80 Years of Subtle Sexism

[cullennz]

Is bossy actually what female bosses are called though? I'd always assumed it was a word for a particular type of pervasively controlling behaviour where one attempts to exert control over random irrelevant **** that has nothing to do with decision making and getting tasks done. I have no idea why being bossy is now being marketed as a good thing that just means "assertive and a woman".

Didnt know it was reserved for women

I've seen loads of bloke bosses called unreasonable *********. Some to their face

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 10

 

[The Don]

Cry me a river. This video is just another chapter in the war on men.

If this actually does exist, it seems to be being prosecuted as effectively as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. There's nothing quite so pathetic as having a group of people who have enjoyed decades, centuries even, of privilege whining because a tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed.

 

[Brainster]

You throw like a girl. Oh, wait a minute that turns out to be true.

Counting standard deviations--the measurement of difference between sets of data--she shows how even the widest psychological differences, like physical aggression (0.60 standard deviations, leaning toward men) aren't as much as you might expect. Less than 0.10 standard deviations or between 0.11 and 0.35 standard deviations was common, and those are both defined as small differences. She also measured motor behaviors in boys and girls ages 3 to 20 to get a sense of the difference. Some of those, like grip strength (0.66, toward the gentlemen again), were large compared to the rest of the data, but still small to moderate overall. Throwing velocity and throwing distance? Both blowouts, at 2.18 and 1.98 standard deviations, respectively. Well above anything else, psychological or physical.

 

[cullennz]

You throw like a girl. Oh, wait a minute that turns out to be true.

But most are useless

 

[Brainster]

If this actually does exist, it seems to be being prosecuted as effectively as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. There's nothing quite so pathetic as having a group of people who have enjoyed decades, centuries even, of privilege whining because a tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed.

Yes, because drugs and terror have enjoyed decades, centuries even, of privilege.

 

[shuttlt]

Didnt know it was reserved for women

I've seen loads of bloke bosses called unreasonable *********. Some to their face

I've never seen a female manager called bossy. I assume it happens.

 

[cullennz]

I've never seen a female manager called bossy. I assume it happens.

Me neither and I have had 3.

Always wanting to have meetings

Maybe Moody sometimes but cool

 

[shuttlt]

If this actually does exist, it seems to be being prosecuted as effectively as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. There's nothing quite so pathetic as having a group of people who have enjoyed decades, centuries even, of privilege whining because a tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed.

Nobody alive today has enjoyed centuries of privilege. Why would inequalities from decades before I was born that happened to have favoured some groups I'm a member of mean anything in terms of what inequalities should be allowed today? When you say "tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed" it makes it sound as if you have some notion of how to quantify inequality. How one might do that, and hence how one might know when we could stop equalizing things interests me.

 

[Puppycow]

The question I'd like some sort of answer to though is how much/many of these traditional gender roles are/were created by women themselves rather than women always being victims of "the patriarchy" ?

I suspect that members of both genders were complicit in creating the "traditional gender roles" at least to a certain extent.

But people raised in modern first-world countries may not fully grok just how sexist society used to be, and women really had very little power to "create" these roles or to resist them. IOW, the "patriarchy" was very real in the olden days.

For a modern example, just look at how Saudi Arabia is. It really is a "patriarchy". I don't see any other way around it. Women may participate in reinforcing the patriarchy, but to a large extent that's because to resist it (even passively) is dangerous.

 

[Brainster]

Nobody alive today has enjoyed centuries of privilege. Why would inequalities from decades before I was born that happened to have favoured some groups I'm a member of mean anything in terms of what inequalities should be allowed today? When you say "tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed" it makes it sound as if you have some notion of how to quantify inequality. How one might do that, and hence how one might know when we could stop equalizing things interests me.

You are a male descended from centuries of males. Women are descended from centuries of women. Does that make it clearer to you?

 

[cullennz]

I suspect that members of both genders were complicit in creating the "traditional gender roles" at least to a certain extent.

But people raised in modern first-world countries may not fully grok just how sexist society used to be, and women really had very little power to "create" these roles or to resist them. IOW, the "patriarchy" was very real in the olden days.

For a modern example, just look at how Saudi Arabia is. It really is a "patriarchy". I don't see any other way around it. Women may participate in reinforcing the