There is a definite anti-feminist crowd here, and they show up almost predictably in threads about women's issues. There are also many here at DU who just haven't bothered to educate themselves. I don't know how long you've known about DU, or how many threads you've read, but we have refuted it. Many times.

This isn't directed specifically at you, but it needs to be said; anyone who doesn't think we've made a case here is ignoring a lot of what has been said. I think too many here think that some of the women here are just feminists who like to complain, and feel victimized. You'll see statements like "culture of victimhood" posted here a lot. I think many are afraid to admit they're feminists because of the negative connotation that goes along with it. And I think you're discounting too much of what has been presented in this thread as passionate emotionalism. And, that is nothing new. It's a pretty typical response, actually.

[FizzFuzz]

220. gay men

(fix typos)

are getting pretty emotional on threads about gay-hate.

Straight men get pretty emotional at ..uh...I don't know...umm... their favorite football team losing? Being expected to pay child support?

Why is it we feminists don't need to show up at those threads and give them shit, tell them they're imagining it, they're whining etc?

I cant stand people who kick you in the shin and then stand back, smugly accusing you of getting upset.

Geez, why didn't I become a lesbian separatist when I had the chance???

[outinforce]

224. Why Is It?

"Why is it we feminists don't need to show up at those and give them shit, tell them they're imagining it, they whining etc?"

I really could not say.

Perhaps there is something different about us gay guys?

I know for certain that we never show up at things and give anyone shit.

[FizzFuzz]

228. why oh why

"I know for certain that we never show up at things and give anyone shit."

--unless of course it's been tastefully giftwrapped first ;)

[Vittorio]

236. Man...you're right.

I don't see any statistics on how there's sexism at the workplace. All this sexist stuff is based on emotion and passion. I've tried telling my views on sexism on another thread, but yet, all the women did was keep spurting the same stuff they did for every one of my replies. It's too bad they don't offer hardcore evidence of sexism going on, just more men-bashing. And it's not every woman that's doing it either...just a very few of them who hate men for some reason.

Instead of attacking men, they should give us evidence so we can understand what's going on. I have yet to see that, though. :shrug:

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pmbryant]

241. Wrong. There are plenty of statistics.

For instance, there is a GAO report from last November that did a detailed statistical analysis of salary and wage data in many fields. This report found that a 20% difference in pay between men and women could not be accounted for by differences in experience, education, etc. (Given that this was the GAO, they didn't conclude necessarily that this difference is due to discrimination, but that is the most likely possibility.)

Look up that report. I've posted it on this web site numerous times, but don't feel like digging it up again at the moment.

In addition to the statistics in there, they cite a large number of other studies that have been done. All of which found at least a small gap in pay, and many of which found a huge gap in pay.

--Peter

[bleedingheart]

199. Notice how there is no "The Woman Show" which shows

men being objectified... or that makes men look stupid.

Ever talk to a normal woman about men in her life...her father, her husband, her brother... most of them will have honest nice things to say....

Ever notice that there are a ton of books out there meant to help women be "better" to their men?..and that these books can be best sellers...

I just got a pamphlet at work which was directed toward working women and it had a course on "how not be emotional at work"...I guess guys never get emotional (upset, happy, angry..etc) at work???

[pmbryant]

207. That is atrocious

A pamphlet for women advertising a course on "how not to be emotional at work"!?

It is worse than I thought. And I already knew the problem is pervasive.

:-(

What kind of organization do you work for?

Peter

[bleedingheart]

217. The next time I get one I will scan the more offensive sections

I am an engineer for a Fortune 500 company.

These brochures come from those companies that are trying to sell their "people services"..."how to be a better communicator"..etc but there are one's that are specifically directed to women and the sexist undertones are atrocious.

[Ripley]

242. What a coincidence.

Today I was eating lunch in a public place and two men (grey hair/suits) were talking about business and management stuff. Then they started talking about a female employee. They started laughing when they talked about how she was so stupid to start crying..."she really blew it then." I really wanted to eat in peace, but they were right behind me and loud.

At the "crying" and laughing I turned around to see who the assholes were. They gave me a look like "What, b****?" and carried on. I, of course, have no idea what happened to her and what the circumstances are, but for anyone in management to speak so loudly in a public place about that made me mad. I cried at work once and yes, I managed to get to the bathroom and do it there so no one would see me. In general crying is not a good thing in a professional setting, however I have seen more cases of men yelling, getting beet-faced and huffing, slamming down paper or their fists on a desk, and cussing loudly than I have of women being "overly-emotional."

Double standard.

[Pithlet]

210. How not to be emotional at work.

I used to get crap like that where I worked.

[JoeWang]

234. Which type of discrimination are you referring to?

Illegal discrimination or some other definition. If you are writing a scientific paper the difference is critical.