Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

silverharp

NI24 wrote: »

Ah more patronizing from a man who has no idea what he's talking about.  But please tell my sister that her taking time off to deliver her baby and recover from it and the effect it had on her career isn't a problem.  She'll laugh in your face.  But I find it hilarious when you lecture someone on making assumptions when you did just that in your post multiple times.  You have no idea if families aim to maximize income or that women with high powered jobs who have children don't suffer career setbacks.

Can you stop with calling me patronising , you don't get debate comments for it. Anecdotes is great and all but they are not reasons. I know plenty of families where because the husband has a very good job the wife can be flexible by maybe taking a couple of years off work, going part time or maybe go self employed where the income is less steady.
the only grouping that matters is the family unit, and the pay gap is the least of their concerns. this is really only a thing in the divisive heads of feminists

NI24

silverharp wrote: »

Can you stop with calling me patronising , you don't get debate comments for it. Anecdotes is great and all but they are not reasons. I know plenty of families where because the husband has a very good job the wife can be flexible by maybe taking a couple of years off work, going part time or maybe go self employed where the income is less steady.
the only grouping that matters is the family unit, and the pay gap is the least of their concerns. this is really only a thing in the divisive heads of feminists

What is this irrelevant nonsense you're on about?  I don't care if you know families who don't maximize profits, I know families who do so your statement that they don't is nothing but an anecdote.   Once again, lecturing others on your own debating flaws.

Saruhashi

NI24 wrote: »

Ah typical patronizing from a man who doesn't have to make such sacrifices.   Btw, having a house husband won't remove the obstacle.  The baby still has to be born.

I think men still have to make sacrifices even though it's their partner who has to physically give birth to the child?

There's also the question of what's best for the child.

While this debate is going on we are arguing over the career and financial gains and/or losses for Women.

We are not considering what's best for the kids. Almost not at all, to be honest.

Is it better for a child to have the mother around most of the time when they grow up?
What impact does that have on the child's future successes?

I don't know the answer to those questions but it seems like they aren't even being asked.

I suppose it would be a great victory in closing the gender pay gap if, in some distant future, the couple could buy an artificial womb and throw a fertilized egg in there and then come back in 9 months and pick up their baby.

Nobody needs to take time off work so the parents can go on to work 80 hour weeks with no days off for years and bring in the big money. The robot nanny can just raise the child.

So the pay gap is closed, hurrah. Women get the victory, hurrah.

What about the kids though?

citytillidie

NI24 wrote: »

Ah more patronizing from a man who has no idea what he's talking about.  But please tell my sister that her taking time off to deliver her baby and recover from it and the effect it had on her career isn't a problem.  She'll laugh in your face.  But I find it hilarious when you lecture someone on making assumptions when you did just that in your post multiple times.  You have no idea if families aim to maximize income or that women with high powered jobs who have children don't suffer career setbacks.

You do know it is only in Europe where mothers have a long time off after giving birth.

Even then if they and their partner wish they can do a shared maternity leave, splitting the time so the mother can go back to work earlier.

NI24

Saruhashi wrote: »

I think men still have to make sacrifices even though it's their partner who has to physically give birth to the child?

There's also the question of what's best for the child.

While this debate is going on we are arguing over the career and financial gains and/or losses for Women.

We are not considering what's best for the kids.  Almost not at all, to be honest.

Is it better for a child to have the mother around most of the time when they grow up?
What impact does that have on the child's future successes?

I don't know the answer to those questions but it seems like they aren't even being asked.

I suppose it would be a great victory in closing the gender pay gap if, in some distant future, the couple could buy an artificial womb and throw a fertilized egg in there and then come back in 9 months and pick up their baby.

Nobody needs to take time off work so the parents can go on to work 80 hour weeks with no days off for years and bring in the big money.  The robot nanny can just raise the child.

So the pay gap is closed, hurrah.  Women get the victory, hurrah.

What about the kids though?

You're changing the subject.  If you want to start a discussion on what's best for kids, there's a whole other forum for that.  Or start it now,  I don't care because I'm not debating that.

Saruhashi

NI24 wrote: »

What is this irrelevant nonsense you're on about?  I don't care if you know families who don't maximize profits, I know families who do so your statement that they don't is nothing but an anecdote.   Once again, lecturing others on your own debating flaws.

I think the main, and I think good, point was that for families the main grouping is the family unit itself and the gender pay gap is probably not a major concern.

Families will or will not maximize profits but they aren't doing it in service of some idea of equality. They will be doing it, or not doing it, for the benefit of the family.

It would be a bit strange, I think, if a mothers attitude was that she values her career more than the welfare of her kids. Same for a father.

Couples would surely decide on the sharing of workload and income depending on their own circumstances and with the main consideration being "what's best for our children" not "what's best for Women"?

Saruhashi

NI24 wrote: »

You're changing the subject.  If you want to start a discussion on what's best for kids, there's a whole other forum for that.  Or start it now,  I don't care because I'm not debating that.

No but if the discussion is about the sacrifices that Men and Women do, or do not, have to make then what's best for the kids will be a major factor in determining whether they will, or will not, make those sacrifices.

It's a major factor, surely?

Unless we are only talking about the pay gap or gender gap or whatever for people who have no intention of ever having children?

silverharp

Saruhashi wrote: »

There's also the question of what's best for the child.

While this debate is going on we are arguing over the career and financial gains and/or losses for Women.

We are not considering what's best for the kids. Almost not at all, to be honest.

Is it better for a child to have the mother around most of the time when they grow up?
What impact does that have on the child's future successes?

I don't know the answer to those questions but it seems like they aren't even being asked.

thank for clarifying , it was implicit in my comments about families not necessarily wanting to maximise family income. As a flip its like the argument about m/f engineers, in an oppressive country like Iran a lot of women go into engineering whereas in a comfortable country like Sweden they don't.
In a comfortable economy families wouldn't maximise income because they would be thinking of the kids whereas in a stressed economy where people have oversized mortgages and debt they may need to prioritise family income.

backspin.

