I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Sexism Rears its Ugly Head
-
Not only is it handy for gender neutrality, it also grants a large allowance of how “workers ahead” could be interpreted. That is, in the future we won’t have to change those signs again when we get animal, robotic, or even zombie workers.
Ask yourself this, though. Would you be ok with a sign that said “Women Working” when males were obviously present? I doubt it.
Or better yet, “Womyn working.” :mrgreen:
-
Well, while we are at it, I want to protest the “Work Zone” signs, since you almost never see actual WORK being done in a “Work Zone”. It is usually just cones, flashing yellow lights and some poor slob with a sign that they alternate between “slow” and “stop”, with that being an accurate representation of the progress being made on the project.
Perhaps what we REALLY need to change these signs to is:
“Your tax dollars at waste ahead”
Maybe with a pictograph of a person in a hard hat sleeping below… -
Well maybe someone could help me out. Aside from the signs, could someone enlighten me to:
-
The government enforced rights that men have that women do not also have in equal measure.
-
The government enforced obligations that women have that men do not have in equal measure.
I found this an interesting read.
When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started **when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too.** Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women. …
…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards. I’m not saying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures aren’t moral beings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competition against other systems and other groups.
I’m an egalitarian and if you are as well it doesn’t take much of a look around to see the obvious double standards that women and men are held too.
Well, I’m so glad that sexism doesn’t exist anymore. It took thousands of years but it finally joined racism, murder, rape and assault in going completely extinct ever since the US government outlawed it in the late 20th century. Whew. I can live a happy peaceful life now.
Sarcasm aside, just because the government says sexist practices are illegal doesn’t mean they doesn’t exist. You know as well as I do that sexism not only exists but is also prolific here and in the rest of the world.
I dug this up. Yes, I know that it’s dated 2003, but it still applies.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/17/Worldandnation/At_work__When_duty_ca.shtml
“When I talk to the lieutenants now, or captains, most of them have never experienced an incident of sexual harassment,” Corbett said recently. “It happens, but hopefully it’s happening to a lesser extent.”
Yes, HOPEFULLY.
After the Gulf War, Congress repealed the law banning women from flying combat aircraft and serving on combat ships. They are still forbidden to serve in ground combat units that may directly engage the enemy, including infantry, field artillery, armor and Special Forces.
Hmmmm. Women being forbidden to perform some duties in the military. Kind of takes dumps on the “double standards favor women” and “more men have died in Iraq” things. I wonder how close those numbers would be if you eliminated from those statistics all of the men who died from the infantry, armor, arty ,or special forces combat units that women aren’t allowed to serve in. Yeah, my grandmother didn’t die driving a tank in WWII, either. Guess that proves that in 1945 sexism didn’t exist in the military.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs?
And what exactly does more men being in prison or homeless prove, anyway? There are more stupid men out there? Unless you can somehow connect it to pro-women practices, then those statements are irrelevant.
On the other hand, you’re right about them with regard to being political prisoners around the world. They usually don’t make it to prison. Most of the time the ones with little press are simply raped and murdered. The ones who have gained some measure of notoriety are assasinated. Ask Benazir Bhutto about that. Well, ask her children, anyway.
Most cultures shield their women from the risk
No, they don’t. Historically, cultures have actively subjugated women, not shielded them. Oh, and did I say historically? I also meant currently. Just so nobody gets the wrong idea.
I’m an egalitarian and if you are as well it doesn’t take much of a look around to see the obvious double standards that women and men are held too.
The double standards exist because if we relied simply on equality under the law then progress for women’s equality would be excruciatingly slow to non-existant. Again, it is the least we can do.
In my country, the United States, there are still enough men who hold all or at least part of this philosophy with regard to womens equality that it proves women still aren’t as equal as you may think: The law SAYS we’re equal NOW. So we’re equal. I get it. Now, go clean the house and take care of the kids. I’ll be back later to beat you for serving me a cold dinner. By the way, nice ass.
