Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Feminism

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#91

Posted 16 April 2013 - 10:32 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 19:50)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 10:31)
If careers chosen by women are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

I'm not at all sure about this statement. I agree that if roles chosen by women are valued less because they are performed by women, then it amounts to discrimination, but given equality of opportunity and in ignorance of external contributing factors which may or may not be discriminatory, then surely a choice is a choice and someone voluntarily entering into a role that is considered less valuable by society isn't being discriminated against. That is effectively akin to saying anyone taking a low-status, menial job is being discriminated against because they all have a defining characteristic (gender, race, sexuality, nationality) and have voluntarily chosen something valued less by society. Could you explain?

I think we can accept (based on gender gap statistics) that jobs done by women pay less than jobs done by men. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) society values "women's work" less than "men's work" 2) society arbitrarily values certain jobs more than others (is a social scientist less valuable than a physicist; is your nanny less valuable than your accountant?) and somehow associates these more valuable jobs with masculinity. Either way, women are relegated to less well paying roles.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#92

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:52 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 11:32)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 19:50)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 10:31)
If careers chosen by women are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

I'm not at all sure about this statement. I agree that if roles chosen by women are valued less because they are performed by women, then it amounts to discrimination, but given equality of opportunity and in ignorance of external contributing factors which may or may not be discriminatory, then surely a choice is a choice and someone voluntarily entering into a role that is considered less valuable by society isn't being discriminated against. That is effectively akin to saying anyone taking a low-status, menial job is being discriminated against because they all have a defining characteristic (gender, race, sexuality, nationality) and have voluntarily chosen something valued less by society. Could you explain?

I think we can accept (based on gender gap statistics) that jobs done by women pay less than jobs done by men. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) society values "women's work" less than "men's work" 2) society arbitrarily values certain jobs more than others (is a social scientist less valuable than a physicist; is your nanny less valuable than your accountant?) and somehow associates these more valuable jobs with masculinity. Either way, women are relegated to less well paying roles.

That didn't really agree my question of why, all other factors aside, someone voluntarily choosing a job with a low social worth is being discriminated against? You mentioned the various other factors, which for the sake of argument we will take as given, but didn't really explain this. Nothing about the act of choosing a role, regardless of social status, in and of itself is discriminatory to women above any other convenient social grouping.

WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#93

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:11 PM

The modern feminist movement is trash. I'd say aside from the glass ceiling, women are pretty much on even ground with men these days in the US. They are not for equal rights, but for special treatment. I've even seen some feminist tumblr posts about establishing a matriarchy and genocide of the male gender.

If anything, I think there are many double standards biased towards women, especially in the justice system. Recently a guy was released from prison after 5 years in prison for supposedly raping a woman. She later came out and confessed she lied, and there wasn't even any evidence to begin with.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1543992.html

Then there's child custody hearings where the children usually go with the mother, even in cases where the father is the more suitable parent.

http://www.huffingto...a_b_870709.html

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a misogynist, I love women.

Nipperkins
  • Nipperkins

    I think it's beautiful that you are 256 colors too.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • Somalia

#94

Posted 16 April 2013 - 10:50 PM

Are men falsely accused of rape? Sure, but the statistics show that very few rapes are reported, and even fewer end in a trial.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#95

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:04 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 21:52)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 11:32)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 19:50)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 10:31)
If careers chosen by women are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

I'm not at all sure about this statement. I agree that if roles chosen by women are valued less because they are performed by women, then it amounts to discrimination, but given equality of opportunity and in ignorance of external contributing factors which may or may not be discriminatory, then surely a choice is a choice and someone voluntarily entering into a role that is considered less valuable by society isn't being discriminated against. That is effectively akin to saying anyone taking a low-status, menial job is being discriminated against because they all have a defining characteristic (gender, race, sexuality, nationality) and have voluntarily chosen something valued less by society. Could you explain?

I think we can accept (based on gender gap statistics) that jobs done by women pay less than jobs done by men. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) society values "women's work" less than "men's work" 2) society arbitrarily values certain jobs more than others (is a social scientist less valuable than a physicist; is your nanny less valuable than your accountant?) and somehow associates these more valuable jobs with masculinity. Either way, women are relegated to less well paying roles.

That didn't really agree my question of why, all other factors aside, someone voluntarily choosing a job with a low social worth is being discriminated against? You mentioned the various other factors, which for the sake of argument we will take as given, but didn't really explain this. Nothing about the act of choosing a role, regardless of social status, in and of itself is discriminatory to women above any other convenient social grouping.