NI24 wrote: »

Ah more patronizing from a man who has no idea what he's talking about.  But please tell my sister that her taking time off to deliver her baby and recover from it and the effect it had on her career isn't a problem.  She'll laugh in your face.  But I find it hilarious when you lecture someone on making assumptions when you did just that in your post multiple times.  You have no idea if families aim to maximize income or that women with high powered jobs who have children don't suffer career setbacks.

I work in the public service and there are a substantial number of women on reduced hours to look after their children. A few that i know of have been asked if they would come back to full hours but they do not want to, they like the work life balance. What about those women? Their choices will have an effect on the so called gender paygap stats. Yet they have chosen that work life balance.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

It's not silly if you're an ambitious woman who wants to compete and have a family.

So what you’re saying is women can’t have it all?

Interesting....do you think men can have it all? Do you understand the sacrifices in terms of personal life that the vast majority of men and women who reach the very top of their professions have to make? Do you understand how limiting to a personal life a 70-80 work week actually is for either gender? Do you appreciate how few people, how tiny a percentage, of either gender are really willing to make that sacrifice?

And given the above do you feel that, in order to succeed, men should really have to make additional sacrifices that women don’t?

Sleepy

NI24 wrote: »

You don't get it.  There are no solutions.  Gender equality is a myth as I said the first time and if this Peterson guy had any guts he'd come out and say it.

You know what, in a way I agree. I'd just remove the word "gender" from your argument. Equality is a myth. It's a social construct we've collectively agreed upon in order to feel good about having a "fair" society.

As a member of society, I provide more utility than many, and less utility than many. As an employee I create more value for my employer than some of my co-workers and less than others. As a father, there are things I provide more of for my children than their mother, and other things that she provides the lions' share of. None of us are equal, yet for society to function equitably, we have chosen to believe the myth that we all are in order to justify the income distribution of a progressive taxation system and to provide social services and a welfare safety net. This is one of the crowning achievements of humanity imo.

As a man, however, our society makes it easier for me to choose to become a father without damaging my career prospects than it does for a woman to choose to become a mother without having a negative impact on her career. Conversely, it makes it harder for me to choose to prioritise my role as a father over my role as a bread-winner and will, by default, relegate that role to one of an ATM in the event of a family breakdown.

IMHO, the best means we have of balancing this scale in this regard is by strengthening the legal position of fathers in regards to: equal parental leave and shared custody becoming the default option in cases of family breakdown.

Society will have to change in other ways too, however: women who want to pursue higher management / office are going to have to accept that they will have to choose less ambitious partners if they want to have kids etc. Couples that want kids will have to accept that their decision will affect their disposable income and the amount of time they'll have left to pursue career advancement (or their hobbies).

Or in other words: people are going to have to learn to live with the consequences of their choices and actions. This is an area that I think we, as a society, are failing spectacularly with at the moment, not exclusively, but certainly more noticeably in relation to a lot of young women who, for some reason* are really struggling with this, absurdly simple, concept.

Yes, women will still have to be the ones to carry and birth the children. Even if science works around this "problem", it'd open a Pandora's box of ethical considerations. With the average family only having 2 children these days and the actual leave required for the average pregnancy and childbirth being under 6 months per child over a 40+ year career, I think the impact of this element of procreation on a woman's career prospects is wildly overstated tbh. It's the subsequent adoption of the role of "primary caregiver" that holds far more women back. And from my own experience, in those families I know where the father has adopted that role, the mothers have extremely high career achievements (CEOs, Vice Presidents, Senior Consultants, Senior Counsels etc.)

*(perhaps lesser involvement in team sports? The trope of the "knight in shining armour" being so common in stories aimed at young girls? Feminism teaching girls they "deserve" equality of outcome? A combination of these and a myriad of other factors? Most likely. A topic worthy of discussion in it's own right though completely OT for here...)

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Is it better for a child to have the mother around most of the time when they grow up? What impact does that have on the child's future successes?

Why would you only want to ask about the impact of having a mother around most of the time when they grow up? Why not ask about having the father around most of the time when they grow up?

Also how are you framing 'success'? Do you mean solely in the area of careers or general childhood development?

NI24

NI24 wrote: »

Competing against men physically is so far out of my expectations that I wasn't even thinking of it, but thank you for reminding me of yet another obstacle.

And yet, the only real obstacle you've mentioned is a physical one. i.e. having children. I've yet to see you list all these other obstacles facing women.

Having children isn't an obstacle either. The law protects the rights of women to have children, and most employers (depending on the industry/job role) don't have an issue with it because it tends to settle a person encouraging them to stay within a company rather than jumping around seeking higher salaries with different companies. It's only really an issue when it comes to careers in sales which require the employee to do a lot of traveling.

In fact, if you were to actually look at the information on hand by businesses, the issue isn't with having children, but what comes afterward. Most mothers want to spend extended time with their children while they are growing up. That's the main issue here. You can have your child, spend 6 months out of work, and then return without any serious dent in your career. The problem is that most women don't want to return to 60 hour weeks of working while taking care of their child. Nor do they want to hire a nanny, or have a family member take over the caring of the child, even if they can afford it.

Instead, the focus for most women after having a child is to decrease their number of working hours to the minimum, so that they can spend more time with their child. Added to that are the demands of hospital visits, teacher meetings, etc all of which are generally standard demands while the child is growing up.

The only obstacle to a woman's career (in relation to having children) is the time they spend with the child after birth. There are actually quite a few women with families in top positions spread around the world. They've chosen to spend more time dedicated to their careers than to their children.

We make choices with what to do with our time. And we are forced to deal with the consequences of those choices. A woman that has a child, but continues to work long hours, is likely to gain the promotions but have less contact with her children. Just as a man would. Or the man/woman can spend more time with their children, and not succeed as well in work. Choice.

And that's gender equality.


And I would love to hear of all these obstacles to women... that men don't have to face.

NI24

NI24 wrote: »

Ah more patronizing from a man who has no idea what he's talking about.  But please tell my sister that her taking time off to deliver her baby and recover from it and the effect it had on her career isn't a problem.  She'll laugh in your face.  But I find it hilarious when you lecture someone on making assumptions when you did just that in your post multiple times.  You have no idea if families aim to maximize income or that women with high powered jobs who have children don't suffer career setbacks.

