Social inequality to women in our society

[mooeypoo]

Leading up from the other thread, we can discuss the social/political/any inequality that women currently suffer in our society.

 

I feel obligated to mention that this inequality isn't as strong as it was to women 50 years ago, but the inequality exists nontheless, so this thread isn't so much about comparing it to any other group, but rather trying to show how it exists (and perhaps how it affects women) in our current western society.

 

Mostly, because some posters seemed to claim that there's no inequality. So.. here's your place to raise your points. I'll be doing a bit of research to find the regulations I want to raise up here, so give me a bit to do that, but I think we can start with the initial points on either side and go from there.

 

(Continue from the last thread, and if you wish, I'll move posts from there to here).

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science is a fascinating article I recently read on this subject.

[ydoaPs]

I know that Walmart was in hot water recently about unequal pay between men and women despite the fair pay act.

 

http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science is a fascinating article I recently read on this subject.

I think I saw that via pharyngula.

[Stefan-CoA]

There's a sammich joke in here I know it. 'course pissing off the admins isn't too clever.

 

I think part of the reason is that women don't have that "go-get-it" mentality that men have. They are happier with "settling" than with fighting their way to the top. I mean, you do get those that do make it to the top as well, but they tend to be very scary.Where I currently work, the guys are outnumbered by girls about 5 to 1. BUT 90% of the girls that do work there are (despite being university students) completely content working there. (Casual work at a bookstore) whereas all of the guys want to do something better with themselves.

 

I don't know what it's like in shiny America or Europe but in South Africa we've got tons and tons of laws that actually penalise companies if they've hired too many white males (not because we're good at our jobs, but apparently just because we're white). Instead these "fines" are levied if the company hires women or people of colour preferentially. I'm 22 and chances that I'll get a job based on my qualifications and skills (one I'm done studying) are practically zilch.

 

This isn't based on any actual study or whatnot. This is just how I've observed things in my own environment.

 

Hope I didn't offend no one.

[mooeypoo]

I collected a few links I found over things I know are unequal today. There are probably more, but these are good for start.

 

 

The key here, imho, is that there are improvements in women's rights and women's social standing, but not quite yet an equality. Not quite yet an equality in opportunity, as well.

 

Here are a few issues:

A 2000 U.S. Census Bureau report shows that women have almost achieved parity in education. In 1999, the same percentage of men and women in the U.S. graduated from high school. The percentage of women who completed a bachelor's degree was 23.7 percent, compared with 27.5 percent of men. While this study shows women slightly behind men in the completion of bachelor's degrees, these results demonstrate a marked improvement over the last thirty to forty years.

and from the same article:

While these educational statistics do demonstrate that gender equality is increasing, it has not translated to real world results. The median income in 2000 for females with a high school diploma was $21,963, compared to $30,868 for males with a high school diploma. Females with bachelor's degrees earned $35,408 in 2000, compared with $49,982 for males.

Source: http://www.associate...tes.html?cat=47

 

There's no equality in salaries in the market from men to women in the SAME position with the SAME qualifications. Close as they may be, it's still inequality based on gender.

 

There's still inequality in the Senate and House. I am not sure I'd expect anything close to a 50/50 representation in either, but the difference is HUGE. We're talking about 17.2% women only.

(Source: http://www.senate.go....cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D%0A, check out page 5, specifically)

 

 

And a few interesting reads:

• Interesting example of some laws leftover from the more 'traditional' family approach, and are not too beneficial for women: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/9175
• As always, wikipedia proves to be a good STARTING place: http://en.wikipedia....nder_inequality
• This is more of a historical sweep of Women's rights in victorian age, but it is summarized with a contemporary view. It's an interesting take of the subject, if nothing else: http://www.cwrl.utex...ml#contemporary conclusions

 

There's a sammich joke in here I know it. 'course pissing off the admins isn't too clever.

 

I think part of the reason is that women don't have that "go-get-it" mentality that men have. They are happier with "settling" than with fighting their way to the top. I mean, you do get those that do make it to the top as well, but they tend to be very scary.Where I currently work, the guys are outnumbered by girls about 5 to 1. BUT 90% of the girls that do work there are (despite being university students) completely content working there. (Casual work at a bookstore) whereas all of the guys want to do something better with themselves.

 

I don't know what it's like in shiny America or Europe but in South Africa we've got tons and tons of laws that actually penalise companies if they've hired too many white males (not because we're good at our jobs, but apparently just because we're white). Instead these "fines" are levied if the company hires women or people of colour preferentially. I'm 22 and chances that I'll get a job based on my qualifications and skills (one I'm done studying) are practically zilch.

