INTJ feminists [Archive]

Just So

07-25-2010, 06:13 AM

Here is an article by psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa who claims that modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil. What do you think ?

Although it is not Susan Pinker’s intention in writing it, reading her excellent book The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls and the Real Difference Between the Sexes cannot help but further reinforce my view that modern feminism in the 21st century is simultaneously illogical, unnecessary, and evil.

First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.

Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.

Danielle CrittendenThe feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys. For anyone who is looking for an effective antidote to modern feminism, I highly recommend Danielle Crittenden’s 1999 book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women.

Athene

07-25-2010, 09:44 AM

I'm older than probably most of you here. I was alive when girls couldn't play sports in school (not that I wanted to). I remember the women fighting for equal rights (women still don't have equal rights) on the news, in the courts, on the streets.

I don't think it's a dead issue. I think it's a principle.

Women were never officially sanctioned as equal in this country, as strange as that seems. And even though it may be just 'words', they are words I'd like to see in my government's constitution.

The Equal Rights Amendment is introduced in Congress each year due to overwhelming support... and fails each year. Due to the negative perceptions, it has been renamed, but never passes.

Something is wrong with that, whether simply on principle or not.

I'm a feminist because I lived through their fight, reaping the benefits they gained for all women along the way.

Ilara

07-25-2010, 10:02 AM

I see quite a few issues in the article.

1) The gender differences that he speaks of have not been proven to be insurmountable, and even if they are, there is sufficient individual variation (I am centre-brained, and I know many right-brained women, etc, etc, etc) to make it unjustifiable to attempt to apply some sort of universal standard of maleness and femininity to the world.

Also, I suspect that most of the gender differences are the product of socialization--but that's a different debate altogether.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with emphasizing the mutual humanity of the sexes, rather than the somewhat different plumbing. *shrug*

2) Straw-man arguments. Feminism isn't about arguing over who's had it worse (sexism denies BOTH sexes a potential fullness of life), but rather about equal rights and opportunities, which the sexes have not, historically had; it's not a question of who's had it worse, just a question of what we're all allowed and able to do. It's about giving women--and men, by extension--options. So the statement that feminism is all about arguing that women have had it worse (ummm, what? Feminism is now a historical society?) is ridiculous.

3) I don't think that any feminist argues that women are the "weaker sex". Actually, it's sexists who argue that women are the "weaker sex". So why he bothers to debunk this statement and to attribute it to feminists is unclear to me.

4) Anyone who thinks that a woman's sexual power is greater than a man's self-interest is either ruled by his hormones or not attributing any sense of self-protection and self-interest to men. Men want their power, too--and they're not ruled by their penises.

Also, many feminists want a different kind of power from "Hey look, I have titties!"

5) I'm interested in his assertion that feminism is the root of all social unhappiness now. I especially like "Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are."

Bolding mine. Now that's a doozie of a cause-effect statement.

He says that feminism tells women that they're men. No, it does not. Feminism asserts that women are human people with intelligence, drive, and interests of their own, and that those interests are not always or purely focussed on the use of our so-called feminine wiles and "mothering instincts".

I suspect that most of the unhappiness right now is due to the fact that our society is in a social transition. The changes are not over, and will not be over for a long time. Women have, by and large, achieved economic equality (my grandmother can now have her own bank account, separate from her husband and without his permission). However, we have not achieved social equality by any stretch. At the moment, women are both working and taking on many of the traditional female roles (housework, childcare, etc). So, they're overworked. Small wonder they're not happy. Gender roles will require an adjustment even further before happiness is more available to all.

Having grown up in a truly equal household, where work and effort was divided based on ability and inclination, I see actual equality as an excellent system. Economic equality alone is insufficient, for which reason I think that the feminist movement is not over.

That said, I think that the women's movement needs a new face. Modern women living their modern lives with their modern expectations will simply pass on those expectations to their partners and to their children--without a real need for the aggressive rallying that was done in the past in order to force public debate and discussion. That was needed because women were being dismissed and ignored if they spoke individually. Women now have sufficient economic power to insist on being heard. Gradually, social adjustments will be made. In the meantime, we're all experiencing some growing pains.

Yes, I am a feminist.

To me, being a feminist means believing that women should have options--to be career-women, to be housewives, to be both... and believing that men should have the same options. I don't care to speak about who might do what more, because that is irrelevant in any one individual's life. What everybody on the block wants to do with their lives doesn't affect what I want to do with mine.

larkin

07-25-2010, 10:11 AM

I'm not into victimization, but if there's a day that goes by that smear the victim bullshit such as this isn't posted somewhere I'd like to see it. Does it ever occur to anyone that "feminism is evil" might is at least as ridiculous as suggesting uncritically that the patriarchy is? And probably more so given the fact that women were defined as entitled to less for millennia, and still are considered that in many places around the world?

First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical.

Used to be true that equality feminism was the dominant model, but difference feminism is more prevalent today; even so most equality feminists don't believe that men and women are "identical"; and as above, feminism as a whole is not uniform, no matter how easy it is to set up a strawman that says otherwise.

Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men.

So a history of legal and cultural inequality is just something to be ignored because in some countries women live longer than men? So if I find a cure for prostate cancer I can start the process of legally denying men the right to own property, all fair trade? The next two paragraphs make the even more ridiculous assumption that because men want to have sex with women, women actually control everything. Until they have sex, one assumes. And let's not even think about what happens if you're married.

Yes, somehow, in spite of all that power, women were still considered property to be traded for centuries, huh.

Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. [...] American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men.

We would all be happier making less I'm sure. And feminism has contributed that because...feminism suggested it's actually a woman's choice as to whether or not she wants to work. Gotcha. Crazy bitches.

Booko

07-25-2010, 10:29 AM

Not a feminist, truly? You don't believe in equal rights for women??? For shame. ;)

Well, I do, but I haven't called myself a feminist for years.

The feminist movement developed a few strains I wasn't interested in:

- The notion that for women to achieve equality, we had to demean men.

- Some was appropriated by women from the Gay Rights Movement and used for purposes I wasn't interested in. I understand why that happened and don't have a problem with it (even in the Gay Rights organizations, the gay men thought women were just good for making coffee), but it wasn't what I signed on for.

- Too much nonsense about "sexual politics." I'll handle the sexual politics that comes up in my own home as I need to, thanks.

I now jokingly say that I am not a feminist -- I'm a humanist. I believe in human rights -- that includes equal rights for women.

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 01:33 PM ----------

I think they're affectionately called Feminazis.

That came from the extreme political right and Rush Limbaugh, who clearly has no inkling about affection for anything or anyone.

I think people can still strive for the ideal of equality between the sexes without doing so under the banner of Feminism.

Definately. It's one of the core principles of my religion, and that's the angle I work from.

Distance

07-25-2010, 10:34 AM

Equality is a tricky thing, and a lot of different people mean different things when they say it. I doubt peach thinks women should be discriminated against, but there are stigmas associated with claiming to be a Feminist, in my opinion mostly arising from preconceptions of belligerence and sexism (against males) within certain subgroups of the feminist movement. I think they're affectionately called Feminazis.

I think people can still strive for the ideal of equality between the sexes without doing so under the banner of Feminism.Why do people worry so much about being stigmatized? If more people were to stand up for what they believed in, instead of worrying so much about what other people thought of them, the world would be a way better place.

Booko

07-25-2010, 10:39 AM

Well, I'm a feminist. I'm an INTJ. I understand peach though. I live in the South and proclaiming yourself a feminist is kinda like saying you prefer your tea hot. Everyone thinks you're a Yankee.

But I do prefer my tea hot! Oh....that's right. I am a Yankee. A damn Yankee, to be specific.

I would say though that those early feminists probably had a higher than usual percentage of INTJs due to the lack of the inhibitions of the F. Not caring about what you're husband or father feels about your behavior is probably a benefit of INTJs that would allow them to go against the culture at large. Just a thought.

I'll have to think on that further. I know there are times when the menfolk in a woman's life would understand well enough to support her, at least to some degree, so you didn't always have to worry about the opinions of the men closest to you.

Plus, there's a helluva lot of history of women burning dinner until the men figured it out.

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 01:40 PM ----------

Why do people worry so much about being stigmatized? If more people were to stand up for what they believed in, instead of worrying so much about what other people thought of them, the world would be a way better place.

If being stigmatized means you're out on the street with no way to support yourself, yeah, you'll think twice about standing up for what you believe in.

Sometimes those other people have power over you and what they think matters quite a bit.

JTG

07-25-2010, 10:41 AM

I think people can still strive for the ideal of equality between the sexes without doing so under the banner of Feminism.

But why would they?

there are stigmas associated with claiming to be a Feminist, in my opinion mostly arising from preconceptions of belligerence and sexism (against males) within certain subgroups of the feminist movement.

---- (edit: added replies below)

Why do people worry so much about being stigmatized? If more people were to stand up for what they believed in, instead of worrying so much about what other people thought of them, the world would be a way better place.

Maybe stigmatized wasn't a complete enough way to put it. Certainly there is some stigma, and it's hard to deny the power of peer pressure in such matters, but it's more than just a stigma i think. The source of the stigma is the general impression given by the more militant members of the movement. I think avoidance of the Feminist banner is avoidance of being associated with those people (social stigma) and avoidance of having to associate with those people.

I've been to a Feminist gathering or two, and the (few) loud voices who cry out for a reversal of the status quo instead of equality put a bad taste in my mouth. I understand the mainstream of the movement is a lot more moderate than that, but usually the loudest voices are the easiest to hear. The belligerent minority paint the rest in a negative light and can chase away potential supporters who don't want to put up with them.

I'll try to foster equality by how i live, not by associating with any particular group of people.

That came from the extreme political right and Rush Limbaugh, who clearly has no inkling about affection for anything or anyone.

A black hole of stupidity may have coined the term, but it's undeniably catchy. It's not something i would throw around at just anybody, but feminazis, neocon fascists, and spineless liberals all exist. Extremists deserve funny names imo :p

Distance

07-25-2010, 10:43 AM

If being stigmatized means you're out on the street with no way to support yourself, yeah, you'll think twice about standing up for what you believe in.

Sometimes those other people have power over you and what they think matters quite a bit.Considering the laws that are in place against losing your job due to discrimination, how does one get themselves tossed out onto the street for stating their opinions about Feminism? One would have to have a substantial amount of foot-in-mouth disease, in order to get to this point.

firebee

07-25-2010, 10:43 AM

Kanazawa serves very well as an illustration of the concept "If you put a picture of a dude in a lab coat next to bullshit, people will tend to take that bullshit much more seriously than it deserves."

I think most of the problems with his argument have been covered above, but I'll go back for a second to the question of women having supposed power over men on account of being attractive to them. Okay, let's go with that. I have extreme ultimate power because of my hot ass. What will I use that power for? To not be treated as a sexual object by people that I'm not interested in pursuing a relationship with? To develop a stable lifestyle that is not dependent on evanescent features of my physical appearance? To be able to leave relationships that don't work for me (or not to start them in the first place) without cutting myself off from any semblance of material security?

...oops. Gosh, it sure does like my hot ass doesn't get me any of those things. Problem? Naw, I'm assured that the grapes are sour anyway. Contrary to the obvious evidence of my life, I'm told that as a woman I delight in dependency -- and have erred greatly in pursuing a technical education that allows me to get good-paying jobs on my own, rather than rushing to marry the first nominally-compatible man who can get that job himself and dole me out an allowance from that money. At least until he ditches me for a much younger woman, as his Evolutiony (TM) imperative demands.

So sad, that I've missed out on the good life as defined by Infallible Science. I guess I'll just have to drown my sorrows in sushi, beer, and women.

cannotseethe

07-25-2010, 10:47 AM

there are stigmas associated with claiming to be a Feminist, in my opinion mostly arising from preconceptions of belligerence and sexism (against males)

The overprivileged invariably stigmatize the underprivileged when the latter seek to equalize, as they sense the reeling back of comforts they've enjoyed as a function of inequality. The reaction is reason to continue the movement (it's working), not eschew it.

Booko

07-25-2010, 10:49 AM

I'm older than probably most of you here. I was alive when girls couldn't play sports in school (not that I wanted to). I remember the women fighting for equal rights (women still don't have equal rights) on the news, in the courts, on the streets.

Yes, I remember quite a bit of that. We couldn't wear pants to school until I was in the 6th grade. Many classes were closed to girls. Women couldn't get loans without a man there. You'd be fired from your job as soon as you turned up pregnant, not because they were ditching the insurance costs, but because "you're supposed to be home with your kids."

I worked with the first female manager at a company -- in those days if you had boobs you had to have a typewriter on your desk. Even though she was a manager they insisted she have one there as "company policy." She finally put it in the doorway so people would be tripping over it, and one of the VPs got a clue and had it removed. And rewrote the policy.

Women were never officially sanctioned as equal in this country, as strange as that seems. And even though it may be just 'words', they are words I'd like to see in my government's constitution.

The Equal Rights Amendment is introduced in Congress each year due to overwhelming support... and fails each year. Due to the negative perceptions, it has been renamed, but never passes.

Something is wrong with that, whether simply on principle or not.

Amazing, isn't it? I wasn't aware it got raised in Congress each year though. Thanks for mentioning that I can't say I'm surprised. I remember too well the idiotic "discussions" back in the 70s, as if regarding women as equal humans meant we'd all be sharing the same bathroom.

Now apparently it isn't worth discussion at all. It's like people think the Women's Movement and the Civil Rights Movement are somehow "finished."

Well, they're not.

I'm a feminist because I lived through their fight, reaping the benefits they gained for all women along the way.

Do you feel, like I do, that in some ways we're losing ground? Sometimes I look at what younger women are up to and think, "Why are you wasting what we did for you?"

JTG

07-25-2010, 10:57 AM

The overprivileged invariably stigmatize the underprivileged when the latter seek to equalize, as they sense the reeling back of comforts they've enjoyed as a function of inequality. The reaction is reason to continue the movement (it's working), not eschew it.

I'll agree with your last statement and disagree with it. The fact that those who uphold the unequal status quo react negatively is understandable and to be expected. When negative reaction can be seen even in those who don't benefit from the status quo, i think that's when a movement (or rather some within the movement) have lost sight of what's important. It's hard to win a fight like that without winning the support of the general public.

Booko

07-25-2010, 11:01 AM

We would all be happier making less I'm sure. And feminism has contributed that because...feminism suggested it's a actually a woman's choice as to whether or not she wants to work. Gotcha. Crazy bitches.

Yes, I was so much "happier" making 75% less than my male counterparts at work that dh and I decided it would make more financial sense for me to just stay home.

We calculated the amount we'd be spending on aftercare and summer camps for the kids when they were small, as they were at the time, figured out how much we'd save with me not spending money on commuting costs, clothing costs and being able to find good deals on things we need to buy, that it turned out to be an easy choice to make.

We had just as much disposable income with me not working, but that would not have been so had I been paid justly for my work.

How that helps society when I could be there adding to the economy beats me. And I know I'm not the only woman in that position.

My advice to my daughter has always been this: Find a career where you can work for yourself.

cannotseethe

07-25-2010, 11:02 AM

It's hard to win a fight like that without winning the support of the general public.

Inequality is baked into the conceptual schemes of the general public. Their support would indicate failure, not deployment of tactics likely to bring success. The general public thought the sun went around the Earth and representatives thereof threatened to burn those who claimed otherwise, etc.

Doesn't it occur to you that men enjoy a power so entrenched they're often not aware they have it?

vampyroteuthis

07-25-2010, 11:03 AM

I'll agree with your last statement and disagree with it. The fact that those who uphold the unequal status quo react negatively is understandable and to be expected. When negative reaction can be seen even in those who don't benefit from the status quo, i think that's when a movement (or rather some within the movement) have lost sight of what's important. It's hard to win a fight like that without winning the support of the general public.

Feminism in the 60s didn't have the support of the general public, nor did the Suffragettes. Hard, maybe, but neither irrelevant nor impossible.

Booko

07-25-2010, 11:07 AM

But why would they?

Because it's one of the core principles of my faith? There are 6-7 million of us, men and women, from every nation, who are all working for this goal under our own banner.

You could say, "We're on a mission from God." :laugh:

masterpeach

07-25-2010, 11:10 AM

"Why are you wasting what we did for you?"

Hm, I am grateful for what elder generations of women did for me (being from Germany, the generation of my grandma had no choice but to stand up for themselves since their men died in WW II).
But on the other hand, all this emancipation has made men even more uncommitted - they don't have to take responsibilities because women can make more money than they do, women can enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy and live a life without a man. I think, all this emancipation has lead to a confusion of gender roles in higher developed countries and to a zeitgeist of non-committment.

Booko

07-25-2010, 11:13 AM

A black hole of stupidity may have coined the term, but it's undeniably catchy. It's not something i would throw around at just anybody, but feminazis, neocon fascists, and spineless liberals all exist. Extremists deserve funny names imo :p

Very true. Sometimes one simply must bow to the absurd. :)

I usually reserve the funny names for the privacy of my own home though. Out there in public they're often an impediment to communication, and communication is the only thing that will get things moving forward.

Ilara

07-25-2010, 11:21 AM

Sometimes I look at what younger women are up to and think, "Why are you wasting what we did for you?"

I find that there are many reasons, some of the more predominant ones being:

-Complacency. Everybody and their uncle is going on and on about how the feminist movement is over, that equality is here! Bullshit, but people often absorb and believe information un/sub-consciously, especially when that information is so prevalent.

-Individuality. The strength of what I think of as the first wave of feminism was in numbers and in general consensus on some key topics. Women had to add their voices together in order to be paid even token attention to. The first wave was about all the things that women had in common--particularly their common grievances with life and society. With the advent of economic equality (close to it, rather; even here in Canada, 60% of married/shacked-up/partnered men make more than their partners, vs 40% of women who make more than theirs...), women's grievances are becoming more diverse, so it's harder to band together to act on issues. Our issues now are down on a small-scale, personal level.