Because women are effectively barred from the higher-paying roles, if not through discriminatory hiring practices then through cultural reinforcement (see my earlier point about male businessmen in fiction being paragons of cool and business women depicted as being cold c*nts). My school was gender segregated, and while we were offered business studies, economics and finance, the equivalent at the girl's building was society and culture, community and family and religious studies. If the women at my school go on to study the humanities, did they choose to do so voluntarily, or were they rail roaded? Isn't their "choice" somewhat predetermined by their gender... isn't that discrimination?

Also, if the the jobs have low social worth specifically because women choose them, then those entire professions are being discriminated against.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#96

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:36 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Apr 17 2013, 02:04)
Isn't that discrimination?

Potentially, yes- I agree. But, again, that doesn't really pertain to the statement you made which I quoted, given that you could apply exactly the same statement arbitrarily to any defining characteristic- sexuality, race, nationality, et cetera. If we change the word "women" to "ethnic minorities":

QUOTE
If careers chosen by women ethnic minorities are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

Does the statement not still ring true? How about "the poor"? Or any other possible arbitrary category of person you care to name that may or may not be disproportionately represented in roles that have a comparatively low social or economic status? Individuals belonging to some ethnic minorities tend to have lower grossing salaries than Caucasians, so does the fact these people also choose careers valued less by society make them actively discriminated against too? What about people without high education qualifications, who earn on average 120,000 less over their lifetime? Are they discriminated against too?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#97

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:36 AM Edited by Melchior, 17 April 2013 - 06:41 AM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 03:30)
Fat people do not need liberation, end of story.

Good to know you think society has a right to psychologically punish people to the point of starvation and suicide for not meeting an arbitrary standard of health and beauty (and yes, it is arbitrary, even if you do disagree with the facts I've posted in regards to the health benefits of weight loss, smokers and people with high stress jobs don't hate themselves, face constant ridicule and have their mental health destroyed by the media despite having an equally unhealthy lifestyle).

QUOTE
Not play games with women's sports and female protagonists

Like you once said, you wouldn't start spouting off about marine biology if you hadn't read an ounce of literature on the subject, so why do you think it's okay to do the same with social justice? You obviously haven't looked into it- or frankly, thought about it at length- but still feel confident giving a knee jerk reaction.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Apr 17 2013, 16:36)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Apr 17 2013, 02:04)
Isn't that discrimination?

Potentially, yes- I agree. But, again, that doesn't really pertain to the statement you made which I quoted, given that you could apply exactly the same statement arbitrarily to any defining characteristic- sexuality, race, nationality, et cetera. If we change the word "women" to "ethnic minorities":

QUOTE
If careers chosen by women ethnic minorities are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

Does the statement not still ring true? How about "the poor"? Or any other possible arbitrary category of person you care to name that may or may not be disproportionately represented in roles that have a comparatively low social or economic status? Individuals belonging to some ethnic minorities tend to have lower grossing salaries than Caucasians, so does the fact these people also choose careers valued less by society make them actively discriminated against too? What about people without high education qualifications, who earn on average 120,000 less over their lifetime? Are they discriminated against too?

Jobs done by the poor aren't valued less by society because of who is performing them. Obviously a janitor will have less social worth than a doctor... but should an engineer have more social worth than a teacher? In the case of women, it's arbitrary. "Women's work" is valued less.

The fact that two people with the same background, education and mentality will end up in different careers because of their gender means women (or men as well, if you like) are discriminated against.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#98

Posted 17 April 2013 - 10:14 PM

This is fantastic posting I read today concerning the recent Dove "real beauty" video that has really been rubbing me the wrong way... I had trouble articulating this without feeling cynical, but this hits the nail on the head.

http://www.kristinwo...omen-should-be/

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008

#99

Posted 17 April 2013 - 10:49 PM

She makes a lot of valid points. There seems to be a lot of companies taking the "real woman" angle in their promotions, and it's complete nonsense. On the flipside though, should you expect any different from what is ultimately a beauty product? Dove would have quite a hard time selling their goods if they tried appealing to a sense of intelligence, or humour, and neglecting 'beauty', for instance. It is a product designed to enhance appearance, ergo, marketing will aim to instill a belief in women that they 'need' to do just that.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#100

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:04 PM

QUOTE (Straznicy @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 08:49)
On the flipside though, should you expect any different from what is ultimately a beauty product?

Indeed.

I think it's an unambiguously positive thing that these companies demonstrate some form of social conscience.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#101

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:22 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Apr 17 2013, 15:04)
I think it's an unambiguously positive thing that these companies demonstrate some form of social conscience.

