why is feminism a dirty word?
On my break, I’ve been mulling over this thing called feminism. Feminism: the simple and obvious idea that women should have the same opportunities as men in employment, in education, and in life generally.
Feminism – how can such an obvious need in human society become such an ugly, contentious word? I have several suggestions, none of them pretty.
Suggestion 1
The simple and obvious idea that women should have equal opportunities isn’t either simple or obvious. The majority of men, and perhaps women, still believe that men can do things better than women, based on the irrelevant fact that men have a penis. Perhaps it’s unconscious bias at play, the kind of attitude that study after study illustrate exists throughout society. Or perhaps it’s outright, blatant and conscious discrimination, based on blind ignorance. We are used to seeing men in positions of power, in certain roles, and our little brains can’t make the leap to genuinely accept equality as a reality.
Suggestion 2
The simple and obvious idea that women should have equal opportunities has been muddied by ever-decreasing circles of naval-gazing and categorising. A quick browse through a selection of self-declared feminist sites reveals you have to be part of a pre-defined wave of ideology; you have to declare a stance on pornography; you have to know if trans women are allowed to go to public toilets; you have to conclude that all perceived gender differences are programmed by society. Basically, feminism gets reduced to an exclusion zone of your choice, shutting out anyone who doesn’t agree with you on any issue relating to women. Feminism is some kind of scary religion with set rules and ‘correct’ ways of thinking.
Suggestion 3
The final suggestion is a combination of the first two. Humans are trapped in a doublethink whereby they understand that women and men should have equal opportunities, but they don’t feel comfortable with it, because they don’t like change. Take this discomfort and soak it in the naval-gazing, quasi-religion branded Feminism, and any feminism becomes a dirty word.
Suggested Solution
The solution to this problem is to sit it out for another 20 generations so that the obvious and simple change can filter slowly through our human societies. In the meantime, women can enjoy an array of everyday discrimination in the form of barriers, inequality and violence, while men continue to give each other the plum jobs and bask in the glory of their collective penis.
Or people could face reality, face the facts, and realise that given the mountain we have to climb and the slow progress we’re making, embracing positive discrimination to counter-balance the rampant conscious and unconscious bias at every level of society, is the only way to make meaningful change in our lifetime.
Welcome back.
I get a bit nervous round the f word. I wish some feminists acted as if the importance of my lot was more in proportion to our numbers in the population. I was delighted to see the Women’s Equality Party is SWERF but not TERF- long may it last!- and would love to claim to be feminist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See, that in itself is interesting. Imagine you having to feel nervous around the f word. This is exactly what I mean about it – it’s morphed into something with fangs, and swept up the basic notion of equality in its path. It’s not just that it’s being sold to society as something negative by those with something to lose from equality – it is engulfed in negativity and the need to exclude.
LikeLike
I am curious what you mean by “positive discrimination”? Please advise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would think of it as being extra encouraging and helpful to women, especially those in areas where there is significant gender discrimination in the other direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That makes sense.
LikeLike
I think all areas of government and media should have gender quotas to meet. I’m disgusted every time I see pictures of world leaders meeting, I’m disgusted every time I see panels of ‘experts’ on television. We are presented with a male-led world, where patronage is handed out to those of a like kind. The only way to stop this is to demand equality from top down, instead of imagining it will seep naturally up. Click on the links to the studies above for just some small examples of the unconscious bias that is at play. It can’t be overcome by simply agreeing that equality is best, our brains aren’t that clever.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, however, quotas themselves for the sake of numerical equality can also be a very scary bias, having grown up with this concept. What I would be interested in (and perhaps you have some data on this) is: what percentage of women actually have a desire for certain positions vs percentage of men? If there is a higher % of males that actually have the want-to and are willing to obtain the requisite qualifications, then it would seem logical more of them would be hired. Hiring someone on the basis of gender (which is itself becoming a sacred cow) is a type of anti-quality control. Thoughts?
LikeLike
I’m not sure I agree. I think by the time you get to interview stage you’re likely for most vacancies to have both genders represented. And at interview stage everyone is able to do the job i.e. fulfilled basic criteria. It’s this idea of unconscious bias affecting all our decisions, I ramble about it to Allallt further down:
But, anyway, I’m not sure about it within industry, in commercial fields. Where I think it’s of utmost importance is in politics, in the media. Our governments are supposed to represent the people, and to do that they must be representative. We know we are biased and that women face barriers. I think parity particularly in this area must be forced through. Media represents society in a way that is a huge influence on the way we think, there also really needs to be a 50/50 split in employees and in production here. I cover it in my latest post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, that makes more sense. I was thinking of it in terms of industry, such as engineering, etc. My father (an engineer) would have to hire less qualified minorities to fill a prescribed quota, which could mean that the bridge you are driving your car over, or the car itself, (with your precious children inside) may not be designed by the most qualified person. This is one of the reasons any kind of quotas give me pause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was interested to read that the PNAS study, although it found bias, found no different in the level of bias between male and female hirers.
LikeLike
Suggest 3
The idea that women deserve equal opportunities and education is no longer the goal of a small but extraordinarily vocal group of regressive feminists who have sullied the name of feminism.
There’s feminism, that, having closed the pay gap and made huge headway with employment rights and education who are now focusing primarily on the issue of ‘everyday sexism’ that involves men making unsolicited rude comments and advocating that all people help to tackle with problem.
Then there’s the regressive feminists who still think we live in patriarchal and oppressive society, with a pronounced pay gap for the same job (which is now a myth — it’s down to women choosing different and often more pastoral career paths: teachers, HR. And men going into finance and banking) and a rape culture.
Real feminists want to deal with the societal problem of expected gender roles that are still pronounced in family life, and how that effects lifetime earning. Regressive feminists want to set up “safe spaces” that segregate them from the rest of society — on the implicit assumption there is something they need a safe space from.
The reason feminism has become a dirty word is because the word doesn’t distinguish between a good social movement that has made profound progress and still has a bit to achieve, and the insane movement that screams its self-righteous victimhood in the face of little to no real problem and literally sings “Cry me a river” in response to hearing about male suicide rates.
LikeLiked by 2 people
a pronounced pay gap for the same job (which is now a myth — it’s down to women choosing different and often more pastoral career paths)
Lilly Ledbetter would disagree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter
literally sings “Cry me a river” in response to hearing about male suicide rates
Can you give examples of prominent feminist public figures acting this way? I have not heard feminists, big or little, making fun (much less literally singing “Cry me a river”) of male suicide rates, so if you have examples, it’d help. Cuz that’s seriously messed up.