 

This isn't based on any actual study or whatnot. This is just how I've observed things in my own environment.

 

Hope I didn't offend no one.

You know, I was thinkinga bout this too, and recently had a discussion about this with a few friends in college (men and women combined).

 

I think you're right about the "go get it" attitude in general (this isn't true for everyone, though, say.. me) but there are a few issues with that: First, even women who do have that attitude STILL have limitations, like the salary cap and the things I posted above.

 

Second, I can't help but wondering if this isn't just a "chicken and the egg" question; do women have less equality because they don't have that attitude, or do women not have that attitude because society teaches them not to have it in the first place. Growing up, even in the western world and in an open society that has relative equality (like in the US), women STILL get treated differently; mathematics and engineering are "manly" traits, and this starts from kindergarten.

 

Women are less encouraged to go to the technical studies than men are, so less women do that, whether or not they like it.

 

So, I think that while it's true that there's a lot of a matter of the "attitude" that's concerned here, this still is a sign of possible inequality in the "lower" stages (like K-12 education). If nothing else, I think this deserves much more attention in terms of research and statistics to see if, perhaps, things should change.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

[lemur]

Inequality research/politics typically assume a meritocratic model where status and resources/privileges are allocated on the basis of status. In this context, it is logical that there should be no wage gap between men and women unless you for some reason validate the traditional logic that men need to earn more to support a family while women's income is merely supplemental to their families. While this traditional logic is sexist, it persists imo, even for contemporary women who earn income equivalent to males with the same occupational status. The way it persists, imo, has to do with a cultural preference women have for men who have equal or higher status to themselves. I.e. whereas men used to accept the duty/burden of funding a housewife and children, many women would prefer to hire child care workers/services or perform their own housework instead of having a low-income husband to support. I guess a simpler way of saying this is that as homemakers, women are still preferred over men, to the extent that such work is desired, which it often isn't. Granted, I have read of women who happily support their husbands taking care of the home and children, but those are usually exceptional stories and more typically I hear women express a desire for a man to out-earn them, either so that they can take time to raise children or so that their combined household income is significantly higher than it would be if they were the primary earner. To be completely crass, I would say that men have been socialized into a culture of prostitution where they are willing to spend money on women, even just by paying for dates and gifts, whereas women have also been socialized to see good men as those who are generous. In terms of who gives and who receives, it seems to me that women are actually on the profiting end of the material-exchange dimension of relationships; though they are disrespected and talked down to on many other levels with the prejudice that they are simply not capable of the same level of work, thought, responsibility, rationality, morality/ethics, etc. as men and that is not fair.

[Athena]

Thank you, thank you, Mooeypoo. I am sooo needing to talk about this inequality.

 

Let me begin with my college experience, with a professor who insisted the only research papers he would accept were those listed in the abstracts. That is because the research listed in the abstracts has to meet a standard. A society concerned with technological correctness may not realize the problem with this. The problem is, this standard is a male standard and women think and communicate differently. Women can learn to do things the male way, but God forbid this need to do things the male way, continue to dominate our lives.

 

The idea about what is important research, can be completely different for women and men, and to this day, it is men controlling the research and if it is accepted or not. For example, my term paper was about middle age women. Guess what? This is not a subject of male research, and there were not enough papers in the abstracts for a term paper. Let me clarify, the male professor had chosen the subject, for this gerontology class, and he knew the abstracts did not offer enough research for a paper, yet he refused all the research done by women, and there was a lot of it! Because the research directly applied to my life, I read it and was thrilled to learn so much about myself and what I shared with other women. My professor's lack of information about middle age women, due to his selective reading, and frankly, his lack of interest in understanding women, of course meant I got a low grade, but I hope my paper influenced him. It sure made a big difference in my life and my sense of self value and esteem.

 

I can now stand up to a man who shoots me down, because I know I do not stand alone, and this is not just about me. I have done the research of the research. And it goes further than this.

 

I participate in a history forum, and at first I was thrilled with all the history the men knew. A year later, and I am thinking, oh my God, these guys know a lot of facts, but have no the sense of meaning! I might as well be talking to my dog, as trying to have a discussion of meaning with these guys. I see so clearly how we could invade Iraq and devastate the lives of these people, and do so prepared to defend oil wells, but not prepared to defend the citizens after we destroyed the social, political and economic structures that held their lives together. My heart aches for the women who fled with their children and are forced into prostitution because they fled to a country that does not allow them to work to support their children. They are prostituting themselves to fed their children, knowing their families will kill if they find out what they are doing to survive. Men just are not thinking about such things as they argue about which country has the best fighting men, and which country had the best military strategy. What these guys think is important doesn't come close to what women think is important. Now I am more impressed by what men don't think about than by what they do think about. However, when a man does think of both what men think about and what women think about, he is a totally assume guy. There are such men, but unfortunately, not enough of them.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Athena

[Marat]

All those negative stereotypes about Men-in-General! If you said that about women, you would be attacked as a sexist! Does this point to the fact that the gender inequality in our society today is to the disadvantage of men?