TBH I find your stance quite ignorant. There are millions of people who never have children. Men and women, because they never met someone 'special', can't afford to have children, or simply are physically incapable of having children. And lastly, those of us who don't want to have children. That's not solely the area of single men. I know quite a few women who never wanted to have children.

But your focus is entirely on the women who do have children. The law already protects their rights far more than it does childless people. People with children receive so many benefits from the state and society that those without don't. But somehow, that's perfectly acceptable. I can even understand why families should receive greater support than those without.

What I can't understand is why we should be punished for being childless. We work longer hours, take fewer holidays, miss fewer days in work, are generally more focused on our jobs, etc than those with children. And yet, we should not be gaining any benefits for that dedication to our jobs. Instead, women who have children should be receiving even more benefits?

(I notice that you have very little interest in giving benefits or help to those men in the workplace who have children)

I don't have children and likely will never have children. I've never asked for any favoritism for my gender or social status. I work and gain benefits based on my performance.

You're right in a way. Gender equality in the workplace won't happen... as long as there are people like you, seeking extra benefits far beyond what is deserved.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why would you only want to ask about the impact of having a mother around most of the time when they grow up? Why not ask about having the father around most of the time when they grow up?

Also how are you framing 'success'? Do you mean solely in the area of careers or general childhood development?

Because that’s the question they wanted to ask? Because it aligns to the original point raised better than yours? Because sometimes specifics provide a useful portal to understand someone’s thinking?

Instead of nit picking other posters motives why not ask the question yourself if it interests you at this point in time?

Have you actually read the actual post that’s being replied to here? If you have it pretty much addresses all your questions.

Triceratops Ballet

NI24 wrote: »

You don't get it.  There are no solutions.  Gender equality is a myth as I said the first time and if this Peterson guy had any guts he'd come out and say it.

Equality might be a myth, but personal life choices can't be considered as a determining factor of that theory. Having children is a choice, not a requirement and so is not the yardstick on which the existence or absence of equality can be measured.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

Because that’s the question they wanted to ask? Because it aligns to the original point raised better than yours? Because sometimes specifics provide a useful portal to understand someone’s thinking?

Are you speaking on behalf of surasuri? I asked them because I wanted to know why they asked that question as opposed to asking about the impact of the father.

tritium wrote:

Instead of nit picking other posters motives why not ask the question yourself if it interests you at this point in time?

Instead of nit picking my nitpicking, I wouldn't bother to ask that questions at all because it would only raise more questions (e.g. effects of mother relative to father on child's future success).

If we're concerned about what's best for the child's future success, first I need to know what definition of 'success' were using. Are we talking purely about career success as another poster seems to think is the main measure of success in life. Second I would ask what factors add or detract from that success. So instead of asking what impact the !other has on success, I would ask:
what are the factors that contribute to success,
How are those factors provided by mother, father, grandparents, creche, state, culture peers.

I think limiting the question to the mother is pointless so I would like to know why the poster thought it was saying good question. But we'll see what the poster says.

tritium wrote:

Have you actually read the actual post that’s being replied to here? If you have it pretty much addresses all your questions.

It doesn't really.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Equality might be a myth, but personal life choices can't be considered as a determining factor of that theory. Having children is a choice, not a requirement and so is not the yardstick on which the existence or absence of equality can be measured.

Except, of course, Equality is not a myth. It's currently a fact. Women have the same rights as men in achieving both a position and promotions within the workplace. Social conditioning, for the most part, recognizes the equality of women. There will always be slight discrepancies between the genders because while we have a system to implement guidance, western civilization encourages individualism, and that individualism allows some deviance in behavior.

The problem with NI24, and others like her(?) is that they seek more benefits for particular groups of women beyond what is offered to the whole. They seek to create divisions amongst the genders out of a sense of fairness, but instead, encourage the very perceptions that encourage sexism to occur. As long as you distinguish groups as being different from others, you encourage them to be perceived differently.

We have a very traditional system of recognition regarding the abilities, skills, and commitment to our roles. People like NI24 seek to circumvent that system because it's not convenient. It's not fair. But life isn't fair. Life is hard and is actually going to become much harder as resources decrease and costs go up (which they are).

Having children is a choice. And women are not being discriminated for making that choice. They're not being punished. They already receive many benefits to help them with that choice. But. They are being treated equally in the workplace with the other people who do not have children. For now.

So we do have gender equality. For the most part. For now. It won't last though because women's rights groups/supporters don't want equality.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If we're concerned about what's best for the child's future success, first I need to know what definition of 'success' were using. Are we talking purely about career success as another poster seems to think is the main measure of success in life. Second I would ask what factors add or detract from that success. So instead of asking what impact the !other has on success, I would ask:
what are the factors that contribute to success,
How are those factors provided by mother, father, grandparents, creche, state, culture peers.

in this one Ill posit we are talking about the wellbeing of the child. How well studied the area is I don't know and its a difficult one to lab test but the idea is that kids that are separated from their mothers too early go on to have more anxiety issues later in life.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

Except, of course, Equality is not a myth. It's currently a fact. Women have the same rights as men in achieving both a position and promotions within the workplace. Social conditioning, for the most part, recognizes the equality of women. There will always be slight discrepancies between the genders because while we have a system to implement guidance, western civilization encourages individualism, and that individualism allows some deviance in behavior.

The problem with NI24, and others like her(?) is that they seek more benefits for particular groups of women beyond what is offered to the whole. They seek to create divisions amongst the genders out of a sense of fairness, but instead, encourage the very perceptions that encourage sexism to occur. As long as you distinguish groups as being different from others, you encourage them to be perceived differently.

We have a very traditional system of recognition regarding the abilities, skills, and commitment to our roles. People like NI24 seek to circumvent that system because it's not convenient. It's not fair. But life isn't fair. Life is hard and is actually going to become much harder as resources decrease and costs go up (which they are).