-The small scale of the next movement needed. Social equality doesn't happen at the high political level. It happens as small triumphs in individuals' lives. It happens as my elder brother thinking about his future and telling me that he thinks he would make a great stay-at-home dad. It happens as me, getting the respect I deserve in my academic pursuits, without reference to my sex or appearance. It also happens as me receiving social support when another jerkoff in the street tries to cop a feel. And as one of my male friends loving to cook. As me loving to cook.

The kinds of changes that are happening now are only significant in the aggregate. They don't really show in any large-scale, visible way. Not like the changes to the Constitution here in Canada (women's equality is enshrined in our constitution). They're small, quiet triumphs--for both men and women.

Hm, I am grateful for what elder generations of women did for me (being from Germany, the generation of my grandma had no choice but to stand up for themselves since their men died in WW II).
But on the other hand, all this emancipation has made men even more uncommitted - they don't have to take responsibilities because women can make more money than they do, women can enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy and live a life without a man. I think, all this emancipation has lead to a confusion of gender roles in higher developed countries and to a zeitgeist of non-committment.

Patience. We're in transition right now. The social situation has yet to catch up with the economic one. Formulating reasonable expectations and then working to get them--that's what we need now.

Booko

07-25-2010, 11:22 AM

Considering the laws that are in place against losing your job due to discrimination, how does one get themselves tossed out onto the street for stating their opinions about Feminism? One would have to have a substantial amount of foot-in-mouth disease, in order to get to this point.

HAHAHA...I'm sorry but the reality is it's one thing to have laws and another thing to have the energy, resources, time and evidence to prove your case in court.

I nearly lost my job once for daring to be a member of a "cult" in the face of people who belonged to an intolerant religious group, even though I took pains to leave my religion out of work, because it isn't professional.

Well, it's not legal to try to oust me because of my religion, but they nearly did. They wouldn't have been stupid to fire me for that or put it on paper. I wasn't fired because a) I keep notes, b) we had been bought out by a company not ruled by the religious intolerant, and I kicked the business upstairs.

It's relatively easy to find grounds to fire someone, as you can just give someone an impossible deadline and then fire them because they didn't make it.

Not to mention I live in a "right to work" state where you can terminate anyone, anytime, for no grounds whatsoever. So good luck with that.

That's the ugly reality most of us live in. The law is nice but is more theory than real for a lot of people.

If it were more real than theory there would be a lot more discrimination suits in the courts, but there aren't. Redlining wouldn't exist, but it certainly does. Women would not face daily economic discrimination, but they do.

And yes, if you have a boss who's an asshole and you talk about your views on feminism and he doesn't like it, be sure to update your resume.

And there's the other aspect: if you need family support and you don't tow the family line, there are no laws to protect you whatsoever.

Distance

07-25-2010, 11:24 AM

Maybe stigmatized wasn't a complete enough way to put it. Certainly there is some stigma, and it's hard to deny the power of peer pressure in such matters, but it's more than just a stigma i think. The source of the stigma is the general impression given by the more militant members of the movement. I think avoidance of the Feminist banner is avoidance of being associated with those people (social stigma) and avoidance of having to associate with those people.

I've been to a Feminist gathering or two, and the (few) loud voices who cry out for a reversal of the status quo instead of equality put a bad taste in my mouth. I understand the mainstream of the movement is a lot more moderate than that, but usually the loudest voices are the easiest to hear. The belligerent minority paint the rest in a negative light and can chase away potential supporters who don't want to put up with them.

I'll try to foster equality by how i live, not by associating with any particular group of people.For issues like gender equality, living a certain way won't make it happen if laws don't protect equal rights. Take Booko's example of being tossed out on the street for expressing your opinions or Larkin's example of pay grade differences. No amount of living will change these realities until laws change, which they have been due to group pressure.

As far as peer pressure is concerned, if you're being swayed to take a stance against something you feel is inherently right, it's time to examine why you're willing to throw away something meaningful for something that's fleeting like acceptance. In doing so, you become slave to another's will and approval by giving away your right to think and act as you see fit.

As far as belligerence is concerned, if the more loud and belligerent are irritating you, then it's time to stand up and say "shut up, calm down, here's what makes more rational sense".

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 11:28 AM ----------

HAHAHA...I'm sorry but the reality is it's one thing to have laws and another thing to have the energy, resources, time and evidence to prove your case in court.

I nearly lost my job once for daring to be a member of a "cult" in the face of people who belonged to an intolerant religious group, even though I took pains to leave my religion out of work, because it isn't professional.

Well, it's not legal to try to oust me because of my religion, but they nearly did. They wouldn't have been stupid to fire me for that or put it on paper. I wasn't fired because a) I keep notes, b) we had been bought out by a company not ruled by the religious intolerant, and I kicked the business upstairs.Note how you weren't fired on these grounds? You took it in hand and dealt with it. If you had really wanted to make a point, you could have allowed them to fire you and then filed a discrimination suit against your employer.

It's relatively easy to find grounds to fire someone, as you can just give someone an impossible deadline and then fire them because they didn't make it.

Not to mention I live in a "right to work" state where you can terminate anyone, anytime, for no grounds whatsoever. So good luck with that.

That's the ugly reality most of us live in. The law is nice but is more theory than real for a lot of people.

If it were more real than theory there would be a lot more discrimination suits in the courts, but there aren't. Redlining wouldn't exist, but it certainly does. Women would not face daily economic discrimination, but they do.

And yes, if you have a boss who's an asshole and you talk about your views on feminism and he doesn't like it, be sure to update your resume.

And there's the other aspect: if you need family support and you don't tow the family line, there are no laws to protect you whatsoever.I don't understand this attitude. If you believe in something or are being treated in an inequitable manner, the only person who will do anything for you, is you. If you roll over, you have only yourself to blame.

firebee

07-25-2010, 11:30 AM

Do you feel, like I do, that in some ways we're losing ground? Sometimes I look at what younger women are up to and think, "Why are you wasting what we did for you?"

There's a couple things here.

First of all, any idealistic fight is going to end up providing benefit to base people, because most people are base. One of my great-uncles died of bone cancer before I was born, that he got in the course of fighting to preserve democracy for the frat boys who were hooting moronically at me and my boyfriend Friday night. It's the nature of the beast.

The second thing is basically the sort of trend that we're seeing now, of women who are quite firmly in favor of women not being discriminated against or abused et cetera but who do not identify as feminists. Once a certain set of gains have been made for any given minority group, the difficulty of pursuing the interests of that group go up substantially. Emotive examples of egregious behavior start happening less and less often, which reduces leverage -- meanwhile, the members of the group in question have fewer problems, are therefore more content, and therefore have less motivation to continue to deal with the shit that comes from pushing for stuff.

Plus which, you start getting into things that folks hold as more precious. Tell a dude that he's got to hire women, and he might bitch a little bit but it's basically a thing that he does in his role as a manager rather than something that is closer to his identity. Now you come back and tell him that he should avoid offensive jokes and other casual elements of sexism, and now you're invading his happy man-cave with the requirement that he think about the implications of his statements and control his behavior. That's more personal. And if you challenge him to reexamine his actual beliefs -- where that reexamination might lead him to realize bad things about himself! -- well, you might as well be lopping off his pee-pee.

Hence why dudes like him go running to dudes like Kanazawa to be patted on the head and told that no, the world doesn't have scary stuff in it and everything's okay -- hence also why 63% of people whose beliefs actually do align with the basic definition of feminism won't actually put themselves out to take on the label.

Booko

07-25-2010, 11:35 AM

But on the other hand, all this emancipation has made men even more uncommitted - they don't have to take responsibilities because women can make more money than they do, women can enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy and live a life without a man. I think, all this emancipation has lead to a confusion of gender roles in higher developed countries and to a zeitgeist of non-committment.

That's first bit is what concerns me. I see women generally doing things that enable them to avoid real commitment. How does this ever serve women? We're the ones who get stuck in the mire of poverty still raising the kids, generally speaking.

As for the confusion of gender roles, that I try to take in stride. Any transition is bound to be confusing as hell and take some time to work through. Eventually people will figure things out.

What I don't get is why women sell themselves so cheaply so much, leaving women in many ways worse off than if they'd just remained barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

I don't mean to make commentary on people having sex where there's no committment on either side. That's something else.

It's more about women being rather naive about when they're looking for a committed man and thinking that somehow being sexy enough will cause him to commit and stay committed. But the old saying is still true: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

And related to that, it's about women allowing themselves to be sold short, as if the only worth they seem to have is as sex toys for men.

Clearly this doesn't apply to a lot of women. But it seems to apply to enough of them that it looks problematic in terms of womens' and childrens' welfare, not to mention a stable society.

I can't help but think of Gloria Steinem being a Playboy bunny to expose the stupidity of it all, only to have this next generation of women going back to that same stupidity.

JTG

07-25-2010, 11:49 AM

Inequality is baked into the conceptual schemes of the general public. Their support would indicate failure, not deployment of tactics likely to bring success. The general public thought the sun went around the Earth and representatives thereof threatened to burn those who claimed otherwise, etc.

Doesn't it occur to you that men enjoy a power so entrenched they're often not aware they have it?

Feminism in the 60s didn't have the support of the general public, nor did the Suffragettes. Hard, maybe, but neither irrelevant nor impossible.

Both are good points. I almost made an analogy in my last post about women i know now who choose to be housewives, but i know the easy and obvious reply to that is that they're brainwashed minions of our patriarchal society. After all, i'm sure most women in the 50s looked at anybody shouting for equality as a loon. "What's wrong with that woman? Why does she want a job so badly? Doesn't she know she'd be happier baking a pie like i am?"

The difference is that we're not in the 50s anymore. These days it's fine for a woman to get a job or be a provider for her family. Rates of single motherhood are proof that more women are standing free of male dependency than ever. I'm not saying rates of single motherhood (or fatherhood) are a good thing, but it goes to show that a woman is just as capable as a man when it comes to providing for a family.

I understand that pay is unequal, and it's my understanding that the gap actually widened a bit recently in spite of the trend over the last 25 or so years of the gap closing. However, the fact remains that incomes are closer now than they were when the feminist movement was first burning bras and demanding a place in the corporate world. It is also my understanding that men who support equality make less than men who support the status quo. They actually make closer to what women make. I wish i could find the charts on it. I want to say the stats were accessed through some government organization, but it has been a couple of years and i can't remember where to find the info.

Anyway, my point is that we have made a lot of progress. At this point, a single organization isn't going to be enough to finish the job. Like racism, sexism isn't something that's going to go away until the mainstream see it as a negative. It's impossible to accomplish the goals of Feminism without winning over the masses.

It is possible to fight for legislation and to legally see to it that women are protected as equals. While that is important, i don't think we'll see true equality until a mindset of equality is held by the general public. There will always be people who hate and disparage others, but hopefully someday they'll be just a whisper on the fringe of society.

anotherIsis

07-25-2010, 12:10 PM

Women were never officially sanctioned as equal in this country, as strange as that seems. And even though it may be just 'words', they are words I'd like to see in my government's constitution....

I'm a feminist because I lived through their fight, reaping the benefits they gained for all women along the way.

Some women see being sanctioned as equal as an insult, admitting that there was a time when they were not equal. It's an interesting position.

I'm a little perplexed by some of the discussion--feminism is not a membership club with rules and a uniform. It's a way of identifying people with an intellectual or political commitment to promoting the equality of men and women in society.

vampyroteuthis

07-25-2010, 12:26 PM

Both are good points. I almost made an analogy in my last post about women i know now who choose to be housewives, but i know the easy and obvious reply to that is that they're brainwashed minions of our patriarchal society. After all, i'm sure most women in the 50s looked at anybody shouting for equality as a loon. "What's wrong with that woman? Why does she want a job so badly? Doesn't she know she'd be happier baking a pie like i am?"
While I am aware that that argument has been made by a few feminists, I think you'll find it's pretty far from the charter of most mainstream feminist groups who work on issues like abuse, domestic violence, equal pay for equal work, equal attention to (and subsidisation of) "women's" health issues, right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, etc. The focus on women's rights includes the right to be a housewife or househusband or housespouse provided one's choice to do so has not been limited. This is an hyperbolic characterisation of feminism.

The difference is that we're not in the 50s anymore. These days it's fine for a woman to get a job or be a provider for her family. Rates of single motherhood are proof that more women are standing free of male dependency than ever. I'm not saying rates of single motherhood (or fatherhood) are a good thing, but it goes to show that a woman is just as capable as a man when it comes to providing for a family.
And yet one of the most widely peddled arguments against welfare is that there are lazy single mothers looking to live the high life off the dole. Single motherhood continues to be stigmatised, and the labour (no pun intended) that goes into motherhood continues to be denigrated. Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of providing for a family, but on average she faces greater financial impediments and social stigma.

I understand that pay is unequal, and it's my understanding that the gap actually widened a bit recently in spite of the trend over the last 25 or so years of the gap closing. However, the fact remains that incomes are closer now than they were when the feminist movement was first burning bras and demanding a place in the corporate world. It is also my understanding that men who support equality make less than men who support the status quo. They actually make closer to what women make. I wish i could find the charts on it. I want to say the stats were accessed through some government organization, but it has been a couple of years and i can't remember where to find the info.
There was a thread on women's pay and status in the workplace recently where the only thing that emerged as certainty was that, depending on the field, level of expertise, and geographic locations, people's experiences of these gaps are widely divergent. But, while some women do not experience a glass ceiling in their lifetimes, many do. I've also read that while the pay gap is decreasing for younger women in lower level jobs, women continue to be under-represented in top level positions, and the gender wage gap is wider at that level.

Also, bra burning? Never happened. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Originally meant as a joke, it's become one of the more tired tropes of the angry feminist/nazi/shrew/whatever you want to "affectionately" call them.

Anyway, my point is that we have made a lot of progress. At this point, a single organization isn't going to be enough to finish the job. Like racism, sexism isn't something that's going to go away until the mainstream see it as a negative. It's impossible to accomplish the goals of Feminism without winning over the masses.
It seems to me that the mainstream already officially sees racism as negative in the US, but racism continues unabated, manifesting in stereotyping, condescension, unconscious bias, unequal opportunity, and unsubstantiated fears of "reverse racism". There are popular stereotypes and prejudices, there are economic inequalities, and there are institutional barriers. These are components of both racism and sexism, and feminists and anti-racists have a great deal to contend with on many fronts. I agree that "the job" is not over, but I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that a single organisation finish it, nor even that there is only one job to be done.

It is possible to fight for legislation and to legally see to it that women are protected as equals. While that is important, i don't think we'll see true equality until a mindset of equality is held by the general public. There will always be people who hate and disparage others, but hopefully someday they'll be just a whisper on the fringe of society.
Amen. But, campaigning for one kind of equality doesn't take away from another. Failure to achieve a widespread mindset of equality doesn't take away from the relevance and importance of dealing with economic and institutional inequalities, and, when it comes to popular sexism, I'm not holding my breath that that'll go away anytime soon. Still consider myself a feminist, though. :)

Athene

07-25-2010, 12:27 PM

Some women see being sanctioned as equal as an insult, admitting that there was a time when they were not equal. It's an interesting position.

I'm a little perplexed by some of the discussion--feminism is not a membership club with rules and a uniform. It's a way of identifying people with an intellectual or political commitment to promoting the equality of men and women in society.Women have historically been considered less than equal, throughout pretty much every country in existence.

The US is not as progressive as some other countries (Finland for instance) who have had women in high positions of authority for years (ie Presidents).

Since women were not seen as equal to men, they were not allowed to vote, to own property, to speak in public (esp churches), etc. And that's just in the United States. In some other countries and cultures it is, of course, much worse. Women have no real rights, any more than that of children.

It's not been too long since women earned the right to "equal pay" for equal work... in the '50s, I believe?

For a government to deny a woman the right to do anything others in that society may do (such as the right to vote) indicates an inequality.

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 11:30 AM ----------

Why is my avatar wearing a dress? She should be wearing pants! :)

JTG

07-25-2010, 12:45 PM

It seems to me that the mainstream already officially sees racism as negative in the US, but racism continues unabated, manifesting in stereotyping, condescension, unconscious bias, unequal opportunity, and unsubstantiated fears of "reverse racism". There are popular stereotypes and prejudices, there are economic inequalities, and there are institutional barriers. These are components of both racism and sexism, and feminists and anti-racists have a great deal to contend with on many fronts. I agree that "the job" is not over, but I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that a single organisation finish it, nor even that there is only one job to be done.

The mainstream already sees the labels of racism and sexism as negatives, but a lot of things qualify that still escape the labels. What i meant was that even the mindset of racism or sexism needs to go, not just behaviors that are extreme enough to be called out as openly racist or sexist.

What qualifies as racism/sexism is a matter of debate, of course. I think things like crying about "reverse racism" (or sexism) can be either legitimate concerns or whining based on the fear of losing an advantage.

Just based on personal experience, i think we've come farther with racism than we have with sexism. I know that if i'm approached by a man of a different race, i look at him with less pre-established notion than i do if i'm approached by a woman. The way the woman presents herself has a big impact as well though. For the longest time i had a prejudice against "hot chicks" for a few reasons. Before anybody asks, it's hard to explain what i mean by "the way the woman presents herself" other than just to say that it's something ingrained in me. It's something that i hope my children don't carry someday.

Still, i'm happy to say i've seen the first non-white US president in my lifetime. I hope to see the first non-male president as well. I'm happy that we have women who would make competent presidents.