 

Women have affirmative action privileges, which men do not. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars are affirmative action privileges worth in society today, especially when they determine who gets into professional schools and who does not? In Canada today, the majority of all university students, law students, and medical students are female. There are women's studies programs at almost all universities but no men's studies programs. Men can be drafted into combat but women cannot. The historical rule -- which amounts to genocide against men -- of preserving women and children (i.e., everyone but men) in an emergency still persists as acceptable behavior in society. In 75% of child custody cases, the woman wins possession of the child. Men pay spousal support much more often and at a higher level than women. In 70% of divorce cases, the woman alleges that the husband sexually abused the children. Under Canadian law, a man cannot present the defense to a charge of rape that he mistook the woman's consent, since only the woman's subjective intent matters; the man may present his story of what happened only if it substantially corresponds to the story the woman gives, since otherwise it is deemed not plausible as evidence (R. v. Ewanchuk). The ability of the man to present a full defense to a rape charge is limited by society's interest that the woman not be stressed or embarrassed by the evidence (Criminal Code, ss. 276-277). Males in prison can be subjected to intimate bodily searches by females but females may not be subjected to the same searches by males in prison because the court ruled that men are just too crude to be bothered by cross-gender searches (Conway v. Canada). Under the 'battered spouse defense,' women can be found not guilty of murdering their spouse even if they could have escaped his attacks quite easily without using any force; they have even been found not guilty under this defense for killing a sleeping husband or for pursuing their husband into another city and murdering him there. Historically, men have been responsible for their wives' debts but wives were not responsible for their husbands' debts; wives could pledge their husbands' assets to buy something on credit, but a husband could not do with a wife's assets; on divorce, a husband could still be found responsible for paying his wife's debts unless he published a newspaper notice that he was no longer responsible, called a 'notchel.' Today in academic journals, material presented for publication is characterized as having failed to meet 'gender neutral standards' unless it violates traditional grammatical rules which specified the 'male' referent for gender-unknown groups by going out of its way to exclude men and use 'she' or 'her' for all referents. 'Thus the soldier thanked for fireman for rescuing her when she climbed up the ladder' is now correct English.

 

The evidence that women earn less than men may be an indication of discrimination (though if this can be proved, it is illegal), but it can also indicate many other things, such as women not being as interested in the world of work when many still choose to adopt a traditional role in the home. It can also reflect seniority lost through maternity leaves, or voluntary gender segregation by job type (how many men feel fulfilled working as a kindergarten teacher, as many women do?)

 

My general point is that the situation is not as simple as some imagine. A useful, fact-packed book to consult on the issue is the in-depth study by the German sociologist, Dr. Erne Hoffman, 'Sind Frauen Bessere Menschen?' (Are Women Better People?)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Let me begin with my college experience, with a professor who insisted the only research papers he would accept were those listed in the abstracts. That is because the research listed in the abstracts has to meet a standard. A society concerned with technological correctness may not realize the problem with this. The problem is, this standard is a male standard and women think and communicate differently. Women can learn to do things the male way, but God forbid this need to do things the male way, continue to dominate our lives.

I'm not sure I follow. An abstract is a brief summary at the beginning of a research paper; what do you mean by papers "listed in the abstracts"?

[Xittenn]

@Marat; I am not surprised by a single word that you have said, but I believe that you are seriously skewing the context.

 

I do not have the statistical information on anything and just so I am clear

 

I have seen first hand women who have worked so very hard and have made little gain. I come from work in factories where women represent the minority. I do not know what the exact ratio of 'professional' to 'vocational' is but I am pretty sure that Canada is more largely employed in vocational fields. With men no longer obligated to take care of women, by the modern standard of moral practice, women are often left to fend for themselves. Many women do not meet the standards that are set for positions like waitress or secretary, as these positions are still often given to the better looking women by their male superiors. This leaves many women looking for work in factories. I am very familiar with factory work and I have seen a good many woman trying to make their living off of these jobs.

 

For starters they are far less likely to be hired. Not because of their looks and not because of their abilities; a lot of these jobs really do not require any strength and the women are often better with their hands. They are not hired because men are still in charge and are still hiring men. They feel more comfortable with them and more on a personal level; they are chums. They often rationalize, quite unreasonably, that women are in fact a lesser quality worker. Some still feel that women belong in the home and that their husbands will take care of them.