Having children is a choice. And women are not being discriminated for making that choice. They're not being punished. They already receive many benefits to help them with that choice. But. They are being treated equally in the workplace with the other people who do not have children. For now.

So we do have gender equality. For the most part. For now. It won't last though because women's rights groups/supporters don't want equality.

I didn't say equality didn't exist, I said might, it was a turn of phrase. I'm familiar with the laws in place to prevent discrimination, I don't dispute their existence.

however, it could be argued that on a social level there are discrepancies in the treatment of the genders and some of these social norms have a bearing on how the law operates, one example would be.

Social Norm - Women are primary care givers
Example of inequality linked to that - unmarried fathers rights/lack thereof, paternity leave (improving but still only two weeks)

Deleted User wrote: »

So we do have gender equality. For the most part. For now. It won't last though because women's rights groups/supporters don't want equality.

This is of course in your opinion, in mine most womens groups that I have come in contact with etc are pushing more for social change, rather than legal change (off the top of my head, the exception being the Repeal the 8th movement)

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why would you only want to ask about the impact of having a mother around most of the time when they grow up? Why not ask about having the father around most of the time when they grow up?

Also how are you framing 'success'? Do you mean solely in the area of careers or general childhood development?

Change them about if you like. Mother, father, guardian, whatever.

My point was more that people obsess with what they are gaining and/or losing from their careers once they have kids but I think it's better to focus on what is best for the kids.

I meant childhood development.

FYI I was asking the questions because I don't know the answers but I think it is an interesting aspect to this.

The J Stands for Jay

NI24 wrote: »

You answered your own question in this statement.  Women still have to carry and feed a baby for nine months if they want children.  Men have no such responsibilities.  That is a huge, life changing obstacle.  To pretend that it doesn't affect a woman's career is BS.  In fact, you admitted it in your post without acknowledging that it is an obstacle.

The obstacle is not being pregnant, the obstacle comes afterwards. Procreation is usually a choice. Caring for the child for the initial 6/12 months isn't a choice: men cannot get paternity leave. Women are forced to care for the child. Having established all the routines and how things are organised, it's them not as easy for the father to take over to the same degree. This choice is taken out of the parents hands.

This could be changed, but I wonder if women would object to this. Someone I know had recently returned to work after having her second child and has received a fair bit of criticism from other women she knows for not going part time. She is fairly high up in the organisation and can't believe that the sisterhood aren't allowing her to be ambitious.

The J Stands for Jay

NI24 wrote: »

Then why did he respond to my post?  He could have just agreed and left it.

Because you said 'obstacles' rather than 'obstacle'.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

in this one Ill posit we are talking about the wellbeing of the child. How well studied the area is I don't know and its a difficult one to lab test but the idea is that kids that are separated from their mothers too early go on to have more anxiety issues later in life.

Wellbeing in general?

The specific part you’re talking about is attachment. There’s loads of research. Secure attachment vs insecure attachment vs too secure attachment (which means a child is unable to be parted from the attachment figure). The ideal attachment is where the child is well attached to its primary caregivers and, when parted, they’re confident that the caregivers will return. So secure in their attachment. It’s has lots of factors like having needs met and routines, but also dealing with situations where needs aren’t met and routines are broken. It’s a complicated area

There’s loads of research on attachments. Were you asking specifically about the mother from the point of view that the mother should be the primary caregiver?

Pero_Bueno

More misandrist hysterical nonsense bullsh1t peddling

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42774308

https://twitter.com/AGlasgowGirl/status/954805372115734528

Yep ALL men are rapist pigs and ALL women are great .. you show em GIRL!!!!

F*cking unreal ... and have you heard Natalie Portman going on about how she was "sexualised" at 13 ?
Because of a letter she got from some creepy fan.
Yeah everyone in the fame industry gets creepy fanmail, why bring this up 20+ years later and make an issue about it - total non issue in reality.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I didn't say equality didn't exist, I said might, it was a turn of phrase. I'm familiar with the laws in place to prevent discrimination, I don't dispute their existence.

TBH I wasn't exactly disagreeing with your post. It just got me thinking.

however, it could be argued that on a social level there are discrepancies in the treatment of the genders and some of these social norms have a bearing on how the law operates, one example would be.

Personally, I would suggest that there will always be some discrepancies as long as we encourage the concept of personal freedoms. The belief in a completely equal society is unrealistic simply because to do so would require a tyrannical system that doesn't allow any deviation from the laws put in place.

Which is, honestly, something we might find ourselves living in within a few generations. [although equal in the way that feminists view equality, which is to say, more rights for women in every area of society]

Social Norm - Women are primary care givers
Example of inequality linked to that - unmarried fathers rights/lack thereof, paternity leave (improving but still only two weeks)

Yup. Social norms take time to change. We've seen laws change to give women equality in just about every aspect of our society, and yet, there remain certain areas where social conditioning resists the changes of people perceptions regarding gender roles. (and quite often it is women themsevles resisting the changes)

It's one of the reasons I get annoyed with Feminism and Women's rights movements. They demand change to occur immediately, without acknowledging that real change (in the way that people think and feel) takes time.

This is of course in your opinion, in mine most womens groups that I have come in contact with etc are pushing more for social change, rather than legal change (off the top of my head, the exception being the Repeal the 8th movement)

Because legal change has already occurred. It would be very difficult to bring in more laws to 'protect' women's rights without sacrificing the illusion of seeking equality. At least, until you change the way society views both genders.

However seeking social change, and the failure of that change to occur quickly enough gives them leeway to block male rights which might actually bring us closer to actual equality. Instead, we see a promotion of negative male characteristics, while excusing the negative behavior of females. That way they can assign the responsibility for a broken society on men without acknowledging their own responsibility.

It's like the way that women dismiss the responsibility of mothers for how their children develop, but men are told we are responsible for how boys develop (even while we're blamed for women having to shoulder most of the parenting).

We are being told that men as a gender are responsible for the minority of men who assault/abuse/rape... while ignoring the responsibility of women in hiding abuse, actually actively encouraging men to abuse, etc.