@ncscswitch:
Well, while we are at it, I want to protest the “Work Zone” signs, since you almost never see actual WORK being done in a “Work Zone”. It is usually just cones, flashing yellow lights and some poor slob with a sign that they alternate between “slow” and “stop”, with that being an accurate representation of the progress being made on the project.
Perhaps what we REALLY need to change these signs to is:
“Your tax dollars at waste ahead”
Maybe with a pictograph of a person in a hard hat sleeping below…:lol: You said it.
But, if you want completely represent my home state of Illinois the sign would have to depict a bunch of guys standing around watching a person in a hard hat sleeping below……
-
-
From what I understand, a lot of research has gone into the alleged wage discrimination between men and women and the over riding conclusions have generally turned out as such:
Women generally earn less than men in the same position.
However, and this is the part people usually forget to mention, this is due to women, in general, not ASKING FOR MORE MONEY when applying for positions or during 6 month intervals in a position.
Men are usually more forceful in asking for a raise every 6 or 12 months and when applying, will usually barter for higher pay. Women are usually more docile and accepting of what is offered.
Of course, that’s just what I have gleaned from my readings in financial magazines and newspaper articles over the years. I cannot say for a fact that it is true. However, I can say that when I have been employed by non-union agencies in the past, I’ve always had my computer hit me with a reminder note to apply for a raise every 6 months, due or not and every time I’ve been offered a job, I have always asked if they could raise the pay 5% over what they offered me (in hopes of getting 2% more out of them.) I pick 5% because it’s easy to figure out. If they offer $40k then you ask for $42k. (10% of 40 is 4, half of that is 2.)
Another theory I have heard pop up every so often, to explain the alleged wage gap is that women generally accept lower positions than men and thus, when you add up all their salaries and divide by the number of workers, the over all number is lower. Though, a direct comparison between the two on a job by job basis would show them much more even.
No idea if I want to buy into that. But on the face of it, it makes a good argument. Wouldn’t be a very good comparison if they were adding up 20 male engineers and 5 male warehouse laborers and comparing them to 5 female doctors and 20 female office assistants, right? Even though there are 25 in each group, one would expect doctors and engineers to be earning significantly more than warehouse laborers and office assistants.
-
“When I talk to the lieutenants now, or captains, most of them have never experienced an incident of sexual harassment,” Corbett said recently. “It happens, but hopefully it’s happening to a lesser extent.”
Yes, HOPEFULLY.
And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right? Wait…no.
Hmmmm. Women being forbidden to perform some duties in the military. Kind of takes dumps on the “double standards favor women” and “more men have died in Iraq” things.
Dump? Actually…
…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short.
…it was explained in the same post if you read a sentence further.
You know what? It’s sexist that a man should ask a woman on a date. And that a man should ask a woman to marry him. And that men being gay is looked down upon while women being gay is HOT STUFF. And it’s sexist that women carry babies, and that men have to shave their faces every day. Oh…wait…no…it’s natural. Just like a shark eating a fish isn’t species-ist, it’s natural.
No, women being subjugated/harassed/abused isn’t right. But women being treated the same as men and men being treated the same as women isn’t natural.
-
How about this, we keep “Men at work” but right beside it we have another saying “Woman Holding Sign”.
For someone so stuck on a word with her equality I want to see her crusade for having women do more than hold that sign and make the same $ as people who are actualy WORKING!
-
Dude what happened to you? haven’t seen you in like a year.
post often.
-
And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right?
That’s the plan. Are you arguing that we somehow NEED sexual harassment in US culture?
Hmmmm. Women being forbidden to perform some duties in the military. Kind of takes dumps on the “double standards favor women” and “more men have died in Iraq” things.
Dump? Actually…
…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short.
…it was explained in the same post if you read a sentence further.
Oh, I read the whole thing. The problem is that his argument is fallacious. Historically, women have had restrictions placed on them or been outright denied the ability to vote, own property, gain access to education, etc. In some cases, women were considered nothing more than property. And many, if not all, of these things are still going on today somewhere in the world. Give me ONE pragmatic reason for this.
While we’re on the subject, give me a pragmatic reason for women not being allowed to be priests in the Catholic church. Are women somehow less pious than men?