 

For the girls that do get hired, well, they have to accept the fact that in general they will work just as hard as the men around them and will learn to expect to remain at the bottom. I have seen women spend years in places that have started them at lower wages and have seen men come in and are making more money than them in a matter of months. I've seen guys who come in and are absent 2 of 5 days a week and constantly making mistakes, and they are making almost double that of women doing more work and who are always on time and in attendance. Most recently I was involved in a labour dispute with a company that was doing this to the girls it had employed; the man who was responsible was acting largely on the basis of his personal religion and heritage.

 

I agree that there has to be a proper revision of law and ethics in our modern society. I am disgusted by the cases that do occur and the events that you have mentioned. But seriously, it is pretty bunk that you are disregarding the hurt that a tremendous number of women are still facing in our country(I assume you are Canadian). I believe in making all sides clear but in making your point you have seriously belittled individuals who have had some highly traumatic experiences. Women are still faced with starvation, forced into the sex trade to make sure they have money for their children and many of them live in very pitiful conditions. While on the other hand men of equal stature drink and smoke their lives away, drive their cars and buy whatever the hell they feel like. I really wish the general public would revise its attitude because I too often hear the most horrible of sentiments from one party to another and it is often so misguided and so full of bitterness and completely unfounded; did your daddy tell you that, or maybe Google? :/

 

I apologize now for anything that I may have said, that may have been wrong or unclear or unprovoked . . ..

[mooeypoo]

All those negative stereotypes about Men-in-General! If you said that about women, you would be attacked as a sexist! Does this point to the fact that the gender inequality in our society today is to the disadvantage of men?

I agree.

 

I think we should separate issues here. The inequality that exists in the workplace and in some academic places, and gender biases or inequality that is in society. I think that in social terms, women are MORE equal than in the market in general. I wouldn't put things in such a harsh terms as Athena does, I think that there are problems, but they're not as prevalent.

 

Still, considering these problems is an important thing so we can try and understand where they come from and then try to fix them. Are women going to science less than men because they're "less able" or "think differently" or is it because society encourages men and not women? I am not sure. I can speak of my OWN personal experience, but that's not enough to make judgment as to what happens in society in general. I think the important thing is to keep things open so we can TEST them.

 

We shouldn't rule anything out, including physiological differences between men and women. While I don't quite believe this is the particular case, I do admit that there is a chance that the differences between men and women (differences that OBVIOUSLY exist physically, and I speak in general ignoring the obviously-existing exceptions to that 'generality') might include differences in the brain, for instance. In the way we think or in the way we behave, and that it's those differences that cause the fact tht women go less fgor science or for politics.

 

I doubt that personally, but I don't know. I think the best we can do TODAY is to say that at the very least, ti's worth a research.

 

Women have affirmative action privileges, which men do not.

I'm actually not entirely sure I'm for affirmitive action, for women or any other "discriminated" group. I admit, however, that I am not sure NOT having them is solving the problem either... though, having them doesn't seem to go towards the advantage of either sex as well. I'm not sure what the solution should be.

 

I think that we'll do a lot better if we make sure the rules PREVENT gender-bias rather than go for "affirmative action" that can be unfair to men AND also hurt the feminist "agenda" in a way that actually present women as WEAKER (and "needing" the help).

 

But, honestly, I'm not sure what can be a solution in this "interim" period, while we still improve current biased laws. Maybe we should look at other countries that have a better track-record with women equality? I think some of the north-european countries have a much better equality in the workforce.. I'll need to search for that data though. Could be useful to see how that happened.

 

In 75% of child custody cases, the woman wins possession of the child. Men pay spousal support much more often and at a higher level than women. In 70% of divorce cases, the woman alleges that the husband sexually abused the children.

I agree with you on that as well. I think that these should be *EQUAL*. But I also think these cases are improved nowadays. For example, there are many more men that take the "stay-at-home-dad" role and stay with the kids, or men that take "paternity leave" with (or after/instead-of) their wives. Those things happen a lot more today, and they aid the equality, because these cases of divorce or child custody tend to lean towards checking who is a better parent rather than giving the child directly to the mother automatically.

 

It's not yet equal in that aspect, and yes, in this case, the gauge leans towards women. I think all inequality in these things is wrong, including this one. Either it's "better for men" or "better for women", if the situation CAN be equalized, it SHOULD be.

The only place I see a reason to think about not making things equal is in the military, and in very particular cases (like submarines, etc).