The social change that these groups are pursuing ignores everything negative that women bring to the table, whilst justifying social changes, due to the negatives that men bring... And so, women are free to remain as they are, and anything that prevents social change or brings about negatives is not their responsibility.

First, the laws were changed. Now it's social conditioning. Next, will probably be more laws (that previously wouldn't have been accepted) to protect them even further. After all, people are generally starting to accept that women are victims in society, and that generally it's men that 'make' them victims.

Iseedeadpixels

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

More misandrist hysterical nonsense bullsh1t peddling

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42774308

https://twitter.com/AGlasgowGirl/status/954805372115734528

Yep ALL men are rapist pigs and ALL women are great .. you show em GIRL!!!!

F*cking unreal ... and have you heard Natalie Portman going on about how she was "sexualised" at 13 ?
Because of a letter she got from some creepy fan.
Yeah everyone in the fame industry gets creepy fanmail, why bring this up 20+ years later and make an issue about it - total non issue in reality.

Jesus Im gonna have to give out to my female friends who never let me sneak off early.....bunch of rapists!!!

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Change them about if you like. Mother, father, guardian, whatever.My point was more that people obsess with what they are gaining and/or losing from their careers once they have kids but I think it's better to focus on what is best for the kids.

I meant childhood development.

FYI I was asking the questions because I don't know the answers but I think it is an interesting aspect to this.

Fair question. It's a huge area of investigation. I wonder if it matters whether the primary caregiver is a parent or not. Is a grandparent just as good. One of the biggest influence on my development was a middle aged women who minded me from an infant. My Mrs was best mates with her grandad when she was a child. Both were hugely positive caregivers and influences on our development. They weren't our primary caregivers but id say there are lots of ways to mix and match to get good care to a child's development. I'd say they're are far too many factors to ever know what the optimal situation is

El_Duderino 09

Pero_Bueno wrote:

Yep ALL men are rapist pigs and ALL women are great .. you show em GIRL!!!!

Where did you get that?

All men? Rapists? Seeing things?

silverharp

well well well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/22/oxford-university-gives-women-time-pass-exams/

Tony Diver
22 JANUARY 2018 • 3:39PM
Oxford University exam times were increased in a bid to improve the low scores of women, it has emerged.

Students taking maths and computer science examinations in the summer of 2017 were given an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers, after dons ruled that "female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure". There was no change to the length or difficulty of the questions.

It was the first time such steps had been taken. In previous years, the percentage of male students awarded first class degrees was double that of women and in 2016 the board of examiners suggested that the department make changes to improve women's grades.

The J Stands for Jay

silverharp wrote: »

well well well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/22/oxford-university-gives-women-time-pass-exams/

What would the unintended consequences be here? Degrees held by women being valued less by employers, or lots of students identifying as female in advance of the exams?

givyjoe

McGaggs wrote: »

What would the unintended consequences be here? Degrees held by women being valued less by employers, or lots of students identifying as female in advance of the exams?

All students got the extra 15 minutes, just the reason being to help out females. So everyone gets the benefits and any knock on downsides.

silverharp

givyjoe wrote: »

All students got the extra 15 minutes, just the reason being to help out females. So everyone gets the benefits and any knock on downsides.

I think the article said that the ratio of grades m/f didn't change, but then it falls into grade inflation so everyone has a little slice of credibility taken off them

The J Stands for Jay

givyjoe wrote: »

All students got the extra 15 minutes, just the reason being to help out females. So everyone gets the benefits and any knock on downsides.

Looks like I'd fail on reading comprehension.

"But I am happy when people see gaps between groups of people who should not reasonably have such gaps - such as between genders, races or class - and take that as a starting point to think about the kinds of people they unintentionally are leaving behind."

Um, Intelligence is now an unreasonable factor?

This kind of logic is becoming depressingly more common. Even without making it a gender issue. It's meant to be difficult. You're meant to prepare, and ultimately have the natural ability with Maths to succeed in a top tier school.

I could never do those exams... even at my best. I just don't have that knack for numbers... And I accept that, so I did Finance instead.

I swear... some people just want to dumb down the whole human race by making it easy for everyone.

citytillidie

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

More misandrist hysterical nonsense bullsh1t peddling

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42774308

https://twitter.com/AGlasgowGirl/status/954805372115734528

Yep ALL men are rapist pigs and ALL women are great .. you show em GIRL!!!!

F*cking unreal ... and have you heard Natalie Portman going on about how she was "sexualised" at 13 ?
Because of a letter she got from some creepy fan.
Yeah everyone in the fame industry gets creepy fanmail, why bring this up 20+ years later and make an issue about it - total non issue in reality.

All we have to do is remind Natalie Portman of her support for Roman Polanski

Saruhashi

givyjoe wrote: »

All students got the extra 15 minutes, just the reason being to help out females. So everyone gets the benefits and any knock on downsides.

What I don't understand is why they announced this was done to help female candidates. Just to get a pat on the back?

Before summer 2017 a woman with a first class degree in Maths or Computer Science is just that.

After summer 2017 a woman with a similar first class degree now has an idea that "she needed the extra 15 minutes so she could compete with the lads" attached to her achievement.

Meanwhile, I am sure the extra 15 mins would help some male students too but without the implication that they needed special treatment.

Why didn't they just say "our studies show that students can benefit from significantly reduced anxiety by giving them an extra 15 minutes in the exam so we have increased the allowed time by 15 minutes"?

It feels like they want a round of applause for openly "helping women" when, in reality, they are not helping them at all by basically telling everyone that women need special treatment before they can compete with men.

givyjoe

Saruhashi wrote: »

What I don't understand is why they announced this was done to help female candidates. Just to get a pat on the back?

Before summer 2017 a woman with a first class degree in Maths or Computer Science is just that.

After summer 2017 a woman with a similar first class degree now has an idea that "she needed the extra 15 minutes so she could compete with the lads" attached to her achievement.

Meanwhile, I am sure the extra 15 mins would help some male students too but without the implication that they needed special treatment.

Why didn't they just say "our studies show that students can benefit from significantly reduced anxiety by giving them an extra 15 minutes in the exam so we have increased the allowed time by 15 minutes"?