Pragmatism demands the best person for the job, man or woman. Yet, his argument suggests that it was simply a tendency to use men in those high risk jobs for practicality purposes and that women were allowed the opportunity to do them but just didn’t make the cut when we all know that isn’t true. Women were actively restricted from many of those tasks. Just as they are today in this country. The US military bars women from doing some jobs. Not because they are incapable of doing them. Not for pragmatic purposes. But, simply because they are women. THAT is sexism. What part of that don’t you understand?
Look, gender equality demands that if a woman can achieve the minimum basic requirements for a particular job, combat or not, then she should be allowed to, at the very least, compete for an open position. Whether they succeed or fail is of no concern to me. If 5000 women apply for 10 tank driver jobs with 50 men and only 1 woman makes it into the top 10, then that woman should be a tank driver. THAT is pragmatism.
You know what? It’s sexist that a man should ask a woman on a date. And that a man should ask a woman to marry him.
I agree. What’s the problem, here? Did you mistakenly assume that I supported them in our culture? As far as I’m concerned, the man shouldn’t be the one required to ask for a date or marriage. It doesn’t matter what gender you belong to, if you want to date someone, ask them. These are just examples of sexist cultural conventions that need to end for true equality to exist and the sooner the better.
And that men being gay is looked down upon while women being gay is HOT STUFF.
Looking down on men for being gay is bigotry not sexism.
And thinking that gay women are HOT STUFF is a sexual preference, which is perfectly alright. As long as you don’t act on that preference inappropriately with unwilling women, everything is fine. But, if you like women and know 2 or more women who want you to watch or join in with their sexcapades, then I would say you are crazy if you say no. Hell, I’m watching the olympics mostly because I think toned women are ultra-sexy, but I don’t go around asking women to show me their thighs to see if they are toned.
And it’s sexist that women carry babies, and that men have to shave their faces every day. Oh…wait…no…it’s natural. Just like a shark eating a fish isn’t species-ist, it’s natural.
No, women being subjugated/harassed/abused isn’t right. But women being treated the same as men and men being treated the same as women isn’t natural.
Explain why it isn’t natural to treat women the same as men socially or with regard to civil rights and employment. There is a HUGE difference between nature and culture. Everybody knows that men and women are genetically different. You are arguing that women should be treated different culturally because they are different genetically than men. That is the exact definition of sexism. It can not be put in any simpler terms.
-
How about this, we keep “Men at work” but right beside it we have another saying “Woman Holding Sign”.
For someone so stuck on a word with her equality I want to see her crusade for having women do more than hold that sign and make the same $ as people who are actualy WORKING!
You don’t get out much do you.
-
And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right?
That’s the plan. Are you arguing that we somehow NEED sexual harassment in US culture?
If you think that there will be a day when there is no sexual harassment anywhere in America then you’re living a dream. To quote you…
@U-505:Well, I’m so glad that sexism doesn’t exist anymore. It took thousands of years but it finally joined racism, murder, rape and assault in going completely extinct ever since the US government outlawed it in the late 20th century. Whew. I can live a happy peaceful life now.
It hasn’t happened. And it never will. Do you really believe that someday we’ll live in a perfect Utopia without violence? It’s impossible. If for no other reason than that good can’t exist without bad, and the idea of a Utopia is that everything’s good…perfect actually. There will always be a certain amount of violence, period.
There is NO way to treat different people exactly the same. Men and women ARE different: naturally, culturally, socially. And it’s good that way. Not because one is better than the other, or more entitled. Because being different is fun, without it there would be no point in life. We would all just be programmed beings that never did anything wrong. Like someone mentioned, we could all just be turned into one sex after birth. Make us all one race, too. All one size, one shape, one set of genes. Sounds wonderful, you’re right, we should all be the same.
-
My favorite thing, though, is how adamantly you fight against female subjugation and objectification. And yet you’re greatest compliment for female Olympians who have worked for years to be seen as serious athletes is…@U-505:
I think toned women are ultra-sexy
-
And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right?