 

The fact I want equality doesn't mean I ignore the inequality that exists on the OTHER side or the obvious differences that exist between men and women.

 

The generalized notion, however, is going towards the "conventional" definitions of men- and women-roles, and since these usually involve the man being the "provider" and the woman being the "house hold maintainer" the inequalities exist in those subjects mostly.

 

Under Canadian law, a man cannot present the defense to a charge of rape that he mistook the woman's consent, since only the woman's subjective intent matters; the man may present his story of what happened only if it substantially corresponds to the story the woman gives, since otherwise it is deemed not plausible as evidence (R. v. Ewanchuk). The ability of the man to present a full defense to a rape charge is limited by society's interest that the woman not be stressed or embarrassed by the evidence (Criminal Code, ss. 276-277).

Rape is a problem in BOTH sexes. I personally think that there's an obvious inequality (socially-based) for the fact taht men have a lot of trouble reporting rape themselves, whether they were raped by other men or by women. While a man raped by a woman is less prevalent, it DOES exist.

 

I am not sure how it goes in the USA, but in Israel, sexual harassment laws exist equally between men and women; that is, if I (a woman) am someone (a man) boss, and we sleep together, he can claim sexual harassment whether it was concentual or not because of my status as his boss, just like a woman could do the same if she had slept with HER boss. The idea is that a boss can take advantage of his or her power to "encourage" a subordinate to do sexual favors, so while it was "concentual", it's not really. This, however, is EQUAL to both.

The problem is, most men don't report it, nor treat these things as sexual harassment or rape, even if the woman actually DID take advantage of them. This is a social issue, though.

 

We start by making the LAW equal. We continue by educating our society for equality.

 

The evidence that women earn less than men may be an indication of discrimination (though if this can be proved, it is illegal), but it can also indicate many other things, such as women not being as interested in the world of work when many still choose to adopt a traditional role in the home. It can also reflect seniority lost through maternity leaves, or voluntary gender segregation by job type (how many men feel fulfilled working as a kindergarten teacher, as many women do?)

It is proven, there are statistics.. one of my links shows that stats, but I can try and find more.

The reason it's not STRICTLY illegal is because the employers find ways around the legal aspects. I can research a bit on what they're using particularly, but there are quite a number of things they can use. The bottom line is that women ARE paid less than men in general and on average in the workplace. That's inequality.

 

So, while I agree that (a) there's inequality on both sides and (b) the inequality for women is not as horrific as it was 60 years ago, I can still claim that some laws are patriarchal and treat women (still) as if their place is in the household and not out in the workforce, and that inequality exists and should be dealt with.

 

My general point is that the situation is not as simple as some imagine. A useful, fact-packed book to consult on the issue is the in-depth study by the German sociologist, Dr. Erne Hoffman, 'Sind Frauen Bessere Menschen?' (Are Women Better People?)

 

I agree.

 

Never read that book, it sounds interesting. I'll try to pick it up in English if it exists in a translation.

 

 

 

 

Also, one last point I'd like to make clear -- I think that there is more subtle inequality for women than most people think, but I also think that extremizing the situation and presenting it as if EVERYTHING is unequal (which isn't true) just serves to hurt the struggle to fix things.

 

We should, in my opinion, do more research on the differences between men and women - the practical ones in society and the physiological or mental or mentality ones that might CAUSE these differences.

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is proven, there are statistics.. one of my links shows that stats, but I can try and find more.

The reason it's not STRICTLY illegal is because the employers find ways around the legal aspects. I can research a bit on what they're using particularly, but there are quite a number of things they can use. The bottom line is that women ARE paid less than men in general and on average in the workplace. That's inequality.

While this is strictly true, it's misleading.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

 

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's.

 

As my earlier link pointed out, we must separate out what women choose intentionally and what is forced upon them, and that is exceedingly difficult.

[mooeypoo]

While this is strictly true, it's misleading.

 

http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

 

As my earlier link pointed out, we must separate out what women choose intentionally and what is forced upon them, and that is exceedingly difficult.

 

That's an interesting point.

 

I must ask, again, though, is this caused by some innate difference between men and women (it might be, I don't know) or is it due to social "imprints". For instance, if the woman is "expected" to be home earlier to make dinner and clean the house (I'm exaggerating on purpose), then no doubt she'll spend less time at work.

 

My point is that imho some of the apparent inequality can be due to our education of both sexes, and what we teach them to expect of one another.

 

Does that make sense?