It feels like they want a round of applause for openly "helping women" when, in reality, they are not helping them at all by basically telling everyone that women need special treatment before they can compete with men.

I have no idea, I'm literally just saying everyone got the 15 minutes, not just women!

Pawwed Rig

Saruhashi wrote: »

Before summer 2017 a woman with a first class degree in Maths or Computer Science is just that.

If I was a man or a woman that finished their degree the previous year I would be less than impressed with them making it easier to secure higher marks.

Saruhashi

givyjoe wrote: »

I have no idea, I'm literally just saying everyone got the 15 minutes, not just women!

Yeah, I wasn't arguing with you.

Just seems so weird that they never said "we are giving everyone an extra 15 minutes" and instead wanted to say "we are helping women".

Saruhashi

Saruhashi wrote: »

Yeah, I wasn't arguing with you.

Just seems so weird that they never said "we are giving everyone an extra 15 minutes" and instead wanted to say "we are helping women".

They probably get more funding if they claim it's helping women...

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I would suggest that there will always be some discrepancies as long as we encourage the concept of personal freedoms. The belief in a completely equal society is unrealistic simply because to do so would require a tyrannical system that doesn't allow any deviation from the laws put in place.

Which is, honestly, something we might find ourselves living in within a few generations. [although equal in the way that feminists view equality, which is to say, more rights for women in every area of society]

I might be highlighting my own ignorance here but what laws are being pushed for in this regard?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Social norms take time to change. We've seen laws change to give women equality in just about every aspect of our society, and yet, there remain certain areas where social conditioning resists the changes of people perceptions regarding gender roles. (and quite often it is women themsevles resisting the changes)

It's one of the reasons I get annoyed with Feminism and Women's rights movements. They demand change to occur immediately, without acknowledging that real change (in the way that people think and feel) takes time.

I think most people can acknowledge that real change takes time, but if change is something you're pushing for you have to keep pushing. It's like in anything if you want to achieve something you don't stop when you jump the first hurdle you stop when you've finished the race. For real change to occur it takes the people who keep pushing and not excepting the incremental changes as enough and the people who are satisfied and celebrate each increment.
I was listening to a podcast recently that explained this idea really well in the context of acceptance of the portrayal of transgender characters in the media. In the early 90's Hayley in corrie was a trans character, the first on a UK soap, there were people in the trans community who celebrated this as an acknowledgement that their community exists, however there were people in the community who thought it was outrageous because the role was played by a straight woman, those people were not willing to accept a less than authentic representation of their community, and because of that later when Eastenders were casting a trans character, they cast a trans person in the role. People are right to push against on social change, as pushing is how it changes, if nobody pushes nothing changes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because legal change has already occurred. It would be very difficult to bring in more laws to 'protect' women's rights without sacrificing the illusion of seeking equality. At least, until you change the way society views both genders.

However seeking social change, and the failure of that change to occur quickly enough gives them leeway to block male rights which might actually bring us closer to actual equality.

Again I might be showing my ignorance here but what mens rights are being blocked?

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead, we see a promotion of negative male characteristics, while excusing the negative behavior of females. That way they can assign the responsibility for a broken society on men without acknowledging their own responsibility.

It's like the way that women dismiss the responsibility of mothers for how their children develop, but men are told we are responsible for how boys develop (even while we're blamed for women having to shoulder most of the parenting).

We are being told that men as a gender are responsible for the minority of men who assault/abuse/rape... while ignoring the responsibility of women in hiding abuse, actually actively encouraging men to abuse, etc.

The social change that these groups are pursuing ignores everything negative that women bring to the table, whilst justifying social changes, due to the negatives that men bring... And so, women are free to remain as they are, and anything that prevents social change or brings about negatives is not their responsibility.

To be honest I don't understand what you mean by a lot of this, granted I don't have or want kids and most of my circle are childfree so I have very little knowledge of the experience of or expectations on parents, I find it hard to believe, that mothers specifically aren't held accountable for how their kids turn out but fathers are, maybe it's true, like I said I've no experience on that front.

I'm interested to understand what you mean by women who actively encourage abuse? I do think that society as a whole (men and women included) is somewhat responsible for the attitudes and behaviours that are present in society so if "rape culture" etc exists we're all at fault for allowing it. i know a lot of people here don't agree, but that's what I believe. I accept that I'm a part of it, and my actions or inactions contribute to it.

Deleted User wrote: »

And so, women are free to remain as they are, and anything that prevents social change or brings about negatives is not their responsibility.

On this point I have to completely disagree, I identify myself as a feminist and an egalitarian and I see those two as overlapping, however the feminist media I consume doesn't espouse the idea that women are grand as they are and shouldn't change, and all men are evil, in fact very little is about men at all, most of it is about self development and cheesey as sounds empowering yourself.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

What I don't understand is why they announced this was done to help female candidates. Just to get a pat on the back?
[...] in reality, they are not helping them at all by basically telling everyone that women need special treatment before they can compete with men.

I imagine that's exactly why it was done. The men will also benefit from the new time limit, but they have devalued women's results without devaluing men's results. If you want to hold the prejudice that a female candidate only got the result because she got extra time, then you can feel secure doing that. Men will benefit too but there's no implication that a man's result is down to the extra time. Sneaky. And that's exactly what some of the posters above did.

if you have a maths degree from Oxford, you're ahead of the crowd in terms of name recognition and reputation of the college anyway.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I imagine that's exactly why it was done. The men will also benefit from the new time limit, but they have devalued women's results without devaluing men's results. If you want to hold the prejudice that a female candidate only got the result because she got extra time, then you can feel secure doing that. Men will benefit too but there's no implication that a man's result is down to the extra time. Sneaky. And that's exactly what some of the posters above did.

if you have a maths degree from Oxford, you're ahead of the crowd in terms of name recognition and reputation of the college anyway.

Except that compared against men from previous years, that's exactly how it would be viewed, i.e. of lesser value. That's exactly what some others have said above. It devalues both men AND women's degrees in future, when compared with previous graduates from the same course.