Athene

07-25-2010, 12:53 PM

Yes, I remember quite a bit of that. We couldn't wear pants to school until I was in the 6th grade. Many classes were closed to girls. Women couldn't get loans without a man there. You'd be fired from your job as soon as you turned up pregnant, not because they were ditching the insurance costs, but because "you're supposed to be home with your kids."

I worked with the first female manager at a company -- in those days if you had boobs you had to have a typewriter on your desk. Even though she was a manager they insisted she have one there as "company policy." She finally put it in the doorway so people would be tripping over it, and one of the VPs got a clue and had it removed. And rewrote the policy.

Amazing, isn't it? I wasn't aware it got raised in Congress each year though. Thanks for mentioning that I can't say I'm surprised. I remember too well the idiotic "discussions" back in the 70s, as if regarding women as equal humans meant we'd all be sharing the same bathroom.

Now apparently it isn't worth discussion at all. It's like people think the Women's Movement and the Civil Rights Movement are somehow "finished."

Well, they're not.

Do you feel, like I do, that in some ways we're losing ground? Sometimes I look at what younger women are up to and think, "Why are you wasting what we did for you?"
I only recently learned about the ERA coming up for vote each year; recently changed to the "Women's Equality Amendment".

My daughter is 16. She has grown up in an education system which stresses equality and the teachers truly do encourage the girls into what used to be male territory (math and science). She was raised in an atmosphere of social tolerance and confidence, a huge advantage. They (and society) are reaping the benefits and the results of what all the conflicts were about when I was growing up. We really have achieved some great things!

But... my daughter has also been taught that feminism is almost a bad word. When I talk about what I've seen, and how far we've come in such a short (relatively) time, she just doesn't understand. For her, feminists dislike anything "girlie" and try to be men. I understand her point, because for so long women had to assert their position in what was at the time a man's world. Women had to be able to compete with men and hold their ground, and that required specific things, such as a more assertive voice, and less submissive demeanor (in dress and behavior).

Girls and women today can let down their guard a little, I guess. They can be more feminine and still retain their positions. But this is based on a platform designed and built by feminists.

Booko

07-25-2010, 01:16 PM

Note how you weren't fired on these grounds? You took it in hand and dealt with it. If you had really wanted to make a point, you could have allowed them to fire you and then filed a discrimination suit against your employer.

WRONG. That is my point. I would've had no legal case to bring a discrimination suit against my employer. They were not going to fire me on the basis of "we don't like your religion." People who want to act on their prejudice in business are rarely that stupid. If they'd been stupid enough to exchange emails or memos to prove what they were doing, me as a worker bee employee, now how exactly would I ever have access to that to prove my case? It would be my opinion against the opinion of 2 managers and a director. That's a losing case if ever there were one.

And you seem to have utterly missed the point about GA law. An employer can fire you for no reason any time. How do you sue your employer when they did nothing illegal?

Yes, I took measures to protect myself, but I also realize I was very lucky. Had we not been bought out by a firm in Massachusetts that has a very different corporate climate, where you leave your religion at the door, I would have been fired and with no recourse. Six months earlier and I would've been out of work with a student husband and two small children to support.

Sure, odds are I could've found a job, but sometimes in the interval you end up being unable to make the rent payments and then you can live in your car. Most people in this country live closer to homelessness than they realize.

But that's what I do generally: I do my homework, prepare whatever I can...but at some point after that it's just trusting in Providence, because I realize I ultimately do not have the decision-making power.

I don't understand this attitude. If you believe in something or are being treated in an inequitable manner, the only person who will do anything for you, is you. If you roll over, you have only yourself to blame.

Sometimes in life you have to pick your battles.

I guess from what you write you haven't been in a position where your life might quite literally depend on your ability to at least appear to tow the line. I appreciate the idealism, but sometimes life requires it to be tempered with a little realism.

If you manage to avoid that during your life, count yourself lucky.

But the sad fact is that people are unjustly fired from their jobs and evicted from their apartments and locked in jail for bogus reasons daily, and the reality of their lives is very few of them will have the wherewithal to seek legal redress.

cannotseethe

07-25-2010, 01:24 PM

Just based on personal experience, i think we've come farther with racism than we have with sexism. I know that if i'm approached by a man of a different race, i look at him with less pre-established notion than i do if i'm approached by a woman.

We've or you've?

Booko

07-25-2010, 01:37 PM

The second thing is basically the sort of trend that we're seeing now, of women who are quite firmly in favor of women not being discriminated against or abused et cetera but who do not identify as feminists. Once a certain set of gains have been made for any given minority group, the difficulty of pursuing the interests of that group go up substantially. Emotive examples of egregious behavior start happening less and less often, which reduces leverage -- meanwhile, the members of the group in question have fewer problems, are therefore more content, and therefore have less motivation to continue to deal with the shit that comes from pushing for stuff.

Very true. It's the same thing going on with civil rights in this country -- it seems to be rather stuck.

LGBT rights seem to be moving more just because the abuse is more egregious and there are more people organized around solving what's an obvious problem in terms of human rights. Anti-LGBT prejudice is still at the point of unambiguous abuse.

Now you come back and tell him that he should avoid offensive jokes and other casual elements of sexism, and now you're invading his happy man-cave with the requirement that he think about the implications of his statements and control his behavior. That's more personal. And if you challenge him to reexamine his actual beliefs -- where that reexamination might lead him to realize bad things about himself! -- well, you might as well be lopping off his pee-pee.

Well said. And it does seem these days the feminist issues I deal with, at least in this country, are more in terms of one-on-one personal education on the issues than something that seems to respond to a more organized movement. It's pretty much the same with civil rights issues -- it's more like trying to turn hearts one at a time and not something one would have a demonstration over.

Hence why dudes like him go running to dudes like Kanazawa to be patted on the head and told that no, the world doesn't have scary stuff in it and everything's okay -- hence also why 63% of people whose beliefs actually do align with the basic definition of feminism won't actually put themselves out to take on the label.

Yeah, God forbid they actually think maybe they should kick in on house maintenance and that watching their own children is not "babysitting" or that when a woman beats them at a game, no it isn't just "luck" on their part but if he wins, it's because he's brilliant.

While I realize intellectually that these shifts take time (in fact I don't expect racism to end until there's integration around the breakfast table), it doesn't seem to make me any less impatient watching the same stuff I've seen for my 50+ years still going on. It's another generation already...I would so like to move past more of this stupid stuff. I'm just worn out putting up with it and want it to end.

I suppose it's maybe more like dysfunctional family dynamics though. That brings a whole new meaning to "The sins of the fathers are visited unto the third and fourth generations."

We're not that far along yet, so I suppose it's not realistic for me to expect womens' or civil rights to be closer to "solved" than they are right now.

I was just sort of selfishly hoping there might come a day in my life when I could leave my house and not be hampered in some way merely because I have boobies. *sigh*

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 04:47 PM ----------

I understand that pay is unequal, and it's my understanding that the gap actually widened a bit recently in spite of the trend over the last 25 or so years of the gap closing. However, the fact remains that incomes are closer now than they were when the feminist movement was first burning bras and demanding a place in the corporate world.

Oddly, pay parity is closer in the blue collar world, where pay scales are based on clear performance criteria like production quotas and also on seniority, which doesn't involve gender.

It's in the corporate world that the inequity is still noticable. Where job performance is judged on subjective standards, there's always more room for prejudice of any sort.

It is also my understanding that men who support equality make less than men who support the status quo. They actually make closer to what women make. I wish i could find the charts on it. I want to say the stats were accessed through some government organization, but it has been a couple of years and i can't remember where to find the info.

Now that's interesting, but now that I think about it makes sense. Men who make less probably have wives who work just to make ends meet, and they know that their wive's inability to make equitable pay is affecting their bottom line at home. There's nothing like having one's own ox gored to notice when there's a problem.

It wasn't Pew Research by any chance, was it?

Anyway, my point is that we have made a lot of progress. At this point, a single organization isn't going to be enough to finish the job. Like racism, sexism isn't something that's going to go away until the mainstream see it as a negative. It's impossible to accomplish the goals of Feminism without winning over the masses.

For my part I've worked hardest at home -- teaching my son and daughter where those inequities lie and not just letting them pass by without notice. Frankly, for most of the older men out there, if they're already stuck in the mire, they're probably not going to get unstuck by now.

I also talk with younger folks all the time, as my social life and definition of "friend" isn't remotely limited by age. That does give me the opportunity to ask the odd food for thought question and perhaps help tomorrow's husbands and bosses to see things a little differently than the older generation. Well, not to mention cluing the women into the more subtle forms sexism can take, so maybe they won't fall easily into that pattern themselves.

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------

I'm a little perplexed by some of the discussion--feminism is not a membership club with rules and a uniform. It's a way of identifying people with an intellectual or political commitment to promoting the equality of men and women in society.

Ah, but growing up when I did, identifying yourself as a feminist usually did mean you were part of an organization. That is still the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the term "feminist" -- a person involved in an organization that works through political means to achieve equality for women.

I'm not part of that and haven't been for decades. It doesn't mean I don't work for goals that might be called feminist.

I do, however, have some aversion to labels of most sorts. People have a way of using labels to put others into nice convenient boxes rather than pursue ideas and find out who they really are.

I've had enough of being put in tidy little boxes.

Athene

07-25-2010, 01:56 PM

We've or you've?
Women were lobbying for voting rights at the same time as non-whites were... and yet it took decades before women got the right. Gender was a bigger hurdle than race, at least where having the right to vote was concerned.

Distance

07-25-2010, 01:58 PM

WRONG. That is my point. I would've had no legal case to bring a discrimination suit against my employer. They were not going to fire me on the basis of "we don't like your religion." People who want to act on their prejudice in business are rarely that stupid. If they'd been stupid enough to exchange emails or memos to prove what they were doing, me as a worker bee employee, now how exactly would I ever have access to that to prove my case? It would be my opinion against the opinion of 2 managers and a director. That's a losing case if ever there were one.

And you seem to have utterly missed the point about GA law. An employer can fire you for no reason any time. How do you sue your employer when they did nothing illegal?

Yes, I took measures to protect myself, but I also realize I was very lucky. Had we not been bought out by a firm in Massachusetts that has a very different corporate climate, where you leave your religion at the door, I would have been fired and with no recourse. Six months earlier and I would've been out of work with a student husband and two small children to support.

Sure, odds are I could've found a job, but sometimes in the interval you end up being unable to make the rent payments and then you can live in your car. Most people in this country live closer to homelessness than they realize.

But that's what I do generally: I do my homework, prepare whatever I can...but at some point after that it's just trusting in Providence, because I realize I ultimately do not have the decision-making power.The attached link says it all for Georgia Employment Laws as it pertains to discrimination, including retaliatory acts by employers.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But I will state that religion doesn't belong in the workplace.

Sometimes in life you have to pick your battles.

I guess from what you write you haven't been in a position where your life might quite literally depend on your ability to at least appear to tow the line. I appreciate the idealism, but sometimes life requires it to be tempered with a little realism.

If you manage to avoid that during your life, count yourself lucky.

But the sad fact is that people are unjustly fired from their jobs and evicted from their apartments and locked in jail for bogus reasons daily, and the reality of their lives is very few of them will have the wherewithal to seek legal redress.Do you suppose I haven't experienced discrimination of some form or another, be it gender, age or race? My life hasn't been easy street but I'm eternally grateful that discrimination laws are in place so I know that if it exceeded what I could control, then I can take it to court.

As it stands, any kinds of discrimination experienced has been dealt with, without needing to resort to legal action. Sometimes you have to take things into your own hands at the forefront and squash it so people understand that they can't run roughshod over you.

But every person also has the right to find another job, if the current employment climate isn't to their liking. If you're constantly being bombarded by religion within the workplace and management is in support of it, why remain in this job?

Athene

07-25-2010, 02:05 PM

Hm, I am grateful for what elder generations of women did for me (being from Germany, the generation of my grandma had no choice but to stand up for themselves since their men died in WW II).
But on the other hand, all this emancipation has made men even more uncommitted - they don't have to take responsibilities because women can make more money than they do, women can enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy and live a life without a man. I think, all this emancipation has lead to a confusion of gender roles in higher developed countries and to a zeitgeist of non-committment.
They weren't necessarily taking responsibility before women could earn a decent wage, either.

Women are at a physiological disadvantage due to pregnancy, labor, and caring for offspring, but have often been tossed aside. If not for government help (housing, foodstamps, etc) more women and children would end up in homeless shelters.

A certain amount of adjustment is understandable and worth the results.

There really don't need to be assigned gender roles in our culture; that's sort of the point, in my opinion.

larkin

07-25-2010, 02:13 PM

A few thoughts on whether or not to embrace the term feminist:

Well, I'm a feminist. I'm an INTJ. I understand peach though. I live in the South and proclaiming yourself a feminist is kinda like saying you prefer your tea hot. Everyone thinks you're a Yankee.

I'll try to foster equality by how i live, not by associating with any particular group of people.

Opponents have tried very hard to define the feminist movement and its values as extreme. Some people may want to think of the decision to "avoid the label" as independent, but I think Anreader's interpretation is correct - that some women are afraid of calling themselves a feminist because they don't want to be thought of as extreme, to be called a feminazi, whatever. That's the goal of the opponents - to undermine feminist values by making women afraid of associating with the movement. While it may be understandable, there's nothing "independent" about ceding to that.

Because it's one of the core principles of my faith? There are 6-7 million of us, men and women, from every nation, who are all working for this goal under our own banner.

How does calling yourself a feminist take away from that banner, rather than add to it?

Some thoughts on whether women are moving forward or backward:

Do you feel, like I do, that in some ways we're losing ground? Sometimes I look at what younger women are up to and think, "Why are you wasting what we did for you?"

But on the other hand, all this emancipation has made men even more uncommitted - they don't have to take responsibilities because women can make more money than they do, women can enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy and live a life without a man. I think, all this emancipation has lead to a confusion of gender roles in higher developed countries and to a zeitgeist of non-committment.

Feminism is about freedom of choice, not about judging the choices of others. If women want to stay at home or work, if they want to stay single or get married, for example. That means we get to live with whatever choices other women make, whatever we may think of them.

And yes, someone else rightfully pointed out it's as much about freedom of choice for men as it is for women. And we get to live those outcomes, too - less "commitment," fewer responsibilities. (I personally would prefer commitment that's real rather than one generated by peer pressure or collective social responsibility, but hey, maybe that's just me.) That's freedom for you. Nobody said it would be all smiles and candy.

Distance

07-25-2010, 02:37 PM

Maybe that's part of the misunderstanding about the collective nature of Feminism. Perhaps people believe that with collectivism, they should be taken care of so that all is equitable without having to take matters into their own hands if it's not.

As far as I've experienced, nothing comes free in life. You're given the tools and after that, it's up to you to build a house or live in a tent. With freedom, comes personal responsibility for the choices that we make.

vampyroteuthis

07-25-2010, 03:28 PM

Distance

07-25-2010, 03:36 PM

Surely this isn't at odds with trying to redress the fact that people have different levels and kinds of freedom, unequally?How does this pertain to the rejection of Feminism as a stigmatic symbol?

vampyroteuthis

07-25-2010, 03:46 PM

How does this pertain to the rejection of Feminism as a stigmatic symbol?

Perhaps I misread. I thought when you said:
Perhaps people believe that with collectivism, they should be taken care of so that all is equitable without having to take matters into their own hands if it's not.

As far as I've experienced, nothing comes free in life. You're given the tools and after that, it's up to you to build a house or live in a tent. With freedom, comes personal responsibility for the choices that we make.
that you were attributing this sort of thinking to feminists, which did not conform to any feminist agenda with which I am familiar. Hence my post offering what I see as a common aim amongst most feminists. I wasn't addressing any broader point about the reasons behind the stigmatisation of feminism.

Distance

07-25-2010, 04:05 PM

Perhaps I misread. I thought when you said:

that you were attributing this sort of thinking to feminists, which did not conform to any feminist agenda with which I am familiar. Hence my post offering what I see as a common aim amongst most feminists. I wasn't addressing any broader point about the reasons behind the stigmatisation of feminism.My stance is pro-Feminism, anti-excuse from fear of stigmatisation.

Feminism gives people the tools since as a collective unit, it has ensured that equality laws are in place. It won't help you get out of a discriminatory work situation if you choose not to address the issues through personal or legal means. It won't feed you if you choose not to work. It won't help you get a job in a field that requires a particular level of education where your prior choice wasn't to get the necessary degree. All this is up to the women involved, to make choices in life that consider future consequences.

vampyroteuthis

07-25-2010, 04:15 PM

My stance is pro-Feminism, anti-excuse from fear of stigmatisation.

Feminism gives people the tools since as a collective unit, it has ensured that equality laws are in place. It won't help you get out of a discriminatory work situation if you choose not to address the issues through personal or legal means. It won't feed you if you choose not to work. It won't help you get a job in a field that requires a particular level of education where your prior choice wasn't to get the necessary degree. All this is up to the women involved, to make choices in life that consider future consequences.

See, I think this is where I'm unclear as to what you're communicating, as I'm not sure if you're implying that anyone in this thread has suggested that feminism should get you a job in a field without the necessary qualifications, or that the movement should "feed you" if you "choose not to get a job", but these seem to me to be assuming a common denominator of economic wellbeing. I'm also not sure how to read "choose not to get a job", as that "choice" is often attributed to poor people, and is especially common in the stigmatisation of "welfare moms". Not saying that that's what you're doing, just saying it isn't clear to me what point you're making. If it's just to make the statements above, at face value, then these seem like straw people to me.