LikeLike
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTXXnOsWsAA5gk9.jpg:large
The difference in pay relates to career choices. Unless you have evidence women are paid less for the same job. I’m open to that.
And here’s Chanty Binx singing Cry Me a River https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvByTdMXlPM
LikeLike
You did not see my Lilly Ledbetter link, did you. Please do.
LikeLike
I read it. I’m not sure what that anecdote is meant to show. There’s nothing here to suggest her case was found to be representative.
LikeLike
Is it not obvious what that case means to show?
Let me explain then:
It shows that, among other things, the gender pay discrimination is as pervasive as it is hidden, and that without specific changes designed to uncover it (like the transparency of pay, legal and easy access to past and present pay records, etc.), and then rectify it (e.g., legal action made possible by extended timelines for filing it), we are in the dark with regard to gender pay discrimination.
There is nothing in her case, and in reality as we know it, to suggest that her case was not representative.
BTW, for non-USians, that “anecdote” was the case on which a new law was based, and it was a big deal in this country. A really big deal in for working women and not only.
LikeLike
Edit:
There should be no “in” in that last sentence. Sigh.
Damn you, you… whoever is responsible for such silly mistakes.
LikeLike
“There is nothing in her case, and in reality as know it, to suggest that her case was not representative.”
My apologies. I didn’t know that was how evidence worked. I thought I should await evidence the anecdote was representative before I believed it, not believe it was representative until I see evidence to the contrary.
The two actual studies you shared are exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I now acknowledge that women are biased against in job applications. But it’s not a systematic problem.
Perhaps we should start a cultural norm whereby CVs are anonymous. No name, no gender.
LikeLike
I asked of examples of prominent public feminists — you know, people like Gloria Steinem, or maybe Amanda Marcotte et al. — making fun of male suicide, and not some disturbed online commenters.
Do you have such?
LikeLike
You didn’t read my initial comment, did you?
I said feminism has become a dirty word because “of a small but extraordinarily vocal group of regressive feminists”.
LikeLike
People should not mistake a fringe comprised of disturbed individuals for the movement. It helps to do occasional reality checks.
LikeLike
Ah, but remember, Emma – anyone who wants to decry ANY feminist gets to trot out those examples and say, “Women have themselves to blame!” instead of recognizing their own privileged position in the patriarch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I remember, Carmen, I remember. How could I forget? 🙂
LikeLike
Focus on the actual question and you’ll see my answer is perfectly on topic. The question was one of how ‘feminism’ is becoming a dirty word. I’m offering answers and being derided because you’re not applying what I am saying to the actual question being asked.
It is lunatics like the person I linked that are the reason feminism is getting a bad name. What about that point do you wish to debate?
I’ve never said, or even implied, that “women have themselves to blame”.
I’m slightly more nuanced in my views that to consider all men a monolith of ideas, or all feminists a monolith of ideas and I would have thought you’d be capable of the same.
LikeLike
OK. I only ever offered insight into how the word is being sullied.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment Allallt. This is great, a variation on Suggestion 1 that I hadn’t anticipated. You agree to the obvious and simple notion that women should have equal opportunities, but from your perspective there’s not much work left to do, and anyone suggesting there isn’t real equality for women is a regressive [dirty word].
What do you think of study after study that shows that hiring practices in areas from orchestras to science to entry into university are severely sexist? Are they just making it up? Are you happy that in a world with almost 50/50 distribution of female/male, less that 10% of world leaders are women? How would you feel if 90% of world leaders were women? How would you feel if every TV programme you watched had panels of female experts to talk about every subject under the sun, and peddled out a man for issues relating to men, like the ones highlighted in that poster you link to? Do you think you’d be happy with the opportunities available for men, or might you consider that the women might be shutting out the men from running and commenting on society? We could called you ‘mannists’ and roll our eyes every time someone mentioned your silly complaints, given that there are laws that prove you have equality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do the studies show problems in hiring or in application ratios? I’d love to see the studies.
I just asked everyone in my MSc class, and there’s a gender split between who wants to go into consulting and who wants to go into conservation. Admittedly, n =13, which isn’t great… but that suggests the difference is in applications, not hiring.
LikeLike
There is some research which might shed light on differences in applications.
Girls do better in science tests where the text-books show women in white coats. This is a “I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere” thing, I will google if you really want to challenge it, but there is all sorts of evidence of acculturation in childhood into different roles. As for amount earned, the amount earned by all men put together is almost double the amount earned by all women put together in Britain. Some of that is choices.
Men are bigger than women. In certain circumstances, this is threatening.
If some women are angry, they have some cause for it.
LikeLike
None of that actually matters.
If all male burger flippers at McDonalds were earning more than all female burger flippers at McDonalds, that would matter. But if men choose to go into jobs that pay better (not ‘are selectively hired’, but actually apply in greater numbers) then one would expect men to earn more.
One of the reasons men earn more than women, that does need to be addressed, is expectations on who takes on the role of family carer. Overwhelmingly, it is the woman, and that dictates who takes maternity/paternity leave, and how much, who takes afternoons off for dentist trips and school plays and parent evenings etc. I don’t know how one would address that, but it is a problem.
Another study it might be nice to see is to look at certain job vacancies and then analyse the CVs and compare the quality of the CVs to who is invited to interview or who is ultimately hired. If a discrepancy is then found between the proportions by gender of better applicants and proportions of hiring by gender, then I see that there is a point.
LikeLike
That work has been done on race. Certain names are more likely to be called for interview. Since the government abolished the discrimination questionnaire, it is harder to expose. It was done by sending CVs of equal value to the same hirer, with Pakistani-sounding or English-sounding names.
LikeLike
Yes, that one I’ve seen. The foreign-sounding names don’t fair too well.
LikeLike
This has been done with STEM field:
http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
Also with academic research:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/13/study-suggests-evidence-gender-bias-evaluating-evidence-gender-bias-stem
Also Lilly Ledbetter.
LikeLike
Edit:
“fields,” plural.
LikeLike
Lilly Ledbetter is still irrelevant.
I, otherwise, take it back: the study has been done, and it discovered sexism.