That’s the plan. Are you arguing that we somehow NEED in US culture?
If you think that there will be a day when there is no sexual harassment anywhere in America then you’re living a dream. To quote you…
@U-505:Well, I’m so glad that sexism doesn’t exist anymore. It took thousands of years but it finally joined racism, murder, rape and assault in going completely extinct ever since the US government outlawed it in the late 20th century. Whew. I can live a happy peaceful life now.
It hasn’t happened. And it never will. Do you really believe that someday we’ll live in a perfect Utopia without violence? It’s impossible. If for no other reason than that good can’t exist without bad, and the idea of a Utopia is that everything’s good…perfect actually. There will always be a certain amount of violence, period.
Yes, we both know that sexual harassment will always exist. But the difference between us is that you think because it will never completely go away that it’s ok to passively accept it right now while I think it needs to be fought constantly to make it as rare as possible.
There is NO way to treat different people exactly the same. Men and women ARE different: naturally, culturally, socially. And it’s good that way. Not because one is better than the other, or more entitled. Because being different is fun, without it there would be no point in life. We would all just be programmed beings that never did anything wrong. Like someone mentioned, we could all just be turned into one sex after birth. Make us all one race, too. All one size, one shape, one set of genes. Sounds wonderful, you’re right, we should all be the same.
This is a strawman argument. There is a huge difference between being socially and culturally equal and being socially and culturally identical. I am arguing the former while you claim I am arguing the latter. I support equality with regard to civil rights, job opportunities and income, education, etc. I do NOT support looking the same, acting the same, liking the same things, etc. What you appear to be talking about is Eugenics, which I oppose.
My favorite thing, though, is how adamantly you fight against female subjugation and objectification. And yet you’re greatest compliment for female Olympians who have worked for years to be seen as serious athletes is…@U-505:
I think toned women are ultra-sexy
So now I have to be celibate to support women rights? I don’t remember signing up for that?
Nowhere did I say that I didn’t respect their abilities, or that they were there solely for my (or men’s) sexual enjoyment. Why is it so hard for you to believe that I have already accepted them being serious athletes as a given? Out of 3 billion women on the planet there are maybe a few hundred competing at the games. Seems pretty cut and dried that they are unequivocally the cream of the world’s athletic crop.
And for the record, I also watch men’s events. I watched the men’s US/Netherlands soccer game and was on the edge of my seat the whole time. It was an awesome game. I also watched both the men’s and women’s team archery semis and finals despite that fact that many of the Asian teams had women that looked like they were 15 years old which does NOT turn me on. So I don’t just watch the games to ogle women. I usually root for the underdog and I was with the Chinese team in the Gold medal match but they went down by 4 points(which isn’t a lot) halfway through the match and everybody knew it was over. The South Korean women looked funny with duckies and hearts on their shoulder straps and their floppy Gilligan hats, but when they were at the line they were stone cold killers. They even set the world record(231/240) in the preliminaries. I’d put them up against ANY of the men’s teams.
I like many of the events in the Olympics, but when I’m watching the games, I don’t have to think twice about whether I want to watch men’s swimming or women’s volleyball given the choice.
-
So U-505 do you think women should be made to register with Selective Service? Do you think they should be given both the right and the obligation to be killed for their country?
Or should they be
protectedsubjugated from war?Rights come with obligations don’t they?
I also see a lot of holding up the outcome (number of congressmen and CEOs) as evidence of sexism. This site’s members are mostly, almost exclusively, men. Does that make this a sexist website? Do we have an old boys network in place to keep knowledge of Axis and Allies out of the hands of women and deny them access to strategic gaming?
If women do not choose to participate does that make an organization sexist?
Didn’t a woman run for President? And isn’t a woman Speaker of the House? And wasn’t Margert Thatcher Prime Minister?
-
Yes, we both know that sexual harassment will always exist. But the difference between us is that you think because it will never completely go away that it’s ok to passively accept it right now while I think it needs to be fought constantly to make it as rare as possible.