[keelanz]

cookie doughhh!!! dry

 

I think its fair to say men and women are given the same opportunities by the system but perhaps not by themselves. Also i think some behavior is caused by religion (male predominant outlook) aswell as social implications such as upbringing and wealth (though this isnt always true)

 

i wouldnt say its necessarily true that women in western society are *forced* to do anything they dont want but there are certainly social aspects that would *strongly encourage* it, which to me is ethically wrong.

 

however things like prostitution are IMO perfectly fine ethically because 1) it may be a fun job & 2) she isnt forced into it she's doing it because its good money (i can only presume lol)

on the same note i think its right that women can join the army and men be prostitutes(sign me up)

[mooeypoo]

Prostitution is a whole different issue, though. It would be a debate about whether or not a woman has a right to her own body that extends to deciding to get paid for sex; It's worth noting, however, that most prostitutes ARE forced to do that. In some places where prostitution is legal there are means to try and verify that they're not forced. I'm not sure how effective that is.

 

 

I have to say, though, this attitude (and I don't blame you, I'm just noting) of "sign me up" is also showing the different attitudes between men and women regarding sex, as well. That's another social issue, and we can agree or disagree on it, but one thing is clear: it's affecting a lot of the behaviors we see.

 

A woman who screws around is a slut. A man who screws around is a stud. This affects social stigmas AND the way people behave, and can show why some of the differences exist.

[keelanz]

Prostitution is a whole different issue, though. It would be a debate about whether or not a woman has a right to her own body that extends to deciding to get paid for sex; It's worth noting, however, that most prostitutes ARE forced to do that. In some places where prostitution is legal there are means to try and verify that they're not forced. I'm not sure how effective that is.

 

 

I have to say, though, this attitude (and I don't blame you, I'm just noting) of "sign me up" is also showing the different attitudes between men and women regarding sex, as well. That's another social issue, and we can agree or disagree on it, but one thing is clear: it's affecting a lot of the behaviors we see.

 

A woman who screws around is a slut. A man who screws around is a stud. This affects social stigmas AND the way people behave, and can show why some of the differences exist.

 

a women that has lots of sex isnt a slut, she sounds like a lady having fun. women are forced into prostitution as much as men are forced into gangs, ultimately it is a decision which has advantaged and disadvantages. it would be strange to say we have legal rights over our property but not our physical flesh, very strange assertion indeed.

 

im not signing up to the premise that women with heroin addictions should be allowed to sell their soul to stay high i am simply suggesting if a women ethically weighs selling her body as productive form of income (and who knows a bit of fun) then who are we to judge? she isnt killing anybody (if she goes by the proper protocols)

 

i think its perhaps women who see other women with lots of notches as sluts, atleast from my own male perspective if a women is a slut, it certainly isnt negative.

 

EDIT: then again i am from the lower classes of society, in a class system a slut would be looked down upon, i see that.

Edited April 30, 2011 by keelanz

[Marat]

Another interesting point that Arne Hoffmann documents in his book is that the life expectancy difference between men and women in developed societies, around seven years to the advantage of women, stems in large part from the more dangerous work that men do. The injury and death rates in farming, mining, police and fire protection services, military service in wartime, and construction are all much higher than in comparably paid work dominated by women. Now if this same higher death and accident rate were noted for women instead of for men, there would of course be shouts from the rooftop about systemtic discrimination and gender bias. But since the difference is to the disadvantage of men, it is not even noticed in the current deathgrip of feminism on objective analysis.

 

One poster commenting on affirmative action programs for women wondered whether they might still be necessary in this interim period, despite enormous advances for women over the past 60 years. But since affirmative action projects its effects into the future, since women are now essentially in parity with wen in educational institutions and in pay-per-hour in comparable jobs, continuing them now is likely to overshoot the mark, if that hasn't already occurred. It is also worth noting that affirmative action programs began in the U.S. in the mid-1960s, so the male grandchildren of men who suffered discrimination in favor of women are now still being discriminated against. So is this really still an 'interim period'?

 

But there is a more general problem with the entire feminist approach, since it simultaneously seeks to criticize the way men act and yet insists that women are being discriminated against unless they can successfully adopt male roles. Why does it never occur to feminists that becoming male-like figures by leaving the home to work in paid jobs outside the home may amount to a type of servile flattery of traditional male ways of life, rejecting a superior way of life women may have carved out for themselves? Viewed from the perspective of philosophical fundamentals, isn't it possible to say that being the person who stays at home, gives young children their first introduction to the meaning of life, and who establishes a loving and supportive environment for those who must go out to participate in the objective world outside the home, is a far superior, more truly human role in life than going to the used car showroom every day to trick potential customers into believing that the odometer hasn't been fiddled so you can earn your $1425 sales fee for duping them into buying a lemon? Why are women so gullible as to accept uncritically the role which men have set up as the superior way to live, that is, the role of being a cog in the giant machinery of capitalistic exploitation? Weren't women showing a moral superiority, and perhaps acting more honestly in fulfilling their own true nature, when they were nurturing homemakers rather than competitive, mean, bitter, cruel young assistant district attorneys, elbowing the competition out of the way to get a promotion at the cost of cutting everyone else's throat? Is this really the higher calling for a human?