LikeLike
I’ve realized my second link references the same research. I meant to post a link to an experiment where the same academic paper was send to evaluating bodies in two versions: one with a female author and another with a male. The male authored paper was evaluated significantly more positive on all metrics than the female authored one, a result that has obvious and direct implications on, among other things, the career prospects of women in academia.
You can look for it yourself, if you want; if not, I’ll find it later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, so it’s ‘regressive’ feminists is it, now, who think we live in a patriarchal society? I thought I was a ‘radical’ feminist who KNOWS we live in a patriarchal society? It’s always refreshing to have people like Allallt to define exactly what’s wrong with people who want a more egalitarian society, though. How comforting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh, poor you, unable to actually read my comment. It’s right there in the first sentence: feminism is becoming a dirty word because “of a small but extraordinarily vocal group of regressive feminists”.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a lot of #2 of late. Internet feminism is looking more and more like young-earth creationism. Maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but there seems to be a lot of false binaries and cherry picking of information going on from what I’ve been seeing.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree. There are too many people claiming it as a label that only they can use, which reminds me of Christians squabbling about the ‘correct’ way to be a Christian. Unfortunately it drags the real outstanding basic issue of equality through the mud with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi violet-
Hate to break it to you, but a man and a woman will never be equal. The hang up is not in the gender differences only, but in your perceived notion of ‘equal.’
And for what it’s worth, the ‘squabbling’ that you speak of among christians, is more correctly the ‘squabbling’ done by others, such as yourself and kin, that tells us what kind of believers we are not.Proof? Yep, the commentary on your own blogs.
Just sayin.
LikeLike
Hi ColorStorm, even if I accept your assertion that men and women aren’t equal, in that there are essential differences, why should that exclude women from expecting the same treatment as a man if they go for the same job? Why should that mean that a representative administration system for a country should be populated mainly by men?
” the ‘squabbling’ that you speak of among christians, is more correctly the ‘squabbling’ done by others,”
Really? So you think Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormens are real Christians? Is praying to the dead human mother of Jesus something a real Christian should do? Are you eating the real flesh of Jesus when you take communion? Squabbling about issues is what Christians have done since the religion was dreamt up.
LikeLike
Tkx for this V.
It would probably be best to not discuss what is proper christianity, since I am a poor example, and you are at a lesser advantage for at least not even recognizing a Creator who defined the parameters of what is ‘good.’
As to ‘jobs,’ well, this is a horse of a different color. Assuming that ‘equal’ work be produced, then of course a man should be paid what a woman is……….
Like that eh?
LikeLike
In what way do you imagine you are a poor example? Is this just some false idea that true Christians should be modest, or can you come up with instances?
LikeLike
Believe me clare, no false humility. I am well aware of my own thoughts that you do not see.
This idea is what incriminated they who brought the stones to end the life of the poor sinning woman.
Their own hearts incriminated themselves; in this I can relate, thankfully, I at least own my sinnership and the grace of God.
LikeLike
Christ would doubt that, Colorstorm. Remember the log in ones own eye? The whole point of that parable is that one does not see the logs. When you imagine any particular way in which you are sinful, you are probably wrong.
LikeLike
You need to show the proportions of applications. I’m going to make up some numbers, to show you what I mean:
If 90% of the top 5 applicants, collated from a number of vacancies in a company, are female, and only 50% of the people hired are female, that is a problem. That is a problem despite looking like completely equal numbers.
If 13% of the applicants are female and 13% of the employees are female… that’s not a problem.
So, it’s not a disparity between the numbers of women employed and 50% that you need to show, but the number of employees vs the number of good applicants. And all that would show is that there is a problem, it makes no progress at all at explaining what the problem is.
If there is a systemic problem in hiring practices (I am playing Devil’s advocate here, I don’t think you can show that is the case), I don’t know that positive discrimination is the answer. If such a problem exists, the fault lies with the hirers, the existing staff. But the punishment goes to the generation after, the applicants.
And I don’t use the word “punishment” flippantly, either. If a woman who wanted to go into HR is encouraged into finance against her judgement, based on her own goals, and is lesser-qualified, but gets the job because of discrimination, it is both the woman in a difficult job she doesn’t want and the man who did want it that are punished.
The solution is to keep track of the applicants and the hiring. Not to aim arbitrarily at 50% for both. So, to demand change, you need to show what is happening isn’t fair. If that study exists, send it along. I haven’t found it.
(And I don’t hold this view lightly. I’m very uncomfortable being on the same side of a fence as ColourStorm.)
LikeLike
What punishment? You seem to think there is always a ‘correct’ person for a job who is empirically ‘better’ than the rest. Have you ever been involved in a recruitment process? Even in an organisation that removes all references to age and gender until it’s an unavoidable revelation at the interview, there is a tendency from everyone using their bias-free matrix to enthusiastically score the people whose face fits.
Everyone who gets through to the interview stage has reached the basic criteria in terms of education, training and experience – they have demonstrated they can do the job. What happens next is the person who can bluff, sweet-talk, convince and sell themselves most, or whose face fits, is selected by the panel.
A million things come into play here: if it’s traditionally a job that has men in it (i.e. any well-paid profession) people will instinctively feel the men are a better fit; men tend to have higher levels of testosterone that boost their confidence, and indeed their arrogance, and make them better able to sell themselves, oversell their abilities in an interview situation; women as host breeders unavoidably face the assumption that at a certain age they will may start disappearing from the workforce and expect to be paid, expect flexibility – in many places the sense of investing the likely more faithful employee (women) isn’t balanced against this; and yes women are traditionally swept into lower paid jobs with less decision-making impact on society, but is that really choice or nothing more that following habitual norms, fulfilling expectations?
I totally disagree that there is a punishment aspect to people who have always easily stepped into jobs of their choice because of their social/racial/gender profile experiencing the occasional knockback because quotas are introduced. It’s not about hiring people who aren’t qualified or experienced enough to do a job, it’s about filling the position with people who usually get turned down, for no reason that affects their ability to do the job. And it’s about setting the scales to even for the next generation, rather than claiming that because we’re supposed to be unbiased, and accept the principles of equal opportunity for all, that we actually can do that.