Distance

07-25-2010, 04:22 PM

See, I think this is where I'm unclear as to what you're communicating, as I'm not sure if you're implying that anyone in this thread has suggested that feminism should get you a job in a field without the necessary qualifications, or that the movement should "feed you" if you "choose not to get a job", but these seem to me to be assuming a common denominator of economic wellbeing. I'm also not sure how to read "choose not to get a job", as that "choice" is often attributed to poor people, and is especially common in the stigmatisation of "welfare moms". Not saying that that's what you're doing, just saying it isn't clear to me what point you're making. If it's just to make the statements above, at face value, then these seem like straw people to me.They're illustrations of what Feminism won't do for a woman. They also pertain to women who don't support Feminism because it's "done nothing for them".

vampyroteuthis

07-25-2010, 04:54 PM

They're illustrations of what Feminism won't do for a woman. They also pertain to women who don't support Feminism because it's "done nothing for them".

Ah, okay. I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

jtuck

07-25-2010, 08:45 PM

Do you feel, like I do, that in some ways we're losing ground? Sometimes I look at what younger women are up to and think, "Why are you wasting what we did for you?"

To Booko, I am young. Please believe me when I tell you some young people function in their daily lives with a constant mindfulness and appreciation of the work and suffering and struggle that won us our everyday rights. And it spurs us to try to comprehend what the next wave of change will look like, how it will begin, and how we bring it about. My INTJ "unfeeling" self regularly researches feminists of the past and cries reading about them, then works furiously as a result.

Lucy Burns said women would never know at what cost the right merely to speak in public was won and thank God it. Once the terrible, exhausting work of eradicating prejudice is done, human rights become a seeming given, and people can no longer readily grasp how things were once different and how hard it was to create change.

We are losing ground. Don't give up on us or see us solely as responsible for backlash.

There are two main reasons I see for this shift back to sexism: 1) capitalist consumerism 2) resourced appropriation and debunking of feminists from conservatives and conservative media.

Capitalist consumerism would strip us all of our human rights turn everything into a commodity, including ourselves. You can see how this works when people argue feminism is "done" since women now get to choose how exchange their own sexual bodies for the most capital/power/exchange value rather than to be exchanged by and for the benefit of men; this is labeled "freedom." You can see it when our public water systems fail, and the public response is to buy from the bottled water companies, not only allowing but spurring the basic human right for affordable clean water to melt away into a commodity.

This is what other comments gesture towards when talking about work. We are all being manipulated by an escalating need to consume and work to earn money to use to consume. It is a myth that feminism caused more women to enter the workplace. The downturn of the economy caused more women from privileged classes to have to enter the workplace (lower class women had ALWAYS worked), and feminism was what allowed them to do so with (much more) equal pay and workers' rights.

As to Dr. Sexism is Science who was quoted far up on this post, all I can say is: Ha. Haha. Hahahaha.

The deduction that feminism exacerbated "gender war" and made everyone less happy is ignorant in the extreme. I think it's one of those statements that has been passed around until no one thinks about it anymore; it's just true by way of sounding familiar / "right."

The friction results from the loss of momentum in the anti-sexist movement, stagnating at the border between the public sphere and the private. Men who fully expect women in the workplace to be as skilled and competent as themselves and their male counterparts often cannot apply the same logic of equality when it comes to dividing domestic duties, distributing status in the nuclear family, or prioritizing the desires, growth, and autonomy of female partners and children.

The problem is not feminism; it's sexism. (Nice slight of hand Dr. If Women Would Submit Men Wouldn't Be Abusive and Other Sexist Myths Confirmed By My Med. Degree, but I've seen this trick before.) There is more pushback from women who experience the cognitive dissonance of stated equality and constant social devaluing, more frustration and discontent. I can only hope the discontent is building, as his addled research implies, so that we can move on to the long overdue Third Wave.

---------- Post added 07-25-2010 at 11:58 PM ----------

Very true. It's the same thing going on with civil rights in this country -- it seems to be rather stuck.

LGBT rights seem to be moving more just because the abuse is more egregious and there are more people organized around solving what's an obvious problem in terms of human rights. Anti-LGBT prejudice is still at the point of unambiguous abuse.

Well said. And it does seem these days the feminist issues I deal with, at least in this country, are more in terms of one-on-one personal education on the issues than something that seems to respond to a more organized movement. It's pretty much the same with civil rights issues -- it's more like trying to turn hearts one at a time and not something one would have a demonstration over.

I do not see how we can achieve full equal rights for GLBT folks (and the ever increasing demographic that does not fit or will not claim any labels, including pansexuals, gender queers, and just plain independent souls and other nonconformists) until we further eradicate sexism not only politically and legally, but on a social level.

The assumption that same sex love, attraction, sex, desire, partnerships, parenting couples, etc. are totally "other" than the "norm" is a sexist assumption. These people are targeting based upon underlying assumptions of gender normative behavior and the "wrongness" of what falls outside the status quo.

Ever notice how fast feminists are labeled "lesbians" and non-domineering men who show a spectrum of expressed emotions are labeled "gay"? Coincidence? I think not! Without sexism, there would be no homophobia. Attraction, love, partnership, what have you would not be considered wildly different based upon the mere coincidence of sex/gender.

It is by eradication of socially instilled and upheld gender performative behaviors and the creation of legal protection for all persons against social punishments for deviation from the accepted status quo that rights for all persons will be upheld, and thus the agenda of the GLBT rights movement achieved.

floramacivor

07-25-2010, 09:18 PM

feminism is not a membership club with rules and a uniform. It's a way of identifying people with an intellectual or political commitment to promoting the equality of men and women in society.

I like this! I don't think of myself as a radical feminist, but I do like equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal pay for equal competency.

Getting back to the original post, I do wonder if feminism has historically been represented by more INTJ's than the population would account for because of temperament. I can't see an INTJ going along with the status quo just because it's always been that way.

JTG

07-26-2010, 11:03 AM

We've or you've?

Both. The south is often stereotyped as one of the more racist areas of the country. I haven't heard of any whites dragging african americans behind their trucks in a loooong time, but rape still happens.

In a less extreme example, my line of work is pretty physically demanding, but not so much that somebody like me (pretty lightly built) can't handle it. Among all the people i work with, only one who does the same job as me is a woman. All of the rest of the women in the company work in offices, behind desks, filing stuff, etc. Racially, we're pretty well mixed between whites, blacks, hispanics, and asians. Most of the "important" office jobs (head of IT, owners of the company, management) are held by men. I can think of only one woman who's in a particularly notable position of power within the company.

My company may not be representative of the whole, but my own personal experiences tell me that racism is closer to being solved than sexism.

Now that's interesting, but now that I think about it makes sense. Men who make less probably have wives who work just to make ends meet, and they know that their wive's inability to make equitable pay is affecting their bottom line at home. There's nothing like having one's own ox gored to notice when there's a problem.

It wasn't Pew Research by any chance, was it?I think it also has to do with the fact that men who believe in equality tend to limit contact with men who are all about preserving a patriarchal structure. I know i do. I feel gross spending too much time around guys like that. The way they talk and act is annoying. Limited contact with those already in that entrenched position of power certainly is a hurdle when it comes to winning a place in "the inner circle" of the elect.

It may have been Pew research, that sounds familiar. I'll have to look into it again when i get home tonight

Opponents have tried very hard to define the feminist movement and its values as extreme. Some people may want to think of the decision to "avoid the label" as independent, but I think Anreader's interpretation is correct - that some women are afraid of calling themselves a feminist because they don't want to be thought of as extreme, to be called a feminazi, whatever. That's the goal of the opponents - to undermine feminist values by making women afraid of associating with the movement. While it may be understandable, there's nothing "independent" about ceding to that.As a man, i naturally have a different point of view on it. I mentioned before that i've been to a couple of feminist gatherings and have had feminist friends. I don't think the feminist movement is based in extremism, but there are extremists within the movement (as can be said for nearly any movement really) and as a man, coming in contact with those can be particularly offputting.

The first time i was talked to like the scum of the earth just because i have a penis was the last time i went to such a gathering. Man-haters within the organization may mean well, but i think such attitudes are divisive and ultimately self-defeating if the goal of feminism is seamless incorporation of males and females as equals.

That's why i don't really hold to any organizations too closely, because as soon as you identify yourself as one thing, people with opposing views think you're an enemy. I don't like "us vs them" attitudes just based on labels. I'd rather be a person and interact with other people as individuals instead of stereotypes. I still have feminist friends, and i do see the value in having an identified movement for equality, but i think my place in the sexism scheme of things is to be "just a guy" who happens to think that women are as competent as men.

Getting back to the original post, I do wonder if feminism has historically been represented by more INTJ's than the population would account for because of temperament. I can't see an INTJ going along with the status quo just because it's always been that way.

I think NTs in general are more likely to look at something, say "wait a minute, that doesn't make sense," and then disregard it as they go about their daily lives. I think NFs are likely to campaign against injustice, while NTs will just do what they do (usually doing it well) and earn recognition that way.

SJs are more likely to defend something because "it's always been that way." SPs will see something and say "it is what it is" and then have a good time anyway, because that's what SPs do.

All of that is speaking in temperament stereotype, of course.

maxpot46

07-29-2010, 09:12 PM

Not a feminist, truly? You don't believe in equal rights for women??? For shame. ;)I'm something of a chauvinist. I believe in equal rights for women, but I do think men are better than women. There are areas where women are better than men but IMO these are unimportant. I hate working with women because they generally lack honor and loyalty, tend to be self-centered instead of team-oriented, aren't bothered when they don't pull their own weight, expect special treatment and double standards, break down under stress, respond to issues emotionally instead of strategically, and are incapable of doing any kind of heavy lifting (there are a very few exceptions, of course). On a larger scale, I think the women's vote is largely responsible for the societal shift away from capitalism and towards socialism (which is not to say that I think they shouldn't have a vote... rather it reveals a weakness in democracy itself). I'm disgusted by the emasculation of men these days which I attribute to so many being raised by feminist single mothers and trying to get into the pants of feminist women. The dating scene (which thank goodness I'm no longer part of) is just horrible for men, who still have to pay for everything and find themselves judged primarily by their finances/earning potential.

I could go on but I've probably made enough enemies for one day. The funny thing is that I'm quite unemotional about the whole issue compared to a significant majority of the men I encounter (i.e. not just my friends), who feel much the same way but with much greater passion (though few are willing to let women know this).

paperclip

07-29-2010, 09:36 PM

a lot of people project their feelings and relationships with women into the contentious issue of feminism and its various definitions... when in fact their opinions, whatever end of the spectrum, have little to do with it as an abstract notion

katrin

07-29-2010, 09:40 PM

I liked being a feminist until another feminist attacked me for self-identifying as such, harping that it's a loaded word and I shouldn't use it unless I was really sure what it meant, blah blah blah. I knew what it meant, but she was more radical than me and of course thought only her version of feminism was the correct one. This type of woman and the man haters I met kept me away from activism. I kept wondering where is the sisterhood? Some acted like a woman was a traitor if she wanted to have romantic/sexual relationships with men.

Speaking of which, I think the saying "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" is kind of silly. If a woman is happy being single, fine, but there's nothing wrong with heterosexual women wanting male life partners.

Nowadays, I'm not an activist but I still tend to vote liberal feminist. I would like to see a highly qualified female democrat with a solid platform as president in my lifetime.

JTG

07-29-2010, 10:16 PM

The dating scene is just horrible for men, who still have to pay for everything and find themselves judged primarily by their finances/earning potential.

This is the only part of the post that rings true for me. The rest looks outdated by a few decades. Not that it was ever necessarily true, but that society hasn't held such chauvinistic views as part of the mainstream since like... before my time.

When i look around, i don't see emasculated men getting any play. Of course, being masculine and feeling the need to dominate female romantic interests are two separate things.

maxpot46

07-29-2010, 10:26 PM

When i look around, i don't see emasculated men getting any play.Really? The Timberlakes/Mayers/Biebers/LaBoeufs/Jenners/Ushers of the world don't get any play? The gossip mags my wife brings home seem to be full of them... Are there any masculine sex symbols currently in pop culture? Duane "The Rock" Johnson is the only one that immediately comes to mind (though I'm no expert in pop culture, so I could be wrong). Vin Diesel, maybe? Neither are very popular, though. And didn't both try to soften their image with "mr. mom" movies?

Angie1988

07-30-2010, 01:39 AM

I'm something of a chauvinist. I believe in equal rights for women, but I do think men are better than women. There are areas where women are better than men but IMO these are unimportant. I hate working with women because they generally lack honor and loyalty, tend to be self-centered instead of team-oriented, aren't bothered when they don't pull their own weight, expect special treatment and double standards, break down under stress, respond to issues emotionally instead of strategically, and are incapable of doing any kind of heavy lifting (there are a very few exceptions, of course). On a larger scale, I think the women's vote is largely responsible for the societal shift away from capitalism and towards socialism (which is not to say that I think they shouldn't have a vote... rather it reveals a weakness in democracy itself). I'm disgusted by the emasculation of men these days which I attribute to so many being raised by feminist single mothers and trying to get into the pants of feminist women. The dating scene (which thank goodness I'm no longer part of) is just horrible for men, who still have to pay for everything and find themselves judged primarily by their finances/earning potential.

I could go on but I've probably made enough enemies for one day. The funny thing is that I'm quite unemotional about the whole issue compared to a significant majority of the men I encounter (i.e. not just my friends), who feel much the same way but with much greater passion (though few are willing to let women know this).
I've been reading your posts...I applaud your honesty and respect your opinion. I think men have emasculated themselves though by not being in control in healthy sorts of ways; so as more and more women got and needed their own money they didn't have to put up with the unhealthy behavior men were dishing out. IMHO

As for men being better than women...WOW! I think we both have our strengths and weaknesses but I don't see how lifting heavier items in a world moving away not toward manual labor confers some sort of advantage.

Women and the vote...probably true that it shifts it more toward "socialism" in a system where the men who were governing left out taking care of the needs of women. Take healthcare for example which has for the longest time considered pregnancy a preexisting medical condition...and you know why because the capitalist system governed mostly by men didn't find it economical to cover pregnant women but mind you these are babies of men and half of these babies will grow up to be men. So, don't you think it would be in society's best interest to somehow cover these pregnancies? Of course the age old argument of survival of the fittest and those less fit will be weaned out of society may come up but that is not what actually happens in a modern society. Anyway, the point being is that if men had taken care of the offspring they helped conceive then there might not have been this backlash in the vote from women...even still there are a whole lot of conservative women out there. This particular healthcare example is just one of many where men governing the system neglected their mothers, sisters, daughters and lovers and helped to create the feminist movement! Again IMHO!

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 03:26 AM

I've been reading your posts...I applaud your honesty and respect your opinion.Thanks, much appreciated :)
As for men being better than women...WOW! I think we both have our strengths and weaknesses but I don't see how lifting heavier items in a world moving away not toward manual labor confers some sort of advantage.
It wasn't the only thing on my list (the honor issue is probably the biggest one for me) but I really disagree that the world is moving away from manual labor. We can create all the PowerPoint presentations we want, but at some point you have to build something, or move something, or lift something. Women can contribute to the paper-pushing but that type of work is IMO highly over-valued in our (U.S.) society, mostly because the colleges are pumping out so many paper-pushers and the government keeps piling on regulations which force companies to hire them -- I find it to be a lot of mental masturbation with very little value-add for the money. At the global level, it's manual labor and engineering that improve the world and satisfy people's needs/wants, while the spreadsheets and slide-shows sit on a shelf in a little binder. A lot of our predilection for cranking out managers, entertainers and service people is based on an illusion, a product of our monetary policy which has basically stolen wealth from the productive countries (e.g. China) and redistributed it to ourselves and our subjects (e.g. Europe) for about 7 decades now. But that's coming to an end -- the other countries don't want to play that game anymore and without the endless money creation U.S. companies can't afford to hire so many paper-pushers, hence the current economic and employment issues we're dealing with. Which are only going to get worse, no matter what the Bernankes and Krugmans of the world say, precisely because pushing paper isn't very productive but we're capable of doing little else. Even if women were willing to shift to engineering and labor jobs, IMO they aren't very good at them.
Women and the vote...probably true that it shifts it more toward "socialism" in a system where the men who were governing left out taking care of the needs of women. Take healthcare for example which has for the longest time considered pregnancy a preexisting medical condition...and you know why because the capitalist system governed mostly by men didn't find it economical to cover pregnant women but mind you these are babies of men and half of these babies will grow up to be men. So, don't you think it would be in society's best interest to somehow cover these pregnancies?Healthcare is screwed up precisely because it's NOT a free market -- it's dominated by the AMA/government cartel which artificially reduces the supply of doctors (to keep wages high) and distorted by crazy regulations that put a middle-man between producers and consumers, among other regulatory issues. And now of course the government is starting to take over with Obamacare (or Pelosicare, if you prefer). I agree that it's in society's best interests to cover those things, but the entrepreneurs who would spot that market opportunity and alleviate that need are prevented from doing so.
Of course the age old argument of survival of the fittest and those less fit will be weaned out of society may come up but that is not what actually happens in a modern society. Anyway, the point being is that if men had taken care of the offspring they helped conceive then there might not have been this backlash in the vote from women...even still there are a whole lot of conservative women out there. This particular healthcare example is just one of many where men governing the system neglected their mothers, sisters, daughters and lovers and helped to create the feminist movement! Again IMHO!I agree about the problem but disagree about the cause, which I outlined above and is part of that "women's vote pushing us away from true capitalism and towards socialism and central planning" issue that I mentioned in my original post. Which is not to say that men aren't mostly responsible for these stupid policies and their negative outcomes, but they are chasing votes and women are the majority of voters.