 

In 1890, society had two distinct voices, the male voice of cruel competition in the objective world, and the female voice of nurturing, loving support within the refuge of the home. Now in 2011, society has just one voice: the male voice of cruel competition in the objective world and a female voice struggling to 'liberate' itself by the ultimate flatttery of imitating the male voice.

[mooeypoo]

a women that has lots of sex isnt a slut, she sounds like a lady having fun.

 

I might agree in principle, but this isn't what's going on in practice in the world.

Maybe it will in the future, but not now. If you think that a woman that spreads around how many men she had would be deemed a "playa" or positive-light anything like a man would (in most cases), you are mistaken.

 

women are forced into prostitution as much as men are forced into gangs, ultimately it is a decision which has advantaged and disadvantages. it would be strange to say we have legal rights over our property but not our physical flesh, very strange assertion indeed.

 

im not signing up to the premise that women with heroin addictions should be allowed to sell their soul to stay high i am simply suggesting if a women ethically weighs selling her body as productive form of income (and who knows a bit of fun) then who are we to judge? she isnt killing anybody (if she goes by the proper protocols)

 

i think its perhaps women who see other women with lots of notches as sluts, atleast from my own male perspective if a women is a slut, it certainly isnt negative.

 

EDIT: then again i am from the lower classes of society, in a class system a slut would be looked down upon, i see that.

 

You are oversimplifying the cases incredibly. There are many cases of women who were born into prostitution, and while I can agree that there's similarity with men that are "forced into gangs", I'm quite sure most people will agree there's a psychological and social difference between a woman forced to sell her body repeatedly, and a guy forced to commit crimes. One is out of position of power, and one is out of position of weakness and slavery. Many prostitutes begin their prostitution life with rapes, and many of them are being raped throughout.

 

Only places where prostitution is legal have proper ways to make sure that prostitutes actually have a choice.

 

 

 

 

[lemur]

i think its perhaps women who see other women with lots of notches as sluts, atleast from my own male perspective if a women is a slut, it certainly isnt negative.

Men always say this until it is their wife/gf, mother, or sister. This points out a deeper gender inequality regarding sexuality, though, which is the fact that men continue to be seen and used for sexual leadership and/or initiative. Imo, it works like this: women exercise social control against each other for sexual desire and promiscuity in various ways. They are the keepers of relationship responsibility in terms of recognizing and patrolling the emotional, physical, and relationship consequences of sex. However, although they seem to be more aware of sexual consequences, they often have repressed libidos as a result and thus they may have a covert admiration for masculine care-free sexuality. They may fantasize about throwing caution to the wind but never do it because the consequences are more imminent in their minds. But then many/some will find pleasure in gossiping about promiscuity or other bad sexual choices because in a twisted way they "get off" on both the fact that it's not them that got into trouble and at the same time they may find the intrigue of the affair exciting. Anyway, I know this is a very stereotyping analysis and it probably has many exceptions, but it's a pattern I think that I've noticed. One side effect, though, is that women tend to see men as sexually naive dogs who only go around drooling after a treat without having self-control, dignity, etc. for the most part. So when women want to lower their guard and participate in sexual activities, they like to do so by allowing men to take initiative and ultimately only "give in," so they can blame it on bad judgment if they end up regretting later. This is terribly stereotypical, but I think that many women really are still more concerned with their sexual reputation and image as a defender instead of pursuer than they are about equality in desire and initiation of sexual interactions. Men, on the other hand, should be stronger and resist more to allow women some leeway in pursuing without always immediately getting whatever they want when/if they want it, imo.

Edited April 30, 2011 by lemur

[padren]

A woman who screws around is a slut. A man who screws around is a stud. This affects social stigmas AND the way people behave, and can show why some of the differences exist.

I was genuinely raised (culturally, not specifically as a result of my parents) that "If a woman decides to exercise her right to sleep with who she wants, she's unfairly labeled a slut, whereas men can act like shallow misogynist pricks and sleep with a lot of women, and are labeled as studs despite being worthless creeps."

 

Basically, it was the status quo that women were treated like sluts unfairly - until the status quo became the observation that the status quo treats women like sluts unfairly.