Be not fooled, my friend. As one who works behind the curtain I can assure you that Dove's social conscience is as superficial as the concept they're selling here.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#102

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:21 AM

I think it's an unambiguously positive thing that these companies demonstrate feign some form of social conscience.

Happy? tounge.gif

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#103

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:31 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Apr 17 2013, 22:21)
I think it's an unambiguously positive thing that these companies demonstrate feign some form of social conscience.

Happy? tounge.gif

Ha! Quite.


lucid121
  • lucid121

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2013

#104

Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:36 PM

Has anyone noted that women generally get less jail time,then man that did the SAME crime?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#105

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:14 PM

QUOTE (lucid121 @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 08:36)
Has anyone noted that women generally get less jail time,then man that did the SAME crime?

Not really relevant to the topic though, is it?

If people insist on bringing up men's issues maybe they should just start a thread about it?

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#106

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:40 PM

QUOTE (lucid121 @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 08:36)
Has anyone noted that women generally get less jail time,then man that did the SAME crime?

What proof do you have for making such a silly statement?

lucid121
  • lucid121

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2013

#107

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:58 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 02:40)
QUOTE (lucid121 @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 08:36)
Has anyone noted that women generally get less jail time,then man that did the SAME crime?

What proof do you have for making such a silly statement?

http://www.womeninpr.../statistics.php
http://etd.ohiolink....=bgsu1237482038
Need I say more?

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#108

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:11 AM

The first link provided no statistic which said that women were receiving reduced sentences for the same crime compared to their male counterparts. The second link I found interesting; although women, on the whole, receive lower sentences than male counterparts (which I apologise for immediately deriding as a "silly" comment), don't forget that there are so many factors which are taken into consideration when determining how long someone is sentenced for, and these considerations extend far and beyond one's gender, so I wouldn't suggest at all that those statistics imply that there is some ingrained pre-disposition to let women off for everything, while extending the arm of justice fiercely to men simply because they're men. Insinuating that implies that you have a limited understanding of the depth of considerations which justices consult when sentencing a guilty party. Hell, the skill of the solicitors/barrister representing a particular client, and the extent to which their legal arguments influence the judge (even if their client is found guilty), are a factor in how long someone is sentenced for. The volume of these factors make findings such as that provided in your second link a bit, well... Pointless. Interesting, but practically, they don't suggest any ingrained legal privilege for women in the criminal justice system, because there is none. The fundamental core of the criminal justice system is overwhelmingly gender-neutral, as it should be.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#109

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:17 AM

Stefche, are you really dismissing harsher sentencing for men as women coincidentally having better lawyers?

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#110

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:27 AM

Not at all, I'm simply listing that as one of many, many factors which are taken into consideration when sentencing, along with the person's criminal history, the circumstances/context in which the perpetrator committed the crime, the maliciousness of the mens rea of the guilty party etc. I take issue with the idea that men are at a judicial disadvantage compared to women.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#111

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:55 AM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 10:27)
Not at all, I'm simply listing that as one of many, many factors which are taken into consideration when sentencing, along with the person's criminal history, the circumstances/context in which the perpetrator committed the crime, the maliciousness of the mens rea of the guilty party etc. I take issue with the idea that men are at a judicial disadvantage compared to women.

But they are. We live in a patriarchal society, it would be illogical not to think that men are somehow viewed as more responsible for their actions, and I'd speculate there's more of a yearning for revenge (or "justice" whatever you want to call the methods of our draconian correctional system) by society when a man commits a crime.

When a man shoots up a school there's a reaction of "what a cowardly bastard, hope they hang him" yet when it comes to someone like Myra Hindley people think "what could of made her do that? was it her abusive parents or her obsessive love for her boyfriend!? we need to explain her actions!" and very few people seem to dismiss her as an evil c*nt the way they do with male serial killers. Surely this variance in reactions could be observed in sentencing.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#112

Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:35 AM

That's a fair point. When I think about it further, it makes sense that, ceteris paribus, women might get reduced sentences due to judicial sympathy for their "kinder, gentler maternal nature" or whatever which might mean that they're less of a threat to society. But, given the inherent conservatism (not necessarily political conservatism, but judicial conservatism) underpinning a lot of judicial decision-making, I think that, fairly, it'll be at least a few generations before no inferences are made regarding one's gender at all when sentencing.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#113

Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:45 AM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 11:35)
That's a fair point. When I think about it further, it makes sense that, ceteris paribus, women might get reduced sentences due to judicial sympathy for their "kinder, gentler maternal nature" or whatever which might mean that they're less of a threat to society. But, given the inherent conservatism (not necessarily political conservatism, but judicial conservatism) underpinning a lot of judicial decision-making, I think that, fairly, it'll be at least a few generations before no inferences are made regarding one's gender at all when sentencing.