Fight it, by all means, but this thread was never about whether or not sexism in general should be fought, much less harassment. It’s about what entails sexism and whether it is imbalanced enough in American society to be worth more government intervention than already exists on a general level (signs/bathrooms) not on a personal level (harassment). I’m pretty sure we can all agree that sexual harassment exists and is wrong, so why even bring it up? It doesn’t prove anything relevant to the debate.
-
So U-505 do you think women should be made to register with Selective Service? Do you think they should be given both the right and the obligation to be killed for their country?
Yes on both.
Or should they be
protectedsubjugated from war?No.
Rights come with obligations don’t they?
Sometimes.
I also see a lot of holding up the outcome (number of congressmen and CEOs) as evidence of sexism. This site’s members are mostly, almost exclusively, men. Does that make this a sexist website? Do we have an old boys network in place to keep knowledge of Axis and Allies out of the hands of women and deny them access to strategic gaming?
If women do not choose to participate does that make an organization sexist?
No. I don’t think so. And no.
Didn’t a woman run for President?
No. She ran for the democratic nomination for president. That, however, is the party that supports women’s rights. You and I both know that the majority of sexism comes from the other side of the aisle. Tell you what, you let me know when there is a women with even an ouside chance at just winning the Republican nomination for president, let alone the presidency. I’m betting we’ll both be dead before that happens.
And isn’t a woman Speaker of the House?
For the first time ever in over 200 years. Ah, progress.
And wasn’t Margert Thatcher Prime Minister?
Yep. In Great Britain. And that was 20 years before we even saw the very first nominee for president.
Yes, we both know that sexual harassment will always exist. But the difference between us is that you think because it will never completely go away that it’s ok to passively accept it right now while I think it needs to be fought constantly to make it as rare as possible.
Fight it, by all means, but this thread was never about whether or not sexism in general should be fought, much less harassment. It’s about what entails sexism and whether it is imbalanced enough in American society to be worth more government intervention than already exists on a general level (signs/bathrooms) not on a personal level (harassment). I’m pretty sure we can all agree that sexual harassment exists and is wrong, so why even bring it up? It doesn’t prove anything relevant to the debate.
This is just one branch of the same overall tree. so it is relevant. And there were many hands, not just mine, involved in guiding this portion of the debate to where it currently is.
-
Didn’t a woman run for President?
No. She ran for the democratic nomination for president. That, however, is the party that supports women’s rights. You and I both know that the majority of sexism comes from the other side of the aisle. Tell you what, you let me know when there is a women with even an ouside chance at just winning the Republican nomination for president, let alone the presidency. I’m betting we’ll both be dead before that happens.
That sounds very hateful. And it is very slanderous actually. The first Hispanic-American I know of to serve on the cabinet serves under the conservative White House. Same for the first African-American and the first African-American female.
Honestly, the slander and mis-characterization of certain geological, political and/or religious groups should really not be tolerated on the site nor by anyone in the United States of America, if you ask for my opinion.
Also, you should note that Condoleeza Rice was seriously considered for running for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. Unfortunately, I feel the main reason was not her skill or experience, but rather to prevent Hillary Clinton from riding into the White House on her Vagina.
Is it not time that we stop driving wedges between the races and sexes and religions and political alliances in this nation? Blacks, yellows, reds and whites are not the enemy. Men and women are not the enemy. Christians, jews, pagans, wiccans, agnostics, aethiests, and other religions are not the enemy. Science is not the enemy. Oil is not the enemy. You want to know who the enemy is? The government and the established elite. But the established elite (like the Kennedy’s, the Clinton’s, the Gate’s, etc) and the government have successfully created all these “-isms” that would not have existed to keep us divided. “United we stand. Divided we fall.” They have taken that to heart and use it against us every day.
I am so sick of liberals calling conservatives racists and sexists. I am also sick of conservatives calling liberals retarded and stupid. Conservatives are not racists nor sexists. Liberals are not retarded nor stupid. (Uneducated sometimes, but we can say that about everyone at one point in time or another.)
-
Well the thread got political in the end…so with that being said the thread is going to walk the plank and deep six.
Suggested Topics