I don’t think societies that have one type of person overwhelmingly in higher paid jobs or in decision-making, leadership roles is a healthy society. These roles, more than any others, need representation of all the types of people that make up our societies, and as close as possible, proportionately. Anyone who tells us life is like that because the ‘right’ people are in those jobs isn’t looking very closely, doesn’t understand much about human behaviour, and doesn’t care much for equality. Or maybe they’re just the type of person who benefits from the status quo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ignoring the fact that in my age bracket, women earn more than men (http://goo.gl/6NDTCD).
I’m not sure what your points are. But I’ll try and distill down what I think they are.
Let’s try and look at your points. And correct me if I’m wrong:
(1) You seem to think that once a person has met the basic requirements of a job application they are all essentially equal, with no clear differentiation. I’ve applied for jobs that claim to want applicants with a high school education, but has gone to PhD graduates. But, that’s not because one applicant was empirically more qualified than another. That was just because the face fit. Is that your point?
(2) Women simply don’t perform well in interviews. Are you really claiming that? I don’t accept that. (But, if it’s true I’m sure there’s research on it. I’ll look it up.) But, if it is, in fact, the case, do you expect the same people who don’t perform well in interviews to do well in other high stakes situations, like board meetings? I think women will do absolutely fine in a board meeting, but I also think they do fine in interviews. If there’s evidence to say they’re bad at one, I’d argue their bad at both (and that is not a gender-based point).
(3) Careers are occupied by traditional roles. These traditions are not defined by choices individuals make, but by the patriarchy (whatever that is). Women don’t end up in teaching and medicine and childcare and pet shop owners by choice, and men don’t end up in factory work, landscape gardening and mining by choice; they are somehow manipulated. I take issue with this as well. After I asked my MSc cohort what their career aims were there was a clear gender split between those who wanted to go into conservation and those who wanted to go into consulting. I’m not going to tell you what the split was, but I’ll bet the answer wouldn’t surprise you. Not only that, but the MSc in Environmental Consultancy has 1 girl on it. The MSc in Environmental Management has 2 boys on it. I listened to an interview with a woman yesterday who is studying economics; for the sake of this interview, she asked her class mates what their aspirations were, and the girls wanted to go into HR, and the boys wanted to go into finance. She blamed some system whereby women are not encouraged from an early age to pursue these types of careers, but neither are men.
The “right” person for a job, by the way, is a completely gender neutral criteria. But, actually wanting the job is part of the criteria. And if the jobs people want actually differ by gender, I don’t see that ushering men into teaching and nursing (even though they don’t want to be there) and women into factory work and engineering (even though they don’t want to be there) isn’t going to help. I don’t see that me displacing a female nurse who actually wants to the job, when I don’t but feel pressured to help society meet some balance, is helping either of us.
And no, the system doesn’t benefit me. Again, in my age range, in my country, women earn more than men. The only real job I’ve ever had was as a teacher where, would you believe it, I was outnumbered by women. All but 2 bosses I’ve ever had were women (and that’s out of 9). The course leader on my MSc is a woman. I’ve lost out on jobs to women. But, hey, if you want to shut out dissenting male voices by saying disagreeing with you is a sign of male privilege, I’ll leave you to the introspection on what sort of interlocutor does that.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I am actually amenable to the evidence. Emma presented to me the study about John and Jennifer, and I immediately conceded it shows women have an extra hurdle to jump at the CV stage of applications. I also offered a possible solutions.
But the positive discrimination solution is to note the problem when one type of face is picked just because it fits, and actually legislate that another type of face be picked because it fits. Do you really consider that a solution? It’s the exact same problem. And the people it disadvantages (applicants) are not the people causing the problem (existing management).
LikeLike
Women earn a measly £1000 more a year in your age bracket (when many people are still studying, on gap years, starting out etc) and then from age 30 the gap jumps £10,000 in your favour! I’m not sure what to make of pulling out any figures from a study like that. ‘Your’ figure is as irrelevant as ‘mine’ – there’s so much going on behind both of them.
I agree we’re all manipulated into different roles, and it’s going to be difficult to pull apart what gets us there. My concern is what the two studies I link to, one of which Emma links to again, showing unconscious bias in hiring practices. My solution is not to enforce quotas in every field, I think you’re right that it would make no sense. I’ve clarified in my latest post that gender quotas are needed in government and in the media – I do think the rest will follow in a more natural way, with less gender bias, once the misrepresentation in these key areas is addressed. And I can’t see any reasonable argument against enforcing it in areas that claim to represent society as a whole.
LikeLike
In the government, we expect people to be elected. Are we to limit the freedoms we have in elections, by asking for representative proportions? Should people vote for Hillary just because you need more females in office? It’s the exact same problem.
I’m not sure how to respond to the fact you basically scoffed my demographic’s the pay gap being the exact opposite of what feminism argues for.
As for hiring practices, I’ve acknowledged that is a problem and shared possible solutions that aren’t positive discrimination.
LikeLike
Proportionate representation by party lists is a great way to start redressing the balance. Political parties have lots of people to choose from when presenting candidates, they should ensure they are representing society when doing so. I’m jaded enough to believe truly great leaders are few and far between. Everyone else could easily be replaced by a more representative person.
The point is that Hillary isn’t any worse than Jeb Bush or Trump, is she? They’ve all got this far in their parties and have a shot at office. Besides, if we can change the gender balance where it matters, at the constituency selection point, then there is more choice in terms of leaders and more women will naturally be in the cabinet etc.
You’re quite good at misunderstanding points, aren’t you? I didn’t scoff at your pay gap. I maybe gasped that you think it means anything, given the next statistic. But more importantly, I don’t think the over £8k difference for women means much in the next decade, because I know a lot of it is down to going to part-time, having kids. In the previous decade, it’s probably due to something else of no sinister significance.
LikeLike
So, your solution is still positive discrimination? Just, in certain sectors, like that avoids the problems.
LikeLike
In key areas where representation ought to be mandatory. Can you explain to me why the people running a country shouldn’t be representative? I don’t just mean of gender, although it’s the first one that comes to mind. Same goes for the media. Why should the majority of TV shows or films being beamed to the public be about mainly male protagonists? There’s no need to perpetuate bad habits and pretend that men are always the best for a role, or the most interesting person to watch. Read my latest post, because you might be missing something here, and I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, given that you claim to want equality but are reluctant to push beyond wishing for it.