Just So

07-30-2010, 03:44 AM

I hate working with women because they generally lack honor and loyalty, tend to be self-centered instead of team-oriented, aren't bothered when they don't pull their own weight, expect special treatment and double standards, break down under stress, respond to issues emotionally instead of strategically, and are incapable of doing any kind of heavy lifting (there are a very few exceptions, of course).

Have you much experience working with women ? Which nationalities ? I find that culture can have a large impact on how a person's character develops. In any event, what you have written above is dead wrong about the European women I have worked with (except the lifting part).

p.s. - aren't a great many of the admins on this forum female ? If women are as despicable and trite as you say, I expect one of them would have pulled your post by now.

Firebrand

07-30-2010, 04:11 AM

Angie1988

07-30-2010, 04:57 AM

Thanks, much appreciated :)

It wasn't the only thing on my list (the honor issue is probably the biggest one for me) but I really disagree that the world is moving away from manual labor. We can create all the PowerPoint presentations we want, but at some point you have to build something, or move something, or lift something. Women can contribute to the paper-pushing but that type of work is IMO highly over-valued in our (U.S.) society, mostly because the colleges are pumping out so many paper-pushers and the government keeps piling on regulations which force companies to hire them -- I find it to be a lot of mental masturbation with very little value-add for the money. At the global level, it's manual labor and engineering that improve the world and satisfy people's needs/wants, while the spreadsheets and slide-shows sit on a shelf in a little binder. A lot of our predilection for cranking out managers, entertainers and service people is based on an illusion, a product of our monetary policy which has basically stolen wealth from the productive countries (e.g. China) and redistributed it to ourselves and our subjects (e.g. Europe) for about 7 decades now. But that's coming to an end -- the other countries don't want to play that game anymore and without the endless money creation U.S. companies can't afford to hire so many paper-pushers, hence the current economic and employment issues we're dealing with. Which are only going to get worse, no matter what the Bernankes and Krugmans of the world say, precisely because pushing paper isn't very productive but we're capable of doing little else. Even if women were willing to shift to engineering and labor jobs, IMO they aren't very good at them.

Healthcare is screwed up precisely because it's NOT a free market -- it's dominated by the AMA/government cartel which artificially reduces the supply of doctors (to keep wages high) and distorted by crazy regulations that put a middle-man between producers and consumers, among other regulatory issues. And now of course the government is starting to take over with Obamacare (or Pelosicare, if you prefer). I agree that it's in society's best interests to cover those things, but the entrepreneurs who would spot that market opportunity and alleviate that need are prevented from doing so.

I agree about the problem but disagree about the cause, which I outlined above and is part of that "women's vote pushing us away from true capitalism and towards socialism and central planning" issue that I mentioned in my original post. Which is not to say that men aren't mostly responsible for these stupid policies and their negative outcomes, but they are chasing votes and women are the majority of voters.

Ok I actually can see your point here but do you realize that a lot of the manual labor in those countries is done by children and women for menial wages!

Actually healthcare is really dominated by the for profit insurance companies primarily powered by lawyers who are in many ways in bed with the government because that too is run by lawyers (and mostly men I might add). Then, interestingly, these lawyers make and manipulate money for their personal and individual gain and not to somehow better society. These insurance companies make millions of dollars every year and it is their stockholders that benefit (ie lawyers lol). Before insurance companies existed when it was strictly capitalist back in the early 1900s, people couldn't get care for catastrophic illnesses because it was too expensive even for the big strapping working men. It was men that came up with the idea of health insurance so that they could be covered under such extreme circumstances...not unlike auto insurance when you are in an accident. Since many of the ones who made these laws were working, they tied it to jobs and created employer incentives for getting group insurance for their workers, primarily men, but that left out all these women who didn't have jobs because they couldn't get them because of their gender even if it was one of those paper pushing ones. Then health insurance became health coverage and covered not only catastrophes but every day ailments and the men went off to WWI and II and there were all these women left behind without insurance and who now entered the work force because they could...after all, all the men were at war. The problem came in when the men came back from the war...you can probably know or can figure out the rest...too much to type.

Well...since men have been soooo influential in what you yourself call stupid policies, it is time to give others, ie women, who may have a slightly different take on things a shot at contributing to these policies more equitably. After all, men still run the show whether they are motivated by chasing votes, skirts or whatever...which may be in large part because of all that testosterone circulating in their blood. Lol

Athene

07-30-2010, 06:13 AM

Feminism is just a form of overcompensation for implying that women are somehow less capable or have less ability to apply power than men. Just be the woman you want to be and call it a day. You don't need to join a victim group to do this. People don't achieve anything from a sense of entitlement.Feminism is a "victim" group? I must have missed that.

It's an activist group, a lobby to get unfair laws and workplace rules changed. Feminists got Title IX passed.

Feminists aren't victims; they're activists.

Firebrand

07-30-2010, 06:28 AM

Feminism is a "victim" group? I must have missed that.

It's an activist group, a lobby to get unfair laws and workplace rules changed. Feminists got Title IX passed.

Feminists aren't victims; they're activists.

If that were true, they wouldn't be wasting their time supporting something that implies there's a wrong to be righted, that they need some special consideration, or they need help/hand-holding via new rules. They'd be out being it rather than complaining about it.

Angie1988

07-30-2010, 09:14 AM

JTG

07-30-2010, 09:54 AM

Really? The Timberlakes/Mayers/Biebers/LaBoeufs/Jenners/Ushers of the world don't get any play? The gossip mags my wife brings home seem to be full of them... Are there any masculine sex symbols currently in pop culture? Duane "The Rock" Johnson is the only one that immediately comes to mind (though I'm no expert in pop culture, so I could be wrong). Vin Diesel, maybe? Neither are very popular, though. And didn't both try to soften their image with "mr. mom" movies?

Wow, even your definition of masculinity is outdated. Vin Diesel is among the last bastions of masculinity? Seriously? The dude is a caricature of what it means to be a man. Image aside, his acting and movie repertoire are terrible. Does a lack of talent make a good male role model? I could see Dwayne Johnson being a better example, but it looks like you base your standards on look and image more than ability and perceived personality. (I say perceived personality because unless we know any of them, all we have is a guess based on perception.)

Celebrities like Timberlake and Bieber (child stars) can have a hard time establishing a "manly" image, but Timberlake is a successful singer and entrepreneur. Talent and maintaining a successful career is a traditionally "manly" quality. Does having style make one less manly? Singing in a higher pitched voice than most men? Singing about romantic themes? I don't see how Timberlake is representative of emasculation of men in pop culture.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's his dick in a box

Bieber's 16, so he's still isn't done with puberty yet. We have yet to see if he'll turn out manly. Maybe when he actually becomes a man.

The rest you mentioned are at various points along the scale. I'd say i'm not particularly manly by your standards because i have a lean frame. I fix things for a living, so maybe that adds some points. I'm not a very big sports fan, but i'm good with technology/gadgets. Maybe those balance each other out?

What exactly constitutes manliness to a chauvinist? Can masculinity only be found in those who think women are inferior or treat women as though they should be subservient/subordinate? For that matter, can masculinity only exist so long as women are kept from having traditionally masculine traits/interests? Why, some day, if trends continue, there may not even be any clearly defined gender roles anymore. Then we'd have to actually meet people as people instead of as actors in self imposed stereotypes.

Athene

07-30-2010, 10:07 AM

If that were true, they wouldn't be wasting their time supporting something that implies there's a wrong to be righted, that they need some special consideration, or they need help/hand-holding via new rules. They'd be out being it rather than complaining about it.From your comments, it seems you must be very young.

Many wrongs were, in fact, righted... Something very concrete you might be able to relate to (rather than squishy things like equal pay and hiring practices) is women in sports. Title IX made it possible for women to just be in sports.

Feminists also worked to get sexual discrimination and harassment regulations enacted in the workplace.

It's hard to relate to things that don't affect us directly, I admit. But you're speaking against things you don't understand.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 11:40 AM

Have you much experience working with women ? Which nationalities ? I find that culture can have a large impact on how a person's character develops. In any event, what you have written above is dead wrong about the European women I have worked with (except the lifting part).You could be right, as my working experience is mostly limited to American women. But I have worked with them in the military, blue-collar jobs (waiting tables) and white collar ones (management/strategy consulting).

JustMel

07-30-2010, 11:47 AM

Not a feminist, truly? You don't believe in equal rights for women??? For shame. ;)

You can believe, defend and promote equal rights for all without being a feminist.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 12:07 PM

it looks like you base your standards on look and image more than ability and perceived personality.
Yeah, I'm mostly talking about look and image, though ability does figure in there somewhere. I'll take your word for it regarding their acting chops, as I've never seen either of them in a movie (weirdo that I am, I don't watch tv/movies or listen to music).
Bieber's 16, so he's still isn't done with puberty yet. We have yet to see if he'll turn out manly. Maybe when he actually becomes a man.True, but my point is that in his current child-like state the girls are going nuts for him (and not just the young'uns).
What exactly constitutes manliness to a chauvinist? Can masculinity only be found in those who think women are inferior or treat women as though they should be subservient/subordinate? For that matter, can masculinity only exist so long as women are kept from having traditionally masculine traits/interests? Firstly, let me say that I don't think it's masculine to treat women as inferiors or servants (even though IMO men are better), though I do think they should be subordinate to the man in the household. This idea of two leaders or co-leaders is ridiculous and mostly an ego-stroking illusion for the woman (though admittedly reversed in some IMO dysfunctional relationships). That's why I think relationships work best when the man is older, so that there is always a disparity in experience and wisdom. In any case, true men are protective and empowering of women IMO.

As far as manliness, IMO it involves a muscular physique (abs don't count as abs are entirely a function of bodyfat %) and minimal grooming (certainly no hair/skin products or scents), a lack of concern about the opinions of others, an emotional toughness, some athletic/fighting ability, and a willingness to embrace the traditional male roles of protector/provider/teacher. I'm sure there are other attributes I'm forgetting but that's what comes immediately to mind.

P.S. that "dick-in-a-box" thing was pretty funny, thanks for sharing :)

---------- Post added 07-30-2010 at 03:29 PM ----------

Many wrongs were, in fact, righted... Something very concrete you might be able to relate to (rather than squishy things like equal pay and hiring practices) is women in sports. Title IX made it possible for women to just be in sports.By coercion and wrecking a lot of men's sports (the only popular ones to the fans). There was never a law that women couldn't play sports (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong). It's just that there wasn't (isn't) a market for them so they didn't make any money. And it's one of those stupid systems that thinks equality of opportunity should mean equality of outcomes, as if it's not obvious that more men self-select into sports than women. It's a heavy-handed and coercive measure that IMO well represents the self-centeredness and lack of honor (by which I mean a willingness to lie/cheat/steal/manipulate/coerce to get your way) I mentioned previously.
Feminists also worked to get sexual discrimination and harassment regulations enacted in the workplace.More coercion, helping to destroy freedom of association (admittedly the minorities have done the heavy lifting on that score). No one has a right to a particular job, so if you don't like it, leave. Except feminists DO think they have the right to certain jobs and have no problem using force to get their way. Screw private property and personal freedoms.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 12:33 PM

I dated a self-professed feminist for over four years... so I have first hand knowledge. I firmly believe that not all feminist are alike, therefore, I will not judge you thusly. She was a tennis player and I met her on the court. She was tall, blonde, athletic, and very well proportioned. She was independently wealthy due to winning a sexual discrimination suit in federal court. Of course, I didn't know this till later. After dating for about six months, I discovered she was taking xanax. She wouldn't divulge the diagnosis, but she would get overly aggressive if she missed a dose. Over the course of the relationship, she physically attacked me three times. I just blocked her shots the first two times and held her by the wrists the last time till she calmed. She was great in the sack and wouldn't hesitate to use that to her advantage. She convinced me that I should see her therapist because she just knew I was crazy too. I complied and the diagnosis was mild depression due to circumstances beyond my control. No medication required.

Distance

07-30-2010, 12:35 PM

I had a bad relationship with a psycho, therefore all feminists fall into this category.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 12:54 PM

Respect is earned. I don't think we have had a more level playing field than we have at this time. Try this... develop a novel idea to introduce a product or service in an underserved or monopolistic market. Develop a business plan. Write down every asset you own and put a realistic market value on it. Take your business plan and your asset sheet to you local bank and get a small business loan. Work your ass off for two years until such time as your business breaks even. Pay the loan off in the third year. Expand and automate your business to the point where you don't have to work. Now... you've got my respect.

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 12:57 PM

vampyroteuthis

07-30-2010, 12:59 PM

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:00 PM

A woman has to be like you to earn your respect? Must she also have a dick?

Actually no... my business was successful the first year so I thought I would offer a bit more time.

---------- Post added 07-30-2010 at 04:01 PM ----------

Find a feminist whose goal is to earn your respect. Now you've got mine.

Why would I possibly have such an interest..?

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:02 PM

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 01:03 PM

Actually no... my business was successful the first year so I thought I would offer a bit more time.

I see. But no leniency on the dick thing?

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:05 PM

I see. But no leniency on the dick thing?

I suppose if she has a dick that's it's business.

vampyroteuthis

07-30-2010, 01:07 PM

Why would I possibly have such an interest..?

Very good. Now apply that question to your own post. See what I mean?

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:07 PM

99% of men wouldn't fall into this category either.

It's also assuming that all Feminists aren't successful, as it relates to income and material possessions. I can guarantee you that some Feminists have no financial problems just like some men.

True indeed... it would appear that the whole feminist movement revolves around working for someone else.

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:10 PM

True indeed... it would appear that the whole feminist movement revolves around working for someone else.Most males or females work for an employer so it makes sense to ensure that laws are in place for equality. Not everyone has the entreprenurial spirit.

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 01:11 PM

True indeed... it would appear that the whole feminist movement revolves around working for someone else.

If that's what feminism were really about, I could see questioning its merits. Fortunately, the above has about as much to do with feminism as believing the sun revolves in a perfect circle around the Earth.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:17 PM

If that's what feminism were really about, I could see questioning its merits. Fortunately, the above has about as much to do with feminism as believing the sun revolves in a perfect circle around the Earth.

O yeah, I forgot. It's about sueing the hell out of employers to get what you don't deserve.

---------- Post added 07-30-2010 at 04:18 PM ----------

If you deserved it... you would have it.

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 01:20 PM

O yeah, I forgot. It's about sueing the hell out of employers to get what you don't deserve.

Actually, you do raise a good point, as feminism is at least partly about eliminating the normative content from beliefs such as this one.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:21 PM

Actually, you do raise a good point, as feminism is at least partly about eliminating the normative content from beliefs such as this one.

So do you consider yourself a feminist with a dick..?

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:22 PM

"So what if you've been discriminated against or harassed due to race, gender or religious belief. YOU don't deserve respect or compensation for it."

Synamon

07-30-2010, 01:23 PM

If you deserved it... you would have it.
"I only beat you because you deserved it."

Did you get that nugget from the wife-beater's handbook too?

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:24 PM

"So what if you've been discriminated against or harassed due to race, gender or religious belief. YOU don't deserve respect or compensation for it."

Why would you go to all the trouble of dragging it through the courts for years and suffer tons of anxiety when you could simply find somewhere else to work and put that shit behind you..?

Regardless of laws to prevent such things from happening... it's going to happen. It's water under the bridge. Head on down the river and forget it.

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 01:26 PM

So do you consider yourself a feminist with a dick..?

I consider myself, indeed, and discover I'm unable to assume I know something about half the world's population on the basis of a label and received wisdom about what it means about individuals.

Regardless of laws to prevent such things from happening... it's going to happen. It's water under the bridge. Head on down the river and forget it.

Handy translation: shut up, bitch.

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:31 PM

Why would you go to all the trouble of dragging it through the courts for years and suffer tons of anxiety when you could simply find somewhere else to work and put that shit behind you..?

Regardless of laws to prevent such things from happening... it's going to happen. It's water under the bridge. Head on down the river and forget it.Without equality laws in place, employers can and will take advantage.

If you're suggesting that it would be my choice, nope. But I'm glad the choice is available to me if it's something I couldn't handle. Sometimes you have to take a stand on what you believe in, particularly if it's a job that you've worked hard in and new management takes over.

Try not to judge everyone based on your one experience with a psycho.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:32 PM

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 01:34 PM

If you deserved it... you would have it.
it is well within your control to change the situation.

Unless you're not deemed worthy of that change, apparently. But thanks for the mansplanation.

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:35 PM

Life is way too short to spend it fighting in the court system. If you're not happy with your job, your boss, your boyfriend, your co-worker, whatever... it is well within your control to change the situation immediately.You're assuming that taking a stand is the worst possible choice. Not always. Fighting for what you believe in is well worth the expense.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:39 PM

You're assuming that taking a stand is the worst possible choice. Not always. Fighting for what you believe in is well worth the expense.