Some serious mental gymnastics to change that from a 'positive' women were obviously lobbying for, into a negative but for women only.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote:

Except that compared against men from previous years, that's exactly how it would be viewed, i.e. of lesser value. That's exactly what some others have said above. It devalues both men AND women's degrees in future, when compared with previous graduates from the same course.

Yes that's exactly what I said. We seem to be in agreement both men and women will benefit and it's being phrased as if only women will benefit. So it's easy to see women's degrees as just being a product of the extra 15mins without the same applying to the men's degrees.

givyjoe wrote:

Some serious mental gymnastics to change that from a 'positive' women were obviously lobbying for, into a negative but for women only.

That's exactly what some of the responses have done. They've done the mental gymnastics showing its likely. See below.

Saruhashi wrote:

[...] when, in reality, they are not helping them at all by basically telling everyone that women need special treatment before they can compete with men.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I might be highlighting my own ignorance here but what laws are being pushed for in this regard?

As I agreed with you, the laws have already been brought in to protect women's rights, and now we've been moved on to changes in social conditioning.

I expect to see more laws to be introduced in the (near) future to further protect women in society since social conditioning is working to change societies perception of gender.

I think most people can acknowledge that real change takes time, but if change is something you're pushing for you have to keep pushing. It's like in anything if you want to achieve something you don't stop when you jump the first hurdle you stop when you've finished the race. For real change to occur it takes the people who keep pushing and not excepting the incremental changes as enough and the people who are satisfied and celebrate each increment.

And I'd agree. Real change needs momentum to gather. The women's rights movement has that momentum built up from the 70s/80s and continues to encourage the pursuit for women's rights. It's part of the reason why the men's rights movement has gained so little effective change. It hasn't built up any momentum yet.

My issue with women's rights is that while ealier "waves" sought gender equality, newer waves seek more rights beyond that of actual equality.

I was listening to a podcast recently that explained this idea really well in the context of acceptance of the portrayal of transgender characters in the media.

TBH, the whole trans issue confuses the crap out of me, and I stay well clear of it. At least until I see more logical arguments about their cause.

People are right to push against on social change, as pushing is how it changes, if nobody pushes nothing changes.

Depends on the manner of that pushing, although I would agree that these movements should continue to promote themselves, and to encourage social perceptions to change. In a positive manner.

Again I might be showing my ignorance here but what mens rights are being blocked?

The right not to be judged on the basis of their Gender? Domestic violence charges have been attributed to men simply because of their gender, even in cases where the woman was obviously the aggressor. Child custody cases are often passed to the mother simply because of traditional views of parenthood even when the mother has clearly been unfit to have custody.

I could go on, but such examples are well noted throughout this thread.

To be honest I don't understand what you mean by a lot of this, granted I don't have or want kids and most of my circle are childfree so I have very little knowledge of the experience of or expectations on parents, I find it hard to believe, that mothers specifically aren't held accountable for how their kids turn out but fathers are, maybe it's true, like I said I've no experience on that front.

that seems a bit of a cop-out. You're well read. You're up to date with articles on the internet and browse the boards forms often.

You seriously don't see any double standards regarding the two primary genders? (related to parenting, child growth, etc.)

I'm interested to understand what you mean by women who actively encourage abuse? I do think that society as a whole (men and women included) is somewhat responsible for the attitudes and behaviours that are present in society so if "rape culture" etc exists we're all at fault for allowing it. i know a lot of people here don't agree, but that's what I believe. I accept that I'm a part of it, and my actions or inactions contribute to it.

Rape culture... I'm still skeptical of this rape culture idea. I've never felt inclined to rape anyone, nor have I ever had any pressure applied to me to do so from cultural influences.

Good balanced article. Worth reading:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

People have their own values and beliefs about what is or should be allowed. The law is there to keep most people in line, but there will always be those that step outside of the law to commit rape, abuse, assault etc. Personally, I'm far more hardline regarding punishment of people who break the law than others rather than the current soft approach, but I still believe the law is the only realistic way to limit this kind of behavior. Social change can only go so far...

On this point I have to completely disagree, I identify myself as a feminist and an egalitarian and I see those two as overlapping, however the feminist media I consume doesn't espouse the idea that women are grand as they are and shouldn't change, and all men are evil, in fact very little is about men at all, most of it is about self development and cheesey as sounds empowering yourself.

I'd consider myself egalitarian, and I honestly cannot put feminism and egalitarianism even remotely close to each other unless we're talking old-school feminism. Modern feminism has nothing to do with equality and is firmly focused on women's rights.

I don't believe that most feminists think men are evil or rapists. That's the hardcore feminists who have no other life except for manhating. However, there is a definite movement to encourage fear of the male gender in society. The 'acceptance' for "gender studies" at many different levels of education and the media focus on sexual abuse/assault suggests a strong movement to paint the male gender in a particular manner. The recent blowup with Aziz Ansari or the interview that Patterson had is a pretty good indication of how social perception is changing.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

As I agreed with you, the laws have already been brought in to protect women's rights, and now we've been moved on to changes in social conditioning.

I expect to see more laws to be introduced in the (near) future to further protect women in society since social conditioning is working to change societies perception of gender.

What kind of laws are you anticipating?

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'd agree. Real change needs momentum to gather. The women's rights movement has that momentum built up from the 70s/80s and continues to encourage the pursuit for women's rights. It's part of the reason why the men's rights movement has gained so little effective change. It hasn't built up any momentum yet.

I agree with you there, but from an outsiders perspective, I don't see a whole lot of movement for mens rights, and I find it frustrating sometimes to see all this anger online, with no apparent activism. I appreciate that some posters her have even said that they write to the papers to challenge the constant baiting articles they see, but on a real world level I don't witness it. I don't know what the answer is tbh, maybe women are just better at mobilising en masse and protesting til they get what they want. Like if I compare the repeal the 8th movement (which granted is not specifically a womens movement) to the movement for advancing fathers rights in this country, I couldn't tell you when the last large scale demonstration for that was. I can tell you when gay pride is because the gay community get out and make themselves heard, and it's not because no one would support it, it's a no brainer, obviously fathers should have equal rights to their children, I can't imagine what argument an opposing side would even make. Yet there's no large scale visible movement.