LikeLike
This has women outperforming men in interview (http://goo.gl/mVltmN)
So does this (http://goo.gl/mmZxf1)
This finds interest in a career path is the variable that counts (http://goo.gl/MIGAAV)
This also find that women leave finance because they don’t like the job (http://goo.gl/2CDLvg)
LikeLike
I guess I was most uncommonly blessed growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, as my mother telling me “you can be anything you want and you can even be more than one thing”, and my dad telling me I could go to any college as long as it was Purdue, and could be anything as long as it was an engineer. I did go to Purdue (university was the expectation), but interestingly chose (are you ready…??) nursing. I find your perspective engaging and challenging.
LikeLike
I wish I’d had engineering pushed at me! That’s what I’m going to steer (yes, isn’t that awful?) my daughter into. Maybe she’ll be a nurse too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just also heard something very interesting from the all-women’s college where my husband teaches about the under-representation of women in the gaming industry and how valuable their perspective would be in such endeavors. Have you any connections there? Very, very interesting.
LikeLike
There will likely always be some inequalities in both directions for men and women, but there are some inequalities that can definitely be improved upon. Just because the genders may never be fully equal is not a good reason to not try to make things more equal.
LikeLike
I’ve also seen the same sort of thing in the world of animal-rights activists. Religions as we know them might fade away, but the lack of critical thinking will likely find other ways to manifest itself, unfortunately.
LikeLike
I believe I addressed your ‘cherry-picking’ comment on another blog, JJ. You – no surprise! – ignored it. I wonder, JJ, what anyone would call the fact that you respond ONLY to men on the blog we frequently visit?
Feminism has zero in common with young-earth creationism, btw. As I’ve suggested to you before, Women’s Studies 101. Get on it.
Oh, and Allallt. That video you linked to is disturbing. We could go back and forth all day, however, trading outrageous comments/videos of people on the fringe. Perhaps you’ve never seen/heard/read any of Dr. Phil Mason’s (Thunderf00t – one of JJ’s mentors), Rollo Tomassi, or a host of other MRA’s — you might want to check them out. I suspect, however, that you are very familiar with their rhetoric.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cyanide is toxic at a level of about 3500 ppm (that’s 3.5 in 1,000; 0.35%). Cyanide doesn’t have to be representative of a glass of water to have fully sullied it.
That is my point.
The question in this post wasn’t “what is the nature of feminists?”, it was about why feminism has a bad name. And the disproportionately vocal fringe is exactly my point. Women like the one in the video or, as you’ve seen Thunderf00t’s video (I assume), the woman who brushes up against a man on purpose and then screams at him to stop touching her breasts, are the poison. They are the sullying of feminism. If you don’t want to hear about the fringe group, then you’re never going to understand why feminism has become a dirty word, or why that glass of water can kill you.
LikeLike
Did you actually reply to my comment? I wouldn’t have received a notification of your response if you didn’t and may have missed it.
What blog do I respond “only to men” on? I try to respond to all comments directed at me that are seeking a response. Most of the time I don’t know what gender I am responding to, nor do I care what gender I am responding to. I try to treat everyone as equals, even though in feminist discussion I am often treated as a second-class human and my points are ignored. It’s rather ironic and sad that the same tactics are being used to fight for freedom from those very tactics.
And again, you are deciding my viewpoints for me without listening. A common occurrence in the hardcore feminist community. That is exactly the sort of tactic young-earth creationists utilize. And again, the false binary you are pushing on me as well is another common tactic.
So, please direct me to your addressing of feminist cherry-picking. I’m curious to see if you ‘young-earth creationist’ed your way through that response as well.
LikeLike
I post this comment with some trepidation, but hopefully honesty is best, and you’ll at least understand my point.
I consider myself an egalitarian. I’m all for equal treatment and acknowledging equal inherent worth. I often share values with people who identify as feminists, and I follow some (blogs, YouTube, etc.) as well.
I don’t consider myself a feminist, though. My disagreements with feminism are basically two.
Many (not all, maybe not even most?) feminists take it too far, to extreme preferential treatment of women, and man shaming.
I think even the very word lends itself to this. What other ostensibly egalitarian movement names itself for oppressed group? No one was “blackist” or “Africanist” – rather, there was a Civil Rights Movement. (Other examples are eluding me. Am I right in this comparison?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although not ostensibly egalitarian, unless one considers animals sentient beings, vegetarians call themselves after their aim of eating plants not animals.
Welsh and Scottish nationalists follow the same pattern eg Plaid Cymru.
I seem to remember Black Power? I think that reasonably identifies with black people’s oppression?
LikeLike
I’m still clarifying my own thoughts on this…
-ism: “suffix…nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, ausage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism
(Emphasis mine.)
I probably should have been more clear to say that the -ist/-ism suffix in feminist/feminism connotes to me valuing the named trait (feminine/women) above others. e.g. Secularism, humanism, conservatism, racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
Vegetarians – different suffix, but I’ll have to think about this one. I’m fine with vegetarians who choose it out of personal choice. I disagree with those who try to “meat shame” others.
I’m not familiar with Welsh or Scottish nationalists, you’d have to elaborate there.
Black power – apparently a relatively more controversial movement, and the name has similar connotations of superiority to my mind. History is not my strong suit, and I haven’t researched it, though (just a quick skim of wikipedia).
LikeLike
What do you mean by “extreme preferential treatment of women and man shaming,” R? Can you elaborate, with examples?
LikeLike
I was looking for a phrase with a little more punch than just “preferential treatment”, but perhaps “extreme” was a bit much?
Anyway, it’s my impression. I’m sorry I’m not well-versed enough to provide examples. It often seems subtle to me, hard to pin down, and I don’t think my thoughts have solidified on the particulars yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I know what you mean. About the ‘man shaming’, I find that men can be incredibly touchy about being told that ‘they’ have power, or ‘they’ cause problems for women. Because many men obviously as individuals don’t have power and many men personally cause few problems for women. Men can be more on the fringes of society than the average woman, more marginalised and disadvantaged. And it’s difficult to listen to women talking about the problems they have because of ‘men’ and feel they are being shoved in that category.
My only solution is that men have to stop taking it personally, and look at society objectively. Are women truly getting the same opportunities, are women truly represented in the corridors of power, does it make sense that they are not? Look at the evidence, look at all the studies that demonstrate the level of bias operating in every corner of society. Because it’s not just about men perpetuating this inequality, it’s a simple continuation of what we see, and women can do that just as easily as men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Suggestion 4:
Like socialism, the f-word has been so effectively demonized, by those in whose interests it is to prejudice the public discourse against it, that hardly any rational conversation about it can take place.