 

When I was young took me quite a while just to not feel ashamed while expressing any kind of attraction because just admitting any kind of physical attraction was tantamount to saying I was a shallow misogynist objectifying the poor girl. Meanwhile women who were forward were elevated divas who "Knew what they wanted and got it" while being celebrated as courageous proof of the advancement of gender equality and you just had to be in a kinda respectful awe of that sort of self confident woman.

 

 

Of course, there is a huge difference when it comes to the attractiveness of the individual and those they are sleeping around with - whether you are a man or women, you don't get any "notch points" for sleeping with a lot of hobos. If you are a total rockstar (either gender) people would look at you like your crazy, and try to understand why the hell you decided to work the hobo circuit, and if you are "low to moderately" attractive you'd be looked down on, regardless of gender.

 

Lastly, there's the issue of "when people get ugly" and 99% of the time, people will say what they think hurt's the other person than what they actually believe: Chances are if you call a women a slut, she will believe you mean it and it will cut her very deeply - men don't have that issue so much. By the same token, you could call a lot of women "a fat cow" and they'll believe you mean it, whether you really do or if you just want them to think you do so as to hurt them. It's childish and ugly but there is a completely separate tier there. While I don't condone the practice there are a lot of people who would never act homophobic/racist/misc bigot/sexist in the sense of believing those things impact the real qualities of other people's worth, but still bring them out in dirty arguments just to be as hurtful as they can. It's a bad practice, but doesn't reflect the actual status quo as well as other social indicators.

[lemur]

While I don't condone the practice there are a lot of people who would never act homophobic/racist/misc bigot/sexist in the sense of believing those things impact the real qualities of other people's worth, but still bring them out in dirty arguments just to be as hurtful as they can. It's a bad practice, but doesn't reflect the actual status quo as well as other social indicators.

I'm glad you pointed this out. How is it that we learn to use hurtful language without actually meaning it? The hard thing is it is nearly impossible not to do this, imo, because if you've been avoiding using a particular slur, it gains that much more 'potential energy' so to speak.

[Marat]

The current social paradox is that it is still expected that men will take the lead in initiating flirtation and the whole, ritualized process leading to sex, but at the same time, men who do so are shamed for 'objectifying women' and 'treating them just as sex objects.' Curiously, women at the same time are also objectifying themselves and doing everything possible to enhance their character as sex objects, by obsessing over fashion, wedding dresses, make-up, etc., and by beautifying themselves at hair salons, by applying make-up, and by wearing the most revealing outfits they can get away with.

 

Of course, the absurdity of this is that all people are always both ideal, spiritual beings with subtle emotions, sophisticated ideas, complex psychologies, and interesting personalities, but at the same time they are also just plain physical objects, and in their sexual aspect they interact with each other to a large degree as pure objects. So the feminist complaint that women are viewed as objects and thus objectified is foolish, given that all people are always perceived as objects, but this does not entail that they are ever understood (other than by a psychotic) as being only objects.

[lemur]

So the feminist complaint that women are viewed as objects and thus objectified is foolish, given that all people are always perceived as objects, but this does not entail that they are ever understood (other than by a psychotic) as being only objects.

But what if women don't really want to objectify themselves in all the ways you mention? What if they only do it because they are afraid that if they don't, the men they want will ignore them? What if a man wanted to have an attractive gf/wife but he didn't want to climb a corporate ladder or wear nice clothes, etc.? Once he realized he would be banished from dating until he did, might he not take up these habits that he would technically rather avoid? In that case, he might even come to see his choices as voluntary instead of being coerced by female preferences, but in reality he was only conforming to a culture out of fear of not being able to get girls, right?

 

 

 

[Marat]

It is a chicken-and-egg problem deciding whether women dress provocatively because they are conditioned to do so by male behavior, or whether women themselves initiate that behavior so as to enhance their sexual power over men. Women hate pornography, which puts sexually provocative visual material under the control of men, but they appear to delight in fashion, fashion magazines, beauty salons, etc., which put sexually provocative visual material under the control of women.

 

A good empirical test was perhaps the experiment of predominantly male fashion designers with the maxi-dress, which covered up women's provocative parts. It proved utterly unpopular among female consumers and quickly disappeared from shops, only to be replaced by an escalating race for ever-shorter skirts.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Women hate pornography, which puts sexually provocative visual material under the control of men, but they appear to delight in fashion, fashion magazines, beauty salons, etc., which put sexually provocative visual material under the control of women.

I think the bit about women hating pornography is becoming less and less true as time goes on. There are now feminist groups which advocate for pornography on the basis that women should be able to do anything they want with their sexuality.