There will always be bias with our out-dated, barbaric judicial system. If we defer to some chump with a law degree to look at someone's case and determine "they deserve x amount of years in a cage" they're always going to insert their personal bias into it.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#114

Posted 19 April 2013 - 02:12 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Friday, Apr 19 2013, 11:45)
If we defer to some chump with a law degree

Hey, we're not all bad. tounge.gif

Sakuya
  • Sakuya

    No greater good, no just cause.

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2005

#115

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:09 AM

Feminism is great. Women are not lesser beings, and should be treated equally. I think that's a pretty uncontroversial belief, and only a few men (outside of Arabia) actually disagree.

What seems to be a controversial issue is what "treated equally" means. Most agree on things like equal wages, opportunities, yada yada. But then there's a group of people, probably a loud minority, who believe feminism means destroying the idea of masculinity. Like they hate men and all they stand for. Suddenly it's bad for men and women to be different from each other, and for men to like man things.

What has my jimmies rustled at the moment, and really the only reason I've got a bone to pick with this subject, is the recent controversy surrounding the art design for one of the characters in an RPG game titled Dragon's Crown. Look at that, those massive bazongas. Some male feminist posted an oh-so-scathing tweet saying the art designer was 'confirmed to be a teenager' or something petty like that. The artist defended himself, and then everyone got in on it, then the discussion turned in to a clusterf*ck as internet arguments always do.

I don't have a strong opinion on the importance of breast size in video games, and this game doesn't particularly interest me (though it does look kinda rad). What I don't like is how these alleged feminists are trying to censor and change the way video games are. It always was a boy's club, filled to the brim with violence, titties, and explosions. Then 2007 came along, set off a catalyst that made video games a prominent form of entertainment. Then these people come in and try to clean the place up like a dirty bachelor pad. The thing with that is, this commercial expansion (known as The Great Casualization in some circles) was brought forth by publishers, and not the gamers themselves. Said gamers, being as antisocial as they're known to be, did not invite this new audience, nor did they welcome them. They see it all as a hostile takeover. I can't blame them (full disclosure: I actually consider myself as part of 'them'), since this is the very same hobby they grew up with, used to escape their sh*tty lives, and were further shunned and outcasted for their love of this very hobby. Suddenly it's cool and those same people who did the shunning are astoundingly oblivious to all of that, never experienced that, yet they proclaim themselves as 'nerds' and 'gamers' as if it's nothing more than a hashtag. That's why this controversy is so offensive to gamers.

The over-the-top exaggerations and unreality are the charm of video games. It pains me and others to see people actively working to take these things away. I'd let them get away with giving Ms. Sorceress up there a breast reduction only if Michael Bay directs the next Nicholas Sparks movie.

To make this less about video games: the emasculation of our culture is a bad thing. It leads to pent-up aggression, anti-social behavior, depression, and in fact is one reason why a certain amount of men have great disdain for women. There was a time in human history when a man was worthless if he wasn't able to kill someone or wrestle a bear. Violence is in our nature, as is our love for boobies. I don't get why these feminists can't respect that. Now we're supposed to be content with sedentary lives, pushed in to social situations (school, office jobs), and somehow maintain a super-human restraint of our natural tendencies. There are few outlets for this. Cars, guns, action movies. You know, "GUY STUFF" as your girlfriend sarcastically proclaims behind your back. Video games used to part of that list, but apparently now we have to make it clean for the girls. Make it clean, inoffensive, charmless, for the ladies. Because that's what a modern man does.

GTASAddict
  • GTASAddict

    0_0

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2012

#116

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:32 PM

In terms of contraception, women have pills, shots, spermicides, tubal ligation, hysterectomies, abortions and female condoms whereas men have vasectomies, condoms and soon vasalgel. Utterly unfair!

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#117

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE (GTASAddict @ Monday, May 13 2013, 23:32)
In terms of contraception, women have pills, shots, spermicides, tubal ligation, hysterectomies, abortions and female condoms whereas men have vasectomies, condoms and soon vasalgel. Utterly unfair!

What does this have to do with the thread?

GTASAddict
  • GTASAddict

    0_0

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2012

#118

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:14 PM

The gist of that particular post was meant to imply that more money & research is devoted to female contraception than male contraception. I feel as though it sets a sexist precedent that it's solely the womans responsibility.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#119

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

Pointless bumps get topics locked.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users