It is immediately obvious that most people who are afraid of it have distorted, often grotesquely, notions of what it means.
LikeLike
The conspiracy theory. I almost went there, and I feel it sometimes, but I think it’s simpler than that. I think it really is the dislike of change, the sense of discomfort, and the ease with which the uglier sides of feminism can be dismissed. All men aren’t to blame any more than all women are to blame, we’re all just getting on with the culture we were born into. The conversation can get so hung up on the ‘correct’ attitude to the sex industry or to trans people or to gender roles – and there is no correct attitude. These are highly complex areas about which we understand little outside of our current cultures. There’s no telling how attitudes to anything can evolve in different sets of circumstances and there is no ‘correct’ opinion in feminism beyond acknowledging everyone should have equal opportunities.
LikeLike
It’s not a conspiracy theory, Violet — unless you understand it differently than I do. But I suspect you also probably have to live in the US to know what I mean. For example, in the US the word socialism has been so distorted and demonized that people spit three times over their right shoulder when they hear it. And then invoke names of Stalin and Pol Pot. After which they pray and run to confession. (I exaggerate only slightly.)
This — make no mistake — is the result of long decades of carefully orchestrated pervasive propaganda (see Adam Curtis series “The Century of the Self” for a brilliant and chilling history of its development and influences on the American psyche — it’s one of the best and most important documentaries ever made).
Same with feminism. You say the f-word, and folks hear men shaming, extreme female preferences, and ridicule of male suicide — and that’s just on your thread — mistaking their prejudiced, erroneous impressions for evidence. That’s also thanks to anti-feminist propaganda, as these tropes have permeated the American public consciousness since the advent of feminism here. Look up old anti-feminist cartoons, for example, from late 19-early 20th c. You’ll see the very same prejudiced fears depicted there, with no evidence to support them. (Can’t post links from my device or I woulda send you some.)
LikeLike
OK now, here is the link for “Century of the Self:”
LikeLike
Okay, I see what you mean. I guess because I’m not personally affected by that, I’m overlooking it. I have always felt enormously positive about feminism as a concept, as a word, but lately, simply because I’ve been hanging round feminist sites, my own view of what some people claim it is, has veered towards negativity. From some quarters I am very much reminded of the religious mindset, it must be a hole humans often fall down.
Thanks for the link to that documentary, I’ll make my way through the four hours as fast as I can. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do. Prepare to be enlightened (and stunned, and outraged maybe too) — I was.
LikeLike
BTW, you can find it on You Tube divided in an hour-long installments. It is easier to watch, I think.
LikeLike
@VW
This notion seems to be a little on the relativistic po-mo side. There are no standards to judge the efficacy of feminism? Feminism is just an amorphous, diaphanous, swirling mist of ideas that when glimpsed is for equality?
bell hooks would disagree –
Radical feminism’s goals are quite clear – The emancipation of women from the oppressive patriarchal structures of society. The root challenge is naming the problem, whether it be the commercial rape trade, gender critical analysis or really, any particular facet of the Patriarchy.
Deconstructing, analyzing and ultimately fomenting enough ruckus in society to change said problems is the briefest of thumbnail sketches of the process of radical feminism.
The process is quantifiable, eminently political, and seeks to benefit women as class.
LikeLike
Yes, Arb, you’re one of the people who makes me understand why feminism has become a dirty word. You preach it like it is a religion and the Divine Truth has been beamed directly into your brain. The irony that you are a man will never cease to amaze me.
Feminism is about wanting to achieve equality of treatment for women. As a goal, it doesn’t need to exclude everyone who wants to see this achieved but doesn’t share your reverence of current radical feminism’s rule book on how this can be done. Think bigger, more broadly about how human understanding evolves, meditate on the arrogance of believing you hold the Truth, and recognise the absurdity of you preaching the exclusion of others on that shonky basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
Having a theoretical basis for doing the things one chooses to support or not, is a far cry from any sort of divine process.
Attempting to deal with the root causes of problems strikes me as a effective way to affect societal change.
That is one definition of feminism, it certainly isn’t the worst that is running around out there.
Amazing what knowing the sex of a commentor does to one’s perceptions, no? However, if equality is our stated goal, then it shouldn’t matter then right? Because certainly, the material conditions in society are the same, or similar enough, so we can both be on the same team. Or might other factors be involved, socialization perhaps and other sociological concepts that you seem to disdain so much?
The accommodation of men in feminism is certainly underway – many feminists are concerned about this phenomena, as with dudes, they tend to make it about themselves, rather than women’s struggle.
Class struggle is as old as civilization. The only lesson that is necessary to know is this – Power in society is never freely given. It always a struggle to wrest power from the status-quo. I challenge you to find a larger theme than the above, as it is an axiomatic truth that spans not only feminism, but nearly every progressive movement that has come together.
If there isn’t a epistemological system in place to evaluate the validly of claims, then all claims are equally valid – thus there is no work to do. Let’s all go home, we’re done here.
Feminism is about emancipating women, that is adult human females, from the oppressive structures of society.
If feminism isn’t centered on the needs as females as class, then what should ‘feminism’ be about?
LikeLike
Amazing what knowing the sex of a commentor does to one’s perceptions, no?
It is. My respect for you just shot up immeasurably. How sexist of me. Or is it? Boy… Or man, rather… Or… gawd, even these throwaway exclamation inserts are gendered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wait. Arb is a man?!
I am genuinely and pleasantly shocked.
I don’t want to step into something that I should perhaps not step into (because it appears there is a history of sorts involved here), but I don’t see Arb preaching the exclusion of others in his (!) comment (or comments, generally, on his (!*) site).
What do you mean by that?
*Yes, I’m that amazed.
LikeLike
I admit to being completely baffled by violetwisp’s response to Arb. In my opinion, if there were more people like him, we’d all be much better off.
I agree with you though, Arb. I am certainly done here.
LikeLike
As with everything else Carmen, it’s all about history. The story’s bigger than this page. I agree most of us would be better off if more people were like him, just not everyone. I respect him to a certain degree and probably shouldn’t lay into him quite so much. I’m just not clear why he doesn’t choke at himself by his philosophy, and I guess the contradiction grates.
LikeLike
Exclusion of trans women, actually.
I have some sympathy with female radical feminists seeking to exclude me. I bow out gracefully when it happens, and seek to build bridges. I have some sympathy with the idea that the difference between men and women are, physical sex characteristics and, patriarchy- socialisation, etc. I have less sympathy with the misspeller bullying me.
LikeLike
What do you mean, Clare? Can you elaborate (or point me to relevant places)?
Please remember, this is new to me — I’m just learning about you and Arb and the rest of the esteemed commentariat here, so I lack the context.
LikeLike
We have previous interactions on various blogs. My boredom threshold is too low to seek them out again. Violet is one of my two oldest blogging buddies, one of the few I have met in person.
It is a matter of personality. I feel that Violet and I seek reconciliation and inclusion, generally.
For me it is not a theoretical argument. Every aspect of my life is affected.
Most women I meet can gloss over the theoretical purity. I am an anomaly, but not a peculiarly threatening one. We are asylum seekers, not colonists.
LikeLike
Thanks, Clare.
Can’t say that I understand what’s going on any better, but I see that you don’t want to be more specific and perhaps rightly so, from your POV.
Being a warm and motherly type, I’m all for inclusion and positive feelings for all, so I’ll just stuff my puzzlement and curiosity and keep myself focused on matters at hand.
LikeLike
If I oppose my exclusion, that can be used as evidence against me: I am “aggressive”, so clearly must be excluded. Violet can oppose my exclusion from within.
LikeLike
I’m going to do a post that links to some of the background. I think it’s fascinating how the whole Arb thing links in with inevitable unconscious bias.
LikeLike
You don’t see how amazed you are problematic?
LikeLike
Keep reading.
LikeLike
I’ve read all the comments. Which comments do you think mean it is not problematic you were so surprised Arb is male that you almost seemed proud to be amazed, and couldn’t not type it? If this were the other way around, and you’d made some ethical or moral comment I agreed with and I reacted with amazement that you are a woman, I’d be (rightly) ridiculed and scorned and immediately lose credibility.
LikeLike
Where are your imaginings of my hypothetical response to your hypothetical amazed comment coming from? I don’t believe there is anything in my comments that would support your dire predictions.
Obviously you did not read “all the comments,” since you missed my “How sexist of me.”
LikeLike
I didn’t say it would be your response. I said I’d be scorned. I didn’t say who by.
I did read all the comments, and I did catch the bit where you admitted it was sexist. I asked what made it okay. Are you suggesting acknowledging it makes it okay?
LikeLike
Yes. Acknowledging one’s sexist assumptions is a good thing, don’t you agree?
But apparently you do not think it’s sufficient. So what else would you expect?
LikeLike
I didn’t ask whether it was a good thing. I asked whether it made the bad thing okay.
You didn’t even denounce being sexist. You simply acknowledged it.
LikeLike
Admitting that my assumptions were sexist is not enough a denunciation for you then, I see.
So, as I asked earlier, what else would you suggest?
LikeLike
You could have have said it was silly/wrong/mistaken. Instead of just point out the fact it happened, you could have mentioned that it was actually wrong.
You could have apologised, and even added to that in saying you’ll remain vigilant against such things.
You could have taken the moment to offer a little insight into how the sexism of ‘the Patriarchy’ may be exactly that unsuspecting and unintentional, to add some nuance to your position.
You could have pondered aloud whether that sort of low-level sexism is a symptom of culture, an accidental echo chamber in discussing these topics or inherent part of human psychology.
You could have not written it. It wasn’t a slip of language, after all. It was an actual focus of your comment, not easily put down to an unrepresentative mistake or misspeaking.
You, obviously, don’t have to do any of those things. But I am then allowed to point out the irony in the fact you said something sexist and then noted it was sexist, without ever drawing moral dispersion on that fact, in a thread about feminism.
I’ll be honest, it’s not really worth casting any moral dispersion on it now, it will simply appear you did it under duress.
LikeLike
I was prepared to throw a snarky response, but you actually make some very good points. Will take them under advisement, thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, I appreciate that. It’s refreshing to get honest and reflective discussion.
LikeLike
There’s even more obvious things you could have done. When you were asked whether you thought it was problematic you could have said “yes”.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what Arb’s gender had to do with that exchange…
Anyway, there’s a slight contradiction in the idea that there’s no correct attitude and the idea that there is an actual goal in sight. Perhaps I can agree that there is no one correct attitude, but there are wrong attitudes. And I think to keep that in mind is important.
Take Big Red, the shrieking lunatic I linked to earlier: she actually has the wrong attitude. There may not be any one attitude that is an improvement on that, but that’s because there are many right attitudes.
There is a goal, and that goal is equality. I’m still not sure what that means, because there are differences at the population-data level between men and women, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to use ‘sameness’ as a metric for equality, but I’ve always thought the better definition is equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome. But, whatever your definition of equality, as soon as you have some tangible goal for which you can have a metric, there are better and worse attitudes to have.
And one of the attitudes to have is to want evidence and nuance. If the goal of feminism is for women’s lives to be easy, then that’s not the same as wanting equality. If the goal is to make women occupy 50% in all career paths, that’s not equality of opportunity. And these are the areas where attitudes of nuance and introspection are the right attitudes.
Nuance should also probably enter into language use. After all, what and where is the patriarchy? What is the system of excluding women? Accidents of culture, although fully deserving of being change, are not the same as a systemic and ideological position of exclusionary practices. So, if you’re referring to the inertia of antiquated cultural norms, then you are not talking about a patriarchy. If you are talking about an intentional system, then you are talking about patriarchy (and I’ll be asking for a link to manifesto, because I wasn’t invited to the meeting).
Feminism is becoming a dirty word precisely because there are wrong attitudes, and no one should lose sight of that in relativistic rhetoric, claiming there are not right attitudes either. Some simply are better than others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was rather surprised to see Arb’s gender making a difference. It kind of goes against the idea of gender equality, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Well, I just went over to Arb’s blog, and he’s kind of onside with feminism not being the same as gender equality. He thinks replacing “feminism” with ‘gender relations’ or ‘gender equality’ is a bad thing. So, I suppose I’m in the minority for thinking feminism is about equality. It’s more like a Union.
I’m not comfortable with that interpretation. I wonder what that makes me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, according to that post, you must be either one or the other … apparently you can’t work with the relevant parts of both lines of thinking!
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean.
LikeLike
The post seems to suggest that feminism and gender relations are mutually exclusive – that no connection can be shared between the points of view.
LikeLike
I was saying that appears to be the view of Arb, according to his blog. Arb’s blog argues that the post-structuralist approach of talking about gender relations and of deconstructing what feminism is (in a reductio ad absurdum kind of a way) will inevitably lead to post-feminism.
That means, I think, that feminism is not subsumed into discussions of gender relations, in the same way black-rights would be subsumed by civil rights discussions.
What ever the definition of feminism is that is not subsumed by discussing gender equality and relations seems baffling to me, and I’m not sure I can be considered a feminist under whatever definition is operating there. But it doesn’t appear to be one of equality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I was rather surprised to see Arb’s gender making a difference. It kind of goes against the idea of gender equality, doesn’t it?” Yes, it does indeed. In reality, it only makes a difference because part of his feminist religion tells him that men have traditionally always told women what do to and how to think, and this is a bad thing. So he’s telling women what to think and that how they have traditionally been thinking is because men have told them what to think ….
His guest post on Roughseas about ‘mansplaining’ was a curiosity to behold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It reminds me a bit of that time Ark came out as some form of vegan/vegetarian and tried to defend his beliefs. It kind of hurts my brain when people who are so against religious dogma end up blind to the dogma of the modern belief system they’ve adopted.
LikeLike
Hilarious! I think I missed most of that, on a break.
LikeLike
It wasn’t all that long ago – I went to reply to one of his replies to me and the comment wouldn’t go through … then I realized his blog had been wiped clean!
LikeLike
Wow! Arb deleted my comment and put me in moderation after I suggested that the people he is trying to paint as liars may in-fact be misinformed, misled or in some cases may even still have legitimate concerns.
I think feminists are trying to give creationists a run for their money when it comes to message control.
LikeLike
That’s interesting! I’ll have to pop over there later on and have a look. He just accused me of not allowing dissenting opinion because I disagree with him. Curious.
Unfortunately whatever drives the part of our brain that is attracted to religion can be highjacked by any ideology. We’re probably all doing it in our way.
LikeLike
Yep, his MRA Zombie Lies #1 was quite easy to criticize after a quick internet search. I came up with an account of the history of the viewpoint he was trying to pass off as a lie with this link:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=vi9vCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=what+states+presume+mother+as+primary+caregiver?&source=bl&ots=-ZVeYe-Pgf&sig=Pym0Mu8d2FjzkWF2_rrGES3uK9M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxneevmfHKAhUIbR4KHRnLA6IQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=what%20states%20presume%20mother%20as%20primary%20caregiver%3F&f=false
Sure, the viewpoint he criticizes doesn’t hold water the same these days, but calling it a lie doesn’t either.
But I guess that doesn’t suit his ‘us vs them’ narrative.
Sure, we’re all prone to ideology – being part of a like-minded group has its benefits – but I think some of us have learned to listen to legitimate criticism and are willing to question when we are falling into group-think.
Arb did call out one of my sources, and I did see that he had a point on some accounts – but definitely not to the full extent of discrediting that he believes.
LikeLike
As an aside, I keep reading comments about men committing suicide when ever the discussion of feminism is brought up, but never the fact that females attempt suicide three times more often than males and are more likely to act on it.
http://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
Also:
“Research suggests that women are especially prone to psychological problems such as depression, which almost always precede suicide. In western societies, overall rates of mental health disorders tend to be around 20-40% higher for women than for men.
Given the unequal burden of distress implied by these figures, it is hardly surprising that women are more likely to experience suicidal thoughts. The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England 2007 survey found that 19% of women had considered taking their own life. For men the figure was 14%. …
And women aren’t simply more likely to think about suicide – they are also more likely to act on the idea”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg
In the last link it shares 3 theories why men are more successful at suicide than women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An interesting article, thanks. Male suicide figures in any case are an odd counter to feminism – what are people trying to demonstrate? That men are more unhappy than women so therefore it’s okay that they are paid more and run the world? And here you point us to evidence that’s not even the case …
LikeLike
This (male suicide) is The Standard MRA (and their ilk) Talking Point, trotted out nilly-willy every time there is a need to try to shut down a discussion on the necessity of feminism (and/or smear women in general, and feminism in particular).
It is brought up, as all those Talking Points are, without any context or reflection, and any attempts at debates about it lead usually to a lot of wasted time.
The other nilly-willy unreflective, no context, and often no truth, MRA-n-Ilk Talking Points:
–men die more often at work
–boys do worse at school
–men get raped more often (in prison)
–men file less often for divorce
–men don’t get custody of kids,
all of which are somehow the fault of feminism.
It’s tiresome, really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope the point is attempting to garner some sort of discussion about what equality might look like, understanding of the modern world and a little introspection about the fact that focussing only on one demographic is not an obvious method for equality.
However, I brought it up to show a poisonously bad human being, a human being who, when grouped with people like her, are the poison sullying the good name of feminism. That’s why I did it.
It’s not at all encouraging to know that attempted suicide rates are higher among women, or that they are high anywhere, at all.
LikeLike
As luck would have it, a new research (making a, um, splash on Daily Mail of all places) shows that women who co-author academic papers with men get less credit for it, including employment opportunities, than male co-authors: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3442687/Mind-gender-gap-Women-credit-men-working-team-affect-future-job-prospects.html?offset=0&max=100&reply=115637641&jumpTo=comment-115637641#comment-115637641
I dare you to read the comments — if only because they are always such a good reflection of the “pulse of the nation,” or in this case, humanity. Or at least that segment of it that reads DM.
The research itself is here:
http://scholar.harvard.edu/sarsons/publications/note-gender-differences-recognition-group-work
LikeLike
What that paper shows is that women’s work as a coauthor seems to carry less currency in the professional academic world than a man’s work as a coauthor. It says nothing about the currency of a woman’s work as a solo-author, and it make no mention at all of the gender of the person a woman has coauthored with; there’s certainly no suggestion that the coauthor is always a man.
My last suggestion on how to make recruitment gender-blind was attacked, so how about a hiring algorithm? (http://goo.gl/Gv1zkM)
LikeLike
Just going to leave this quote and video here …
“Feminism has just become 20 year old and 30 year old women bitching and moaning about things only pre-teen boys and old people say.”
LikeLike
Pingback: Hot feminist | Clouds moving in