Deleted User wrote: »

My issue with women's rights is that while ealier "waves" sought gender equality, newer waves seek more rights beyond that of actual equality.

genuine question, what rights are you talking about here? are you talking about legal rights?

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, the whole trans issue confuses the crap out of me, and I stay well clear of it. At least until I see more logical arguments about their cause.

I was just using it as example of how social change needs "pushers" and "celebraters" to be successful, I defo don't want to get into a discussion on that topic

Deleted User wrote: »

The right not to be judged on the basis of their Gender? Domestic violence charges have been attributed to men simply because of their gender, even in cases where the woman was obviously the aggressor. Child custody cases are often passed to the mother simply because of traditional views of parenthood even when the mother has clearly been unfit to have custody.
I could go on, but such examples are well noted throughout this thread.

I mean i agree with those, those things are worth fighting for

Deleted User wrote: »

that seems a bit of a cop-out. You're well read. You're up to date with articles on the internet and browse the boards forms often.

You seriously don't see any double standards regarding the two primary genders? (related to parenting, child growth, etc.)

I'm flattered you think so highly of my intellect, but I have no reason to "cop out" on this one, we're not going toe to toe in a public debate, I'm not arrogant enough to spout on about something I don't know much about, and i'm not going to read volumes on the subject just to discuss it with you online.

I am not aware of double standards applied to the genders in terms of outcome ie one parent being blamed more than the other. If it's a common problem I'm open to hearing about it, but I don't know enough to comment. I would have a passing awareness, that men who choose to stay at home while their wife/partner works can be looked down upon for the choice, and that the dominant situation is that most of the primary caregiving falls to the mother. I'm actually interested in how in increase in gay parents might challenge these norms for the better.

Deleted User wrote: »

Rape culture... I'm still skeptical of this rape culture idea. I've never felt inclined to rape anyone, nor have I ever had any pressure applied to me to do so from cultural influences.

TBH I'm not interested in discussing "rape culture" and it's existence or non existence either, it was just an example of how I believe that all the members of a society are responsible for the culture that exists within a society, I could have used racism or anything else, clearly it was a poor choice of comparison

Deleted User wrote: »

People have their own values and beliefs about what is or should be allowed. The law is there to keep most people in line, but there will always be those that step outside of the law to commit rape, abuse, assault etc. Personally, I'm far more hardline regarding punishment of people who break the law than others rather than the current soft approach, but I still believe the law is the only realistic way to limit this kind of behavior. Social change can only go so far...

I agree with you on the law, I think the current penalties for crimes like rape and assault are far too lenient. I disagree that social change can't play a part in it tho. Teaching girls to be more assertive when it comes to their own sexuality and what they will and won't accept is hugely important, I would see that as part of the social change that could come about by teaching all teenagers about consent. You take a mixed group of teenagers and say this is how to say no and mean is, and this is how to accept the no you're hearing an move forward. I think a mixed gender approach to this is important as a traditional view excludes homosexual kids.

The problem I see here is that educators, and parents have to realise that teenagers have sex and start teaching them as if that's a fact. From my own experience all I was taught in school was the biomechanics and the negative consequences, and I think that inadequately prepares young people for the reality.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd consider myself egalitarian, and I honestly cannot put feminism and egalitarianism even remotely close to each other unless we're talking old-school feminism. Modern feminism has nothing to do with equality and is firmly focused on women's rights.

I don't see them as the same really I think there is some overlap, eg if I believe women should have x rights I can't make a logical argument for men not having that right, if I think women have a right to wear makeup and dress how they want I can't logically make an argument against men doing that.

They are very different though I think I've said it in this thread before feminism is concerned with women and only women that's why it's called feminism, sure some of the outcomes of feminism will benefit the wider society and by association men, but that's not the purpose. So expecting to to be a totally egalitarian movement is foolish. Feminism is for the advancement of women.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe that most feminists think men are evil or rapists. That's the hardcore feminists who have no other life except for manhating. However, there is a definite movement to encourage fear of the male gender in society. The 'acceptance' for "gender studies" at many different levels of education and the media focus on sexual abuse/assault suggests a strong movement to paint the male gender in a particular manner. The recent blowup with Aziz Ansari or the interview that Patterson had is a pretty good indication of how social perception is changing.

I mean I see the online talk about men being evil, but then I go about my real life and it doesn't translate, so I and most rational actual feminists write it off as baiting, and maybe that's a maturity thing, when I encounter people who espouse that way of thinking I break it down logically for them and point out the flaws in it. I think it's easy to see it as a tsunami barrelling down but there are far more rational people in the world.

The Aziz Ansari thing was an awful sh1t show, and it's kind of a circular argument for me, I think that if kids were taught about sex the way I listed above, ambiguous situations like this wouldn't occur, I don't think he deserves to be pilloried for it, but I also don't think there's nothing to learn from it.

citytillidie

So after all the fuss on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5304655/Hostesses-flashed-groped-Dorchester-gala.html

Does that mean the end of ladies night with male strippers and butlers in buff ?

fly_agaric

citytillidie wrote: »

So after all the fuss on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5304655/Hostesses-flashed-groped-Dorchester-gala.html

Does that mean the end of ladies night with male strippers and butlers in buff ?

Don't think its comparable. Read another article on that this morning and seemed like they were duped somewhat. They definitely weren't hired on as a female equivalent of male strippers/"nude butlers" anyway.
The arrogance + self regard of these billionaires/1 % who seem to lord it over the rest of us all now in Western democracies is amazing. You'd think with all the stuff flying around at the moment they'd have the cop on not to stage a very public "party" of that nature, but I suppose you live in a sort of hermetic bubble universe when you've those levels of power & wealth.

El_Duderino 09

citytillidie wrote:

Does that mean the end of ladies night with male strippers and butlers in buff ?

Lol. Highlighting wait staff at a function being treated like sex workers will probably not prevent sex workers being hired as sex workers.

Is this seriously an issue you want to make about men being victimised?