Why is it worth it... to gain some type of personal satisfaction at the expense of years of litigation and verbal abuse by the opposing counsel..? The real winners are the attorneys.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 01:43 PM

Ok I actually can see your point here but do you realize that a lot of the manual labor in those countries is done by children and women for menial wages!As long as there is no coercion involved, I have no problem with that, because if it's voluntary then it's win-win. Everyone starts at menial wages (individuals and societies both).
Actually healthcare is really dominated by the for profit insurance companies primarily powered by lawyers who are in many ways in bed with the government because that too is run by lawyers (and mostly men I might add).I hear you. Insurance is the middle-man I referred to previously. But they are in that position because the government decided to tax individually-purchased insurance and not tax business-purchased insurance, making it uneconomical for individuals to buy medical care directly. So now the consumer has no incentive to economize, and the doctors have no incentive to compete on price, hence the ridiculously inflated price of health care. The FDA also contributes, making it extremely expensive to introduce new drugs.
Then, interestingly, these lawyers make and manipulate money for their personal and individual gain and not to somehow better society.Yeah, IMO the villains of our society are the politicians, the bankers and the lawyers (in that order). The heroes are the entrepreneurs.
Then health insurance became health coverage and covered not only catastrophes but every day ailments and the men went off to WWI and II and there were all these women left behind without insurance and who now entered the work force because they could...after all, all the men were at war. The problem came in when the men came back from the war...you can probably know or can figure out the rest...too much to type.Yeah, war is another government racket. "War is the health of the state" and all.
Well...since men have been soooo influential in what you yourself call stupid policies, it is time to give others, ie women, who may have a slightly different take on things a shot at contributing to these policies more equitably. After all, men still run the show whether they are motivated by chasing votes, skirts or whatever...which may be in large part because of all that testosterone circulating in their blood. LolThe problem being that only freedom/capitalism can save us, and women are predisposed to socialism, a system that is logically impossible (on a large scale; it can work at the family level where things are relatively simple and a pricing system isn't needed to satisfactorily distribute resources) but emotionally attractive. It's also coercive, but as I've said IMO women (in general) have little problem with coercion.

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:43 PM

Why is it worth it... to gain some type of personal satisfaction at the expense of years of litigation and verbal abuse by the opposing counsel..?How is this different than standing up for other beliefs?

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 01:45 PM

Sometimes you have to take a stand on what you believe in, particularly if it's a job that you've worked hard in and new management takes over.Agreed, but that stand has to be non-coercive, meaning that it should take the form of quitting on the spot and finding a better job, not forcing people to be/act as you wish. I've quit tons of jobs on principle (my wife is resigned to this after ten years together).

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 01:50 PM

How is this different than standing up for other beliefs?

When you go to court, your chances of losing are just a good as winning. So how would you feel if you fought a lengthy court battle, spent $15,000 and lost..? Not only did you lose the court case, you lost a hell of a lot of time. You can't concentrate on the future while you're living in the past. Nobody wins... except the lawyers.

Distance

07-30-2010, 01:52 PM

Agreed, but that stand has to be non-coercive, meaning that it should take the form of quitting on the spot and finding a better job, not forcing people to be/act as you wish. I've quit tons of jobs on principle (my wife is resigned to this after ten years together).This is a personal choice, rather than a must.

When you go to court, your chances of losing are just a good as winning. So how would you feel if you fought a lengthy court battle, spent $15,000 and lost..? Not only did you lose the court case, you lost a hell of a lot of time. You can't concentrate on the future while you're living in the past. Nobody wins.Law is based on precedence. The more precedence setting cases, the more likely that employers will toe the line when it comes to discrimination.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 02:01 PM

Law is based on precedence. The more precedence setting cases, the more likely that employers will toe the line when it comes to discrimination.

Have you been discriminated against..? I would think this type of action would come from Supervisory and/or Middle Management. As a business owner, it is in my best interest to retain the best employees for the job.

If you can do the job and do it well... and generally get along with the other employees... you've got a career path.

Distance

07-30-2010, 02:08 PM

Have you been discriminated against..? I would think this type of action would come from Supervisory and/or Middle Management. As a business owner, it is in my best interest to retain the best employees for the job.Yes, I've been discriminated against but chose the route of addressing it myself. Pushing back at the outset usually ensures that no one views you as prey.

As far as where discrimination comes from, not everyone is just like you. If you want to play the game of experience, as someone with many years in management, I've never had anyone come back to me with a discrimination suit. From a top-down perspective, better to lead by example and ensure that policy is in place so suits don't come your way.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 02:19 PM

This is a personal choice, rather than a must.Coercion is a personal choice? Ugh.

One of the things that drives me crazy about this society of ours (not necessarily blaming women here, though they certainly contribute) is that it seems that ethics have been supplanted by utilitarianism. It's just assumed that people or the state have the right to do anything they want and use as much coercion as they want as long as the outcome is "better". Stealing (aka taxing) is okay as long as you spend it on the poor or on children or on universal health care. Coercion is okay as long as women/minorities are "better off". I find this mindset unethical and even evil.

GrnEyz

07-30-2010, 02:22 PM

Yes, I've been discriminated against but chose the route of addressing it myself. Pushing back at the outset usually ensures that no one views you as prey.

As far as where discrimination comes from, not everyone is just like you. If you want to play the game of experience, as someone with many years in management, I've never had anyone come back to me with a discrimination suit. From a top-down perspective, better to lead by example and ensure that policy is in place so suits don't come your way.

Yes.. I've been self-employed for many, many years. I have employed from 2 to 23 people and current have 7. I have never been involved in any type of employment lawsuit. I have employees that have worked for me for almost 10 years. I've fired several over the years for just cause. As a small company, our benefits are second to none. I'm sure there have been internal battles between employees, but I rarely hear about it. I suppose this type of thing generally occurs in larger organizations.

Distance

07-30-2010, 02:24 PM

TigerL

07-30-2010, 02:26 PM

Getting back to the original question, I don't know about personality types and feminism but this book might be of interest. I have not read it but am thinking of reading it at some point. It's more about women in history than feminism per se:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And to add another data point, I'm an INTJ female who considers herself a feminist. While I would have been reluctant to say so in my 20s, time and experience have taught me that if I don't stand up for myself or the other 50% of people in the world with my gender, I can't expect others to do so.

cannotseethe

07-30-2010, 02:27 PM

Coercion is okay as long as women/minorities are "better off". I find this mindset unethical and even evil.

It's funny how people in a position of power refer to any reduction in their power as "coercion." The use of the word is itself is coercive, the absurdity of expressing such butthurt lost on those who bludgeon with it.

Distance

07-30-2010, 02:31 PM

Yes.. I've been self-employed for many, many years. I have employed from 2 to 23 people and current have 7. I have never been involved in any type of employment lawsuit. I have employees that have worked for me for almost 10 years. I've fired several over the years for just cause. As a small company, our benefits are second to none. I'm sure there have been internal battles between employees, but I rarely hear about it. I suppose this type of thing generally occurs in larger organizations.The larger the corporation, the more varied staff, the more likely you will have conflicting beliefs and personality styles.

Consider this. Without threat of expensive civil suits, how many employers would toe the line for employee abuse, unfair wages or discrimination? Think Walmart.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 02:37 PM

It's funny how people in a position of power refer to any reduction in their power as "coercion." The use of the word is itself is coercive, the absurdity of expressing such butthurt lost on those who bludgeon with it.It's not "people in power" but "people who own property". Forcing someone to hire/retain/serve someone they don't wish to is a property rights violation. And yeah, "reducing the power" of a property owner is coercion. Which women (in general and feminists in particular) have no problem with, hence my OP.

vampyroteuthis

07-30-2010, 02:44 PM

Feminist women are anti-property? The movement just got a lot less stodgy.

I imagine keepers of chattel felt the same way once.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 02:48 PM

Feminist women are anti-property? I personally would say "pro-coercion", but six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

Distance

07-30-2010, 02:53 PM

I personally would say "pro-coercion", but six of one, a half-dozen of the other.Not taking into account the ability for property owners to apply coercion to employees, is a lop-sided argument. It's not pro-coercion. It's a balancing means.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 03:22 PM

Not taking into account the ability for property owners to apply coercion to employees, is a lop-sided argument.Can you give me an example of how a property owner can "coerce" an employee? It seems to me that they can always quit. Having to act in a certain way in order to avoid getting evicted from a property is an agreement, not coercion, unless they force you to stay as well.

Distance

07-30-2010, 03:27 PM

Can you give me an example of how a property owner can "coerce" an employee? It seems to me that they can always quit. Having to act in a certain way in order to avoid getting evicted from a property is an agreement, not coercion, unless they force you to stay as well.Sure, I can explain it but it's less important than the unconvincing argument that property ownership trumps civil or human rights. In what way does a property owner benefit from discriminating against women? If a property owner isn't allowed to discriminate against women, how is this detrimental to business?

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 03:45 PM

Sure, I can explain it but it's less important than the unconvincing argument that property ownership trumps civil or human rights. In what way does a property owner benefit from discriminating against women? If a property owner isn't allowed to discriminate against women, how is this detrimental to business?It depends on the property owner -- it's his property so he should decide what is the greatest benefit to him, and he doesn't need to explain his decisions. You might think it's a silly reason, or a great reason, but since it's not your property your opinion is irrelevant (or should be). Forcing him to act against his wishes to satisfy your desires is unethical, just as it would unethical for him to demand that you hire nothing but men.

Distance

07-30-2010, 03:53 PM

It depends on the property owner -- it's his property so he should decide, and he doesn't need to explain his decisions. You might think it's a silly reason, or a great reason, but since it's not your property your opinion is irrelevant (or should be). Forcing him to act against his wishes to satisfy your desires is unethical, just as it would unethical for him to demand that you hire nothing but men.So you're fine with whim and emotion trumping civil or human rights? Imagine a country where caucasian men are lynched due to the whim and emotion of the property owners. Is this what you're willing to sign up for?

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 04:19 PM

So you're fine with whim and emotion trumping civil or human rights? Imagine a country where caucasian men are lynched due to the whim and emotion of the property owners. Is this what you're willing to sign up for?Lynching is itself a property rights violation (of the body). It's not the same as firing or refusing to hire someone.

Are you really elevating a job opportunity to the level of civil/human rights?

Distance

07-30-2010, 04:27 PM

Lynching is itself a property rights violation (of the body). It's not the same as firing or refusing to hire someone.So, you'd be okay if men were solely allowed to work in manual labour jobs due to their physical strength and irrational behaviour from an excessive level of testosterone? This would be at the whim of the property owner, of course.

JustMel

07-30-2010, 04:28 PM

Coercion is a personal choice? Ugh.

One of the things that drives me crazy about this society of ours (not necessarily blaming women here, though they certainly contribute) is that it seems that ethics have been supplanted by utilitarianism. It's just assumed that people or the state have the right to do anything they want and use as much coercion as they want as long as the outcome is "better". Stealing (aka taxing) is okay as long as you spend it on the poor or on children or on universal health care. Coercion is okay as long as women/minorities are "better off". I find this mindset unethical and even evil.

I find your views on women and their place in relationships unethical and evil but they're not likely to change.

My kids probably find my views on how much junk food they eat evil but it's still better for them and their teeth if they don't have unlimited access to sugar. Just as it's better that someone set about to make things equal. There will always be men who are larger, stronger and better at physical tasks than women are. Just like there will always be women smart enough to outsmart the men who try to keep the subverted out of fear and prejudice.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 04:30 PM

So, you'd be okay if men were solely allowed to work in manual labour jobs due to their physical strength and irrational behaviour from an excessive level of testosterone? This would be at the whim of the property owner, of course.Yes, if that's the desire of the property owners, because I could save from my wages then buy my own property and then run it however I wished. Problem solved without coercion.

---------- Post added 07-30-2010 at 07:32 PM ----------

I find your views on women and their place in relationships unethical and evil but they're not likely to change.

My kids probably find my views on how much junk food they eat evil but it's still better for them and their teeth if they don't have unlimited access to sugar. Just as it's better that someone set about to make things equal. There will always be men who are larger, stronger and better at physical tasks than women are. Just like there will always be women smart enough to outsmart the men who try to keep the subverted out of fear and prejudice.My opinions on women and your views on junk food are not the same category as coercion, as the latter violates property rights and the former don't. We can have all the opinions we want, but when we force them on others is when they take the character of evil.

Distance

07-30-2010, 04:35 PM

Yes, if that's the desire of the property owners, because I could save from my wages then buy my own property and then run it however I wished. Problem solved without coercion.So say property owners choose not to pay employees fair wages sufficient to buy property since employment is at the whim and emotion of the employer. What if no one chooses to employ you, since you're caucasian?

JustMel

07-30-2010, 04:42 PM

My opinions on women and your views on junk food are not the same category as coercion, as the latter violates property rights and the former don't. We can have all the opinions we want, but when we force them on others is when they take the character of evil.

Bet. Refusing them sugar is tantamount to denying them the right to do with their body as they wish. I'm forcing them to abstain in the interest of their oral health. Their body is their property as I don't own my children or their teeth. But I pay the dental bills so they'll follow my rules. Pretty much like you'll follow the rules of the person signing your paycheck unless you quit based on "principle" which covers a lot of ground. You don't own the business, you merely work there and provide labor which you are paid for. Therefore your opinions/principles don't really matter to the employer. But if he were to not pay you the same wage as the woman who worked with you, in fact paid you less your sensibilities would probably be offended.

Equality is not a bad thing. Machismo on the other hand..........

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 04:58 PM

So say property owners choose not to pay employees fair wages sufficient to buy property since employment is at the whim and emotion of the employer. What if no one chooses to employ you, since you're caucasian?Then I'd have to start with an entrepreneurial venture that requires no capital; e.g. giving backrubs in Union Square for $1/minute. If you further imagine that no one will buy any good/service from me, then it's back to the woods and living off the land.

Trust me, you'll never come up with a formulation in which I agree that coercion is justified (save to defend against other property-right violations such as lynching), because I let ethics define the limitations of my behavior and not an arbitrary and subjective utilitarian outcome. Even these unrealistic ones with homogeneous employers/workers and consumers who don't want to consume.

Distance

07-30-2010, 05:03 PM

Then I'd have to start with an entrepreneurial venture that requires no capital; e.g. giving backrubs in Union Square for $1/minute. If you further imagine that no one will buy any good/service from me, then it's back to the woods and living off the land.

Trust me, you'll never come up with a formulation in which I agree that coercion is justified (save to defend against other property-right violations such as lynching), because I let ethics define the limitations of my behavior and not an arbitrary and subjective utilitarian outcome. Even these unrealistic ones with homogeneous employers/workers and consumers who don't want to consume.I can see that no rational argument will move your belief that whim and emotion should drive the role of the employer, as well as a failure to see how discrimination can be a double-edged blade.

Storm

07-30-2010, 05:06 PM

A couple of things.

First, a society that allows individuals to discriminate on superficial basis for things like jobs, schools, restaurants, hotels, etc. allows people to be treated as second class citizens. All rights that we have butt up against other rights. Sure, it's easy to say "Well, if the inn won't let you in, just go to another one." But when every inn along the way won't allow you in because you're black, you have practically been told that you must live as a second-class citizen. That because your skin color, you do not enjoy the same right to travel as other citizens. A society that wishes to eliminate discrimination, and, thus, eliminate classes of second-class citizens, must implement policies against it. This is not "pandering to the minority" this is creating the same rights for them that other people already enjoy on the basis of a superficial trait.

Because people aren't fighting against the single instance of discrimination, they are fighting against the aggregate creation of second-class citizens. If just one person was biased against a group, then no one would care and no one would fight. Many types of biases are legal, even if just as unfounded. You can fire someone for wearing red. Fire someone for speaking slow. Fire someone because you found out they went to your rival high school as a kid. But, these aren't aggregate problems, so no one fights them when they happen. Because they can just go get another job, and it's not a big deal.

Second, if one really wants to get back to "tradional" values of "manhood" and let "men be men." Where should we look? I tried turning through some history books and this is what I found:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My, look at those high heels and impressive hairdo. I wonder where he found such a great wig maker?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What a pretty lace collar! And I hear he writes just lovely poetry and some of the best romances ever!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now there's a dapper fellow. Always so polite, too. Drinks his tea with the pinkie out.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's an ancient Greek in quite a colorful display. Just like a peacock, you might say.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh maybe something more recent. How tight are those pants? How feathered is that hair?

The idea of "masculinity" has never been static.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 05:07 PM

Bet. Refusing them sugar is tantamount to denying them the right to do with their body as they wish. I'm forcing them to abstain in the interest of their oral health. Their body is their property as I don't own my children or their teeth. But I pay the dental bills so they'll follow my rules. Children are something of a special case, which has been examined in-depth by major libertarian thinkers but IMO would be quite a bit off-topic here. Suffice to say they own their bodies but until the age of majority you are their guardian which also gives you some rights in regards to their bodies.
Pretty much like you'll follow the rules of the person signing your paycheck unless you quit based on "principle" which covers a lot of ground. You don't own the business, you merely work there and provide labor which you are paid for. Therefore your opinions/principles don't really matter to the employer. But if he were to not pay you the same wage as the woman who worked with you, in fact paid you less your sensibilities would probably be offended. Perhaps, but I wouldn't assume that my being offended justifies a property rights violation, or that he should be forced to value me as much as I value me. I'd just look for another job where I'm valued more. Which I've done many times in my life. Because conducting myself honorably and ethically is something that's important to me (and to bring it back to the original topic, something that doesn't seem all that important to women in general or feminists in particular, in my experience [like in this thread, for example]).

JustMel

07-30-2010, 05:09 PM

I think you're confusing ego with value.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 05:14 PM

I can see that no rational argument will move your belief that whim and emotion should drive the role of the employer, as well as a failure to see how discrimination can be a double-edged blade.Firstly, it's not a belief, it's a logical conclusion that begins with the self-evident proposition that I own myself and ends with the idea that coercion is impermissible. Secondly, I've not seen a rational argument, only a series of examples intended to get me to agree that I should in some cases act unethically. A rational argument can be applied generally, which your views cannot (which seem to me to be that "outcomes I prefer like having a particular job with a particular employer can be labelled as civil/human rights which can trump the property rights of others") because it would then be equally justified to force you to hire to my satisfaction, not yours.

---------- Post added 07-30-2010 at 08:15 PM ----------

I think you're confusing ego with value.I don't know what you mean... can you expound further?

Distance

07-30-2010, 05:22 PM

Firstly, it's not a belief, it's a logical conclusion that begins with the self-evident proposition that I own myself and ends with the idea that coercion is impermissible.If coercion is impermissible at any cost, then why would it be acceptable that a property owner coerce an employee to work overtime without compensation?

Secondly, I've not seen a rational argument, only a series of examples intended to get me to agree that I should in some cases act unethically. A rational argument can be applied generally, which your views cannot (which seem to me to be that "outcomes I prefer like having a particular job with a particular employer can be labelled as civil/human rights which can trump the property rights of others") because it would then be equally justified to force you to hire to my satisfaction, not yours.Generally speaking, it's irrational to believe that different genders should have different rights and that employment should be at the whim and emotion of the property owner, at any cost.

The bolded phrase makes no sense. You're going to need to rephrase it.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 05:33 PM

If coercion is impermissible at any cost, then why would it be acceptable that a property owner coerce an employee to work overtime without compensation?It's not. But coercion in this case means that he forces you to do the work and you don't have the option to quit, so unless he chains you to your desk and refuses to release you until you finish the task, it's not coercion. If he just says "do this or I'll let you go" then it's a proposition to which you can agree or disagree.
Generally speaking, it's irrational to believe that different genders should have different rights and that employment should be at the whim and emotion of the property owner, at any cost.They don't have different rights, they have the same property rights. As owner of your business, you have the right to hire whoever you wish, even if they are all women. Any who wish to work with men are free to quit and find a more satisfactory job. At no point is working for you a civil right.
The bolded phrase makes no sense. You're going to need to rephrase it.I meant that you are elevating your employment wishes to the status of a civil right which can trump the property rights of others, which is ridiculous. I might really, really want a job with your company, but I don't have a right to a job with your company -- it's up to you.

Distance

07-30-2010, 05:41 PM

It's not. But coercion in this case means that he forces you to do the work and you don't have the option to quit, so unless he chains you to your desk and refuses to release you until you finish the task, it's not coercion. If he just says "do this or I'll let you go" then it's a proposition to which you can agree or disagree.The same holds true with discrimination laws where the property owner can choose to uphold his whim or emotion and take the consequences of an expensive civil suit or he can choose to uphold non-discriminatory employment law and not have to take the risk of a civil suit.
They don't have different rights, they have the same property rights. As owner of your business, you have the right to hire whoever you wish, even if they are all women. Any who wish to work with men are free to quit and find a more satisfactory job. At no point is working for you a civil right.

I meant that you are elevating your employment wishes to the status of a civil right which can trump the property rights of others, which is ridiculous. I might really, really want a job with your company, but I don't have a right to a job with your company -- it's up to you.That's only one aspect of discrimination. The other aspect is if the original property owner were to sell their property and the new owner promptly fires all men due to gender or decides to pay the men less than the women due to their belief that men are irrational from an excess of testosterone or to demote men to jobs of physical labour from management positions with correlating salary decreases.

JTG

07-30-2010, 09:05 PM

But if he were to not pay you the same wage as the woman who worked with you, in fact paid you less your sensibilities would probably be offended.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't assume that my being offended justifies a property rights violation, or that he should be forced to value me as much as I value me.

You are right to say he doesn't have to value you as much as you value yourself, but doesn't it make sense that he value you as much as the value of work you provide for his company? (relative to the value given by others)

Now imagine you quit that company and go to another, where you find that in spite of your flawless work ethic and talent, you are also paid less than the women around the office.

Now imagine you quit that company and go to another, where you find that in spite of your flawless work ethic and talent, you are also paid less than the women around the office.

Now imagine you quit that company and go to another, etc etc etc.

That's the kind of discrimination that feminism [should be*] up against. That's a push for equality, and i don't see anything wrong with that. There are certainly coercive measures taken in the name of equality, but that's not to be confused with actually fighting for a worthy cause. The fact that people would try to legitimize their petty gripes by invoking discrimination does not invalidate those who actually fight against real discrimination.

*I would say it's the discrimination they are up against, but i don't know enough about current workplace trends. If i could hazard a guess, i'd say that women are more likely to be paid equally for equal work now, but also more likely to be passed over for promotion in favor of boss's buddies. I only say that last part because it's something i see happen semi-often. Nepotism/favoritism run rampant, regardless of gender.

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 09:37 PM

Now imagine you quit that company and go to another, etc etc etc.

That's the kind of discrimination that feminism [should be*] up against. That's a push for equality, and i don't see anything wrong with that.I get it, I just don't agree. This doesn't justify coercion, but is in fact an arbitrage opportunity from which an entrepreneur can benefit. But this would require a) a rejection of coercion, and b) a shred of entrepreneurial spirit, which is apparently too much to ask. Coercion is always easier in a democracy where you have 51%+ of the vote.
If i could hazard a guess, i'd say that women are more likely to be paid equally for equal work nowYou would guess correctly. The wage-gap is one of the biggest social myths in the country today:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Every Feminist’s Nightmare?

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Rumor has it that when Professor Walter Block presented a lecture at Loyola College recently in which he argued that free-market competition diminishes rather than exacerbates the male/female "wage gap" the entire College administration, and the majority of the economics department, collectively swooned. There are even reports that they all collapsed simultaneously on the same swooning couch.

What could Professor Block have said that generated such hysteria, including comical "apologies" from the College president and several members of the economics department? In terms of the "wage gap" his main point was one that Nobel laureate Gary Becker (Professor Block’s dissertation advisor at Columbia University way back when) and many other economists have been making for decades: marriage affects men and women differently in terms of their earning abilities. There are exceptions, but in general women are more likely to drop out of the workforce for a period of time because of child rearing and other chores (that most men shirk). Consequently, they fall behind their male counterparts in terms of human capital accumulation, productivity, and wages.

If that was enough to cause outrage, apologies all around, and calls to burn Professor Block in effigy atop the Loyola College church steeple, it is unimaginable what might happen if the book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap – And What Women Can Do About It, by Warren Farrell ever made it into the stacks at the Loyola College library. Even more explosive would be the new book by Professor James T. Bennett of George Mason University’s economics department entitled The Politics of American Feminism: Gender Conflict in Contemporary Society.

Warren Farrell boasts of having been elected to the board of directors of the New York City branch of the National Organization for Women (NOW) three times. The author of the foreword to Farrell’s book, Karen DeCrow, is a former NOW president who works as an employment discrimination lawyer. "Men are not involved in a nefarious plot to keep female wages down," she declares. (Pass the smelling salts to the Loyola College administration, quick!)

In The Politics of American Feminism (pp. 128–129) Professor Bennett paraphrases more than twenty reasons why men earn more than women, as discussed and documented in great detail in Why Men Earn More. Cumulatively, they go a long way towards explaining the "wage gap," although neither Bennett nor Farrell believes that wage discrimination by gender is completely nonexistent. The reasons, based on generalizations that are supported by voluminous statistics, are:

-Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
-Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
-Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
-Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
-Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
-Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
-The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
-Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
-Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
-Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
-Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
-Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
-Men work more weeks per year than women.
-Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
-Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
-Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
-Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
-In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
-When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
-Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
-Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

One message that Farrell has for women is that if they really want to get paid more, they should pay more attention to these determinants of higher pay and less to Quixotic crusades for "comparable worth legislation" or "diversity training" that demonizes male employees but does nothing for them. This is the kind of practical advice a top-notch economist like Professor Block would offer, but such advice is usually drowned out on today’s college campuses by politically-correct lynch mobs who, as Professor Bennett says of academic feminists, "find it far easier to simply smear those who point out the phantom nature of the wage gap."

JTG

07-30-2010, 09:54 PM

The quoted text really only supports the idea of gender as a construct of society. Much like the wage gap itself, it can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's always been that way because people try to keep it that way, and people try to keep it that way because it's always been that way. Neither are necessarily correct, and neither are necessarily productive.

It's just easier for some people to keep telling themselves that men are better rather than accepting that the differences exist because people put effort into keeping the differences there.

Evolutionarily speaking, men are stronger to protect the nest and provide, and women hold back more because they are important vessels of new life. In this day and age, neither "natural" role serves as much a purpose anymore. Big, manly muscles are largely unnecessary, and life expectancy/overpopulation mean that it's not so important for every woman to bear offspring to maintain the species.

In a modern world, man and woman are virtually interchangeable for most purposes.

For the record, i still think there are differences between men and women. I'm just not clear on how many differences can be attributed to sex as opposed to gender.

Just So

07-30-2010, 11:28 PM

maxpot46

07-30-2010, 11:58 PM

Hi maxpot46 -
If the trumping of the power of property owners and the brand of ethics (which includes the treatment of women/minorities) practiced by your society are major issues for you, why don't you just solve the problem the same way you would if a property owner tried to coerce you ? Just quit and find another society to live in.

I believe there are many societies in this world which embrace the same principles in which you believe (rights of property owners and treatment of women). It seems to me that you would thrive in such a land.

What do you think ? Is this a viable alternative ?Yeah, we're thinking about it. But we probably won't because I love this country (not its government, however) and want to improve it instead of abandon it. I do plan on entering politics someday in some capacity (or otherwise help effect change via punditry, entrepreneurship, or even agorism).

And let me clear up this "treatment of women" thing. I think men are better but because of that I think we have a duty to support and teach women. I'm not harping on ethics because I want to tear women down or treat them badly but because I truly disrespect unethical behavior. I'm speaking my honest, unvarnished opinion because women deserve to hear my true thoughts and not some watered-down wishy-washy version intended to save them from emotional distress or to elevate my standing in their eyes. If you think I'm the only man who thinks this way you're quite wrong, but most who do won't say it for fear of coming off badly (or worse, getting cut off from the p---y).

I'm not so arrogant as to think that any woman here is going to read my posts and immediately change their thinking or behavior (though hope springs eternal ;)). I'm offering a different perspective that I hope will germinate in their minds and cause them to think about and reflect upon that behavior which I've described as unethical, and maybe (MAYBE) over time they will start to eschew coercion in their future choices. I know it's possible because my wife occasionally thanks me for helping her think/act more ethically and generously.

And let's be honest -- I enjoy a good rousing debate as much as the next INTJ and this discussion has been a lot of fun for me. I thought the thread before I chimed in was interesting but a bit one-sided. Sorry if I ruined it for some who seem to have dropped out ;)

nowt

07-31-2010, 12:43 AM

-Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
-Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
-Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
-Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
-Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
-Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
-The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
-Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
-Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
-Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
-Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
-Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
-Men work more weeks per year than women.
-Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
-Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
-Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
-Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
-In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
-When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
-Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
-Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

All of which is quantitative-- which means [get this] it can also be spun that men do more work, because the quality of their work, requires they do more work, to make up for the craptitude of the work they do do. [tho really, it says nothing about the quality of work, by either sex, period]--

Talk about a misread due confirmation bias. If only your father had birthed you.

maxpot46

07-31-2010, 01:39 AM

All of which is quantitative-- which means [get this] it can also be spun that men do more work, because the quality of their work, requires they do more work, to make up for the craptitude of the work they do do. [tho really, it says nothing about the quality of work, by either sex, period]--

Talk about a misread due confirmation bias. If only your father had birthed you.All I see is gibberish forcing me to guess your meaning. Can you rephrase, please? Complete sentences/words and standard punctuation would be great.

nowt

07-31-2010, 02:07 AM

Allow me to explicate.

All (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)of (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)which (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) quantitative (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)-- which (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) means (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) [get (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)] it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) can (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) also (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) be (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) spun (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) men (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) do (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) more (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) work (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), because (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) quality (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) their (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) work (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), requires (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) they (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) do (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) more (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) work (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), to (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) make (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) up (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) for (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) craptitude of (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) work (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) they (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) do (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) do (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). [tho (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) really (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) says (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) nothing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) about (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) quality (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) work (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), by (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) either (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) sex (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), period (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)]--

Talk (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) about (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) misread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) due (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) confirmation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) bias (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). If (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) only (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) your (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) father (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) had (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) birthed (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) you (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

larkin

07-31-2010, 08:02 AM

-Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
-Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
-Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
-Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
-Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
-Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
-The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
-Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
-Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
-Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
-Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
-Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
-Men work more weeks per year than women.
-Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
-Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
-Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
-Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
-In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
-When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
-Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
-Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

And holy shit! You're telling me that women are more likely to take time off for child care?

Give me a break. No one - including the former president of NOW, what a shocker! - thinks that there's a plot to keep women's wages down. Just trying to identify what are the causes, and potentially simple solutions, to some of the reasons the gap exists in the first place. (And of course you're aware the great majority of this list can and often is regressed for, and a wage gap still exists.)

For example - why do more men go into technology and hard sciences than women? I work with plenty of people from Eastern Europe, and in Eastern Europe there are equal if not greater numbers of women in hard sciences, including tenured professors and women at high levels of academic achievement. Why not here?

But those questions are less interesting than concluding that men are better than women, I'm sure.

JustMel

07-31-2010, 09:00 AM

And let's be honest -- I enjoy a good rousing debate as much as the next INTJ and this discussion has been a lot of fun for me. I thought the thread before I chimed in was interesting but a bit one-sided. Sorry if I ruined it for some who seem to have dropped out ;)

A few of us dropped out not because of your dazzling :rolleyes: debate skills but because we've already beat the horse to death so there's no reason to continue. This is one of those topics, not the lower wages women can make in the workplace, the women's place blah blah, that recycles. We've had the same debates with other bearers of machismo style debate and know it's not going to go anywhere but to a flame war so some of us have chosen to sit back and watch newer or less jaded blood take on the fight. Nowt's doing a helluva job.

The reason I didn't respond to your request to elaborate on my statement is because to everyone except you apparently it made perfect sense.

Distance

07-31-2010, 10:24 AM

I've already debunked his coercion theory and yet, he still continues spouting it. It's like a repeating broken record.

Was thinking about the psychology behind certain males rejecting Feminism. It's a fear of the unknown, an inability to grasp that gain by others doesn't always equate to loss to self. I've also noticed that beta males and females tend to embrace the more traditional views about genders and feel disenfranchised in modern society.

cannotseethe

07-31-2010, 10:38 AM

I've already debunked his coercion theory and yet, he still continues spouting it. It's like a repeating broken record.

Mansplaining occurs because women don't listen.

Distance

07-31-2010, 10:40 AM

Mansplaining occurs because women don't listen.Could it be that wimmins don't embrace irrational mansplainations?

cannotseethe

07-31-2010, 10:49 AM

Could it be that wimmins don't embrace irrational mansplainations?

The lack of embrace does seem to be a problem. Strong men also cry. :(

I do wonder, with regards to the OP, whether Margaret Sanger was an INTJ. I've seen views expressed on the forum that sound remarkably like hers.

maxpot46

07-31-2010, 11:04 AM

For example - why do more men go into technology and hard sciences than women? I work with plenty of people from Eastern Europe, and in Eastern Europe there are equal if not greater numbers of women in hard sciences, including tenured professors and women at high levels of academic achievement. Why not here?Not exactly true, according to the little research I was able to find, but greater than in Western Europe:
The Enwise (ENlarge Women In Science to East) report, Waste of Talents: Turning private struggles into a public issue, fills that gap by identifying the issues encountered by female scientists in 10 former socialist countries--Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia--eight of which will join the EU this year.

According to the report, presented to European Commissioner Philippe Busquin by the Enwise Expert Group last month, women represent 38% of the scientific workforce in these countries, compared to an average of just 27% in the current member states. This better representation of women is a legacy of the communist regime, finds the report, under which specific gender policies gave an "equal right to and obligation to full-time employment, as well as access to education regardless of gender," along with child care facilities and state support for working mothers.The first thing that comes to mind to me is that communism doesn't usually allow for much self-selection. But if you have a deeper analysis available I'd be happy to read it (I can't seem to access the actual ENWISE report as the font keeps messing up my reader).
But those questions are less interesting than concluding that men are better than women, I'm sure.I'm happy to look at these questions, you don't have to be so snarky.

---------- Post added 07-31-2010 at 02:10 PM ----------

I've already debunked his coercion theory and yet, he still continues spouting it. It's like a repeating broken record.You've done nothing of the sort. You have not shown that forcing people to hire/retain against their wishes is not coercion (an impossible task given the definition of the word), nor have you validated your claim that working for your employer-of-choice is a "civil and human right", you've simply created ever-more outlandish and unrealistic scenarios trying to find one in which coercion is necessary and acceptable. Feel free to summarize your "debunking" instead of just claiming so, if you can.

Synamon

07-31-2010, 11:13 AM

Not exactly true, according to the little research I was able to find, but greater than in Western Europe:
The first thing that comes to mind to me is that communism doesn't usually allow for much self-selection. But if you have a deeper analysis available I'd be happy to read it
Really?

The deeper analysis was right there in your own quote: "an "equal right to and obligation to full-time employment, as well as access to education regardless of gender," along with child care facilities and state support for working mothers".

maxpot46

07-31-2010, 11:14 AM

Could it be that wimmins don't embrace irrational mansplainations?Sure, everything I've said is "irrational". Obviously I'M the one with confirmation bias.

---------- Post added 07-31-2010 at 02:16 PM ----------

Really?

The deeper analysis was right there in your own quote: "an "equal right to and obligation to full-time employment, as well as access to education regardless of gender," along with child care facilities and state support for working mothers".I quite obviously meant deeper than that.

Distance

07-31-2010, 11:17 AM

You've done nothing of the sort. You have not shown that forcing people to hire/retain against their wishes is not coercion (an impossible task given the definition of the word), nor have you validated your claim that working for your employer-of-choice is a "civil and human right", you've simply created ever-more outlandish and unrealistic scenarios trying to find one in which coercion is necessary and acceptable. Feel free to summarize your "debunking" instead of just claiming so, if you can.
Go back and respond to my post about freedom of choice for the property owner to adhere to non-discrimination standards or not. A civil suit doesn't guarantee win for the employee.

Synamon

07-31-2010, 11:24 AM

I quite obviously meant deeper than that.
Deeper than equal rights, access to education, and childcare support?

Odd, since that kinda sounds like the feminist platform.

maxpot46

07-31-2010, 11:31 AM

Go back and respond to my post about freedom of choice for the property owner to adhere to non-discrimination standards or not. A civil suit doesn't guarantee win for the employee.That is irrelevant, the point is that a civil suit should not be possible unless he is violating someone's rights (which do not include working for your employer-of-choice). If I was somehow able to sue you for not supporting my kids, the point wouldn't be that I might lose but that my suit is spurious because you have no obligation to support my kids.
The same holds true with discrimination laws where the property owner can choose to uphold his whim or emotion and take the consequences of an expensive civil suit or he can choose to uphold non-discriminatory employment law and not have to take the risk of a civil suit. Again, a property owner should not be subject to expensive civil suits when he is not violating the property/civil rights of others and only exercising his own. As long as the property owner is not using coercion, it is not justified to initiate coercion against him. You have yet to validate your claim that a job with your employer-of-choice has the status of a civil right.
That's only one aspect of discrimination. The other aspect is if the original property owner were to sell their property and the new owner promptly fires all men due to gender or decides to pay the men less than the women due to their belief that men are irrational from an excess of testosterone or to demote men to jobs of physical labour from management positions with correlating salary decreases.This scenario is only superficially different than the others and adds nothing to the analysis of property rights vs. the so-called "civil right" of working for your employer-of-choice.

---------- Post added 07-31-2010 at 02:37 PM ----------

Deeper than equal rights, access to education, and childcare support?

Odd, since that kinda sounds like the feminist platform.Are you saying women in the west don't have an equal right to, or access to, education in the hard sciences? My understanding is that they can enter these fields if they wish, but choose not to. That they are more heavily represented in a communist (i.e. highly coercive) society does not necessarily indicate more access but might very well result from heavier social engineering. Which is why I asked for a deeper analysis.

Distance

07-31-2010, 11:40 AM

That is irrelevant, the point is that a civil suit should not be possible unless he is violating someone's rights (which do not include working for your employer-of-choice). If I was somehow able to sue you for not supporting my kids, the point wouldn't be that I might lose but that my suit is spurious because you have no obligation to support my kids.You're stuck in a repetitive loop of only one scenario of the obligation for the property owner to hire. A property owner isn't obligated to hire unskilled labour for a skilled labour job. But a property owner isn't able to discriminate based gender, race or religion. That's just whimsical and emotional hiring practices which is bad for business.
Again, a property owner should not be subject to expensive civil suits when he is not violating the property/civil rights of others and only exercising his own. As long as the property owner is not using coercion, it is not justified to initiate coercion against him. You have yet to validate your claim that a job with your employer-of-choice has the status of a civil right.Once again, stuck in the same one scenario of hiring rather than firing or discrimination against a hired employee. But I guess that's all you can go by since anything else would easily debunk your coercion theory and this particular attempt to focus on one scenario, is tenuous explanation at best.
This scenario is only superficially different than the others and adds nothing to the analysis of property rights vs. the so-called "civil right" of working for your employer-of-choice.Throwing it out doesn't invalidate it. "I say it's not applicable because I believe it's not applicable" isn't terribly logical. Debunk it.

maxpot46

07-31-2010, 11:54 AM

a property owner isn't able to discriminate based gender, race or religion.We're not discussing what "is", we're discussing what "ought".
Once again, stuck in the same one scenario of hiring rather than firing or discrimination against a hired employee. But I guess that's all you can go by since anything else would easily debunk your coercion theory and this particular attempt to focus on one scenario, is tenuous explanation at best. My arguments are based on property rights and do not change whether talking about hiring, firing, or discrimination. A property owner has the right to do any of those things, and you have no right to continued employment with him against his wishes.
Throwing it out doesn't invalidate it. "I say it's not applicable because I believe it's not applicable" isn't terribly logical. Debunk it.A property owner has the right to freedom of association and a property right in his business. He is not required to hire those he doesn't wish to, because he is not violating anyone's rights. He is not required to retain those he doesn't wish to, because he is not violating anyone's rights (though as you correctly point out, he is breaking the [unjust and invalid] law). He is not required to create an environment he doesn't wish to, because he is not violating anyone's rights. Your "argument" rests on the assumption that you have the right to your employer/environment-of-choice which trumps his property rights and right of freedom of association. Validate your premise (mine is based on the self-evident proposition that we own ourselves and the inferred proposition that we own that property which is created by the mix of our labor with natural resources).

Distance

07-31-2010, 12:13 PM

We're not discussing what "is", we're discussing what "ought".
My arguments are based on property rights and do not change whether talking about hiring, firing, or discrimination. A property owner has the right to do any of those things, and you have no right to continued employment with him against his wishes.
A property owner has the right to freedom of association and a property right in his business. He is not required to hire those he doesn't wish to, because he is not violating anyone's rights. He is not required to retain those he doesn't wish to, because he is not violating anyone's rights (though as you correctly point out, he is breaking the [unjust and invalid] law). He is not required to create an environment he doesn't wish to, because he is not violating anyone's rights. Your "argument" rests on the assumption that you have the right to your employer/environment-of-choice which trumps his property rights and right of freedom of association. Validate your premise (mine is based on the self-evident proposition that we own ourselves and the inferred proposition that we own that property which is created by the mix of our labor with natural resources).This is Feudalism without the inheritance laws. You cannot invalidate law by waving an "unjust law" magic wand. You cannot say that coercion is only applicable if it's being used on a discriminatory property owner. You cannot say that there are no rights violation simply because the entity is a property owner. This isn't rational or logical. Replace "property owner" with "man" and you get an equally illogical and irrational statement of "I am a man, therefore I dominate women" or reversing this "I am a property owner therefore have all the rights in society".

As far as my stance is concerned, civil and human rights trump discriminatory whimsical and emotional decision-making by property owners.

maxpot46

07-31-2010, 12:25 PM

As far as my stance is concerned, civil and human rights trump discriminatory whimsical and emotional decision-making by property owners.Please demonstrate how working for your employer-of-choice is a civil right. I understand that it's your desire, but I don't see how it's your right. I don't have a right to work for your company, it's up to you. Simply describing working for your employer-of-choice as a civil right doesn't make it so.

Distance

07-31-2010, 12:35 PM

Please demonstrate how working for your employer-of-choice is a civil right. I understand that it's your desire, but I don't see how it's your right. I don't have a right to work for your company, it's up to you. Simply describing working for your employer-of-choice as a civil right doesn't make it so.It's the right to non-discrimination. At whim employment isn't good business practice, since whimsical employment practices can and does ensure that the best person for the job, isn't necessarily the person who's retained. No one is forcing employers to hire or retain employees without the skills to do the job.

I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would uphold discrimination. It's the same mentality that needs to drag people down to a lower level than self, ramping up self-esteem at the expense of others. Better to fix self-esteem, than to always be looking externally. IMO, this is an indication of a weak person.

Storm

07-31-2010, 01:03 PM

Women entering traditionally male fields in higher numbers than they were 50 years ago on their own merits shows that women are capable of practicing in such fields on the same level of men. The fact that women are not entering these fields proportionate to their population (51%) does not necessarily mean that women are simply less cut out for these fields as men are.

As has been evidenced in this thread, there are still many people that view women as less capable than men. Women face discrimination and prejudice that makes working conditions hostile and promotion and recognition much harder. Couple that with the fact that women are often not encouraged, unlike men, to pursue the sciences (distant relative give boys model rocket ships for Christmas, girls get dolls), and it's no surprise that women are underrepresented in some of traditionally male fields. Although not all, some fields, like law, women equate for about 50% of the employed. Something that would be impossible if women truly were less than men.

It's true that women are more likely than men to decide to quit their job in order to take care of children. This not proof of an inferior quality of women (assuming you believe child rearing = less important), but that child rearing, being a necessary part of having children, traditionally is a woman's job. Employers still support this unwritten rule that a worker must be entirely dedicated to the job and that those with children should have someone else to take care of them. Thus, taking time off work for child rearing is a negative. Ideally, society should consider child rearing a respectful duty to take off for, and something that is simply dealt with instead of punished. But we're a long way from that, still.

firebee

07-31-2010, 01:03 PM

IMO, this is an indication of a weak person.

This to me rather sums up the problem.

I'm occasionally willing to amuse myself by having the odd debate with the sort of person who puts a whole lot of stock in the supposed superiority of his gender, but as far as practical everyday reality, my goals are best served by cutting that sort of fool out of my life. Going through contortions to "prove" one's merits, particularly when your proof is directed at a person who is motivated to rig the game in order to serve their own personal issues, is a waste of time that could otherwise be spent actually doing useful things.

That said, I still do identify as a feminist because there does need to be, in an aggregate sense, a voice that is out in the world that opposes the aggregate of the above-mentioned fools.

Distance

07-31-2010, 01:09 PM

This to me rather sums up the problem.

I'm occasionally willing to amuse myself by having the odd debate with the sort of person who puts a whole lot of stock in the supposed superiority of his gender, but as far as practical everyday reality, my goals are best served by cutting that sort of fool out of my life. Going through contortions to "prove" one's merits, particularly when your proof is directed at a person who is motivated to rig the game in order to serve their own personal issues, is a waste of time that could otherwise be spent actually doing useful things.

That said, I still do identify as a feminist because there does need to be, in an aggregate sense, a voice that is out in the world that opposes the aggregate of the above-mentioned fools.Sometimes these discussions make me want to conjugate the verb "dangle" sans feminine references.

Autoptic

07-31-2010, 03:52 PM

It's the right to non-discrimination. At whim employment isn't good business practice, since whimsical employment practices can and does ensure that the best person for the job, isn't necessarily the person who's retained. No one is forcing employers to hire or retain employees without the skills to do the job.

What's good business practice is irrelevant and literally none of your business. If you don't have a right to run your business into the ground, it's not really your business but someone else's you're simply being allowed to play with under supervision, and you're just being treated as a idiot child at the whims of some self-righteous ("real") adult.

I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would uphold discrimination. It's the same mentality that needs to drag people down to a lower level than self, ramping up self-esteem at the expense of others. Better to fix self-esteem, than to always be looking externally. IMO, this is an indication of a weak person.

Because discrimination is necessarily part of liberty. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Your preferences are your values. Why do you think someone should be able to arbitrarily intrude upon your property and demand that you only apply their values to its use? Again, such is parental and the "property" involved is a mere farce.

On a different subtopic, contrary to someone's earlier implication, the sexes differ neurologically, biochemically, and even somewhat anatomically beyond primary sexual attributes. Some kinds of neurons even seem to function differently, and most pharmacology's currently in a bizarre state of denial which may be letting up a bit due to more testing.

vampyroteuthis

07-31-2010, 04:15 PM

The thing with arguing that the right to property trumps all other rights is that it is at best an undefended axiom. Property is not a freestanding fact of life, but a deed granted by an authority -- in this case, the the same state that this allegedly libertarian position argues has no legitimacy when it comes to protecting rights against discrimination.

To the extent that any rights are meaningful, the right to property is as meaningful as the right to be free from discrimination. Neither is meaningful in a vacuum.

The argument that property reigns supreme is therefore a thin veil over a belief in a state of nature. If anything, it resembles early Freudian thought in its reliance on arbitrary axioms and lack of falsifiability. All evidence or rational argument to the contrary is treated as a form of false consciousness on the part of its presenter.

Here's a similar argument to consider: men who are threatened by women or consider them less capable or deserving do so because of conflicted relationships with their mothers, and/or early ridicule of their penises by female figures in their life, be it in the playground or the bath. The fear of castration leads them to overcompensate through projection of their own inadequacies onto women and overcompensating behaviours, which may include chivalry. Those men who disagree with this are clearly in a state of extreme denial of their unconscious desire for mother's approval.

Autoptic

07-31-2010, 04:25 PM

The notion of the State requires property as a prerequisite. All other rights require property as the prime right from which their all derived.

vampyroteuthis

07-31-2010, 04:27 PM

The notion of the State requires property as a prerequisite. All other rights require property as the prime right from which their all derived.

How so?

And to what part of my post does this constitute any kind of counter-argument?

Autoptic

07-31-2010, 04:51 PM

Property is not a freestanding fact of life, but a deed granted by an authority -- in this case, the the same state that this allegedly libertarian position argues has no legitimacy when it comes to protecting rights against discrimination.

How so?

And to what part of my post does this constitute any kind of counter-argument?

States don't exist in vacuums either. Those involved are making claims of property over the place involved for such an entity to exist. To be an authority within a property, you must either own it yourself or be authorized by those who do. That's purely definitional. Discrimination is nothing more than making choices and is intrinsic to property. If you can't make choices regarding a thing, it's obviously not yours. Anti-discrimination discrimination just shows who has the true property right. The two as separate are contradictory. Which discriminator* actually owns the property? The bureaucracy?

*The one who gets to choose then demand that particular job (really the use of the property involved, including even the employer himself here) is discriminating as well.

Storm

07-31-2010, 06:31 PM

*The one who gets to choose then demand that particular job (really the use of the property involved, including even the employer himself here) is discriminating as well.

Just a slight misconception here. The right to of equal protection, requires merely that employers do not consider a candidate's sex, race, ethnicity, etc. when making their decision. It does not require them to give any particular individual a particular job.

Autoptic

07-31-2010, 07:09 PM

Just a slight misconception here. The right to of equal protection, requires merely that employers do not consider a candidate's sex, race, ethnicity, etc. when making their decision. It does not require them to give any particular individual a particular job.

Actually, it does require the employer to enter into contract involving property exchange based on the applicant meeting externally approved qualifications, which is a gross violation of any property involved and an invalid contract. If he refuses, he'll clearly be punished solely for daring to act as the real owner of the property and a real person who gets to choose whether make valid contracts, both at his whim.

vampyroteuthis

07-31-2010, 07:42 PM

States don't exist in vacuums either. Those involved are making claims of property over the place involved for such an entity to exist. To be an authority within a property, you must either own it yourself or be authorized by those who do. That's purely definitional. Discrimination is nothing more than making choices and is intrinsic to property. If you can't make choices regarding a thing, it's obviously not yours. Anti-discrimination discrimination just shows who has the true property right. The two as separate are contradictory. Which discriminator* actually owns the property? The bureaucracy?

*The one who gets to choose then demand that particular job (really the use of the property involved, including even the employer himself here) is discriminating as well.

The "purely definitional" collapses if you go far back enough in history. This is why unsupported propositions about universal human behaviour and dessert are on flimsy ground if we take the right to property as the first principle.

Discrimination is a choice based on criteria that are deemed irrelevant and unjust by the same authority that legitimises and maintains property ownership.

If you can make *no* choices regarding a thing, it may not be yours. However, in no existing political system does ownership confer absolute rights to make all possible decisions about anything that is considered property.

Anti-discrimination is not discrimination. That's definitional. Unless you are able to stake out some new definition of "discrimination" that allows it to include in itself its opposite.

Storm has already addressed your misconception about anyone "demanding a particular job". She is kind to call it slight.

I have yet to see how any of this addresses my point about the assertion of arbitrary axioms as truth in the face of empirical contradiction.

Autoptic

07-31-2010, 08:12 PM

The "purely definitional" collapses if you go far back enough in history. This is why unsupported propositions about universal human behaviour and dessert are on flimsy ground if we take the right to property as the first principle.

I don't mean some arbitrarily re-definable legal term. I mean real people making real choices about real objects and the real actions involved.

Discrimination is a choice based on criteria that are deemed irrelevant and unjust by the same authority that legitimises and maintains property ownership.
...
Anti-discrimination is not discrimination. That's definitional. Unless you are able to stake out some new definition of "discrimination" that allows it to include in itself its opposite.

A choice based on criteria is discrimination. You're ability to contract and exchange property is being arbitrarily limited specifically under the delusion that someone else has a right to it, which obviously contradicts it being your property. Someone else is discriminating for you and against your values. They might as well whack you on the head and tell you to share.

Authority can't legitimize property without being legitimized on the basis of property. If a state takes up no space, there's no state. The space it occupies clearly must be property and specifically must be the property of those legitimizing the state. If it's not theirs, they can't declare it a state or declare any grand authoritah.

Storm has already addressed your misconception about anyone "demanding a particular job". She is kind to call it slight.

I have yet to see how any of this addresses my point about the assertion of arbitrary axioms as truth in the face of empirical contradiction.

There wasn't an axiom just a description of real people and their actions. You're the one pretending states exist outside the aforementioned individuals or that the delusions of dead people affect present reality.

vampyroteuthis

07-31-2010, 08:26 PM

I don't mean some arbitrarily re-definable legal term. I mean real people making real choices about real objects and the real actions involved.
And I was pointing out that all your reals didn't arise out of a vacuum, but have a history. I repeat: go far back enough in history and the notion of the right to property as the first principle around which other rights are built collapses. This is why I am saying that it is insufficient to assert that property is the foundational inalienable right to which all other rights must defer, and that asserting this amounts only to an unsupported axiom. Now, either it is your claim that the right to property trumps all other rights, or it is not. If not, then the right not to be discriminated against is not subordinate to the right to property. If, however, I have not misunderstood your claim, then I eagerly await your explanation of what you have, so far, only asserted as given, sans proof.

A choice based on criteria is discrimination. Authority can't legitimize property without being legitimized on the basis of property. If a state takes up no space, there's no state. The space it occupies clearly must be property and specifically must be the property of those legitimizing the state.
No to both claims.
1. A choice based on criteria that are irrelevant to the decision at hand, is discrimination.
2. State property is the property of the state, which does not necessarily make it the property of those who legitimise it. This is evident in the reduction and regulation of the commons.

There wasn't an axiom just a description of real people and their actions.
Where?

You're the one pretending states exist outside the aforementioned individuals or that the delusions of dead people affect present reality.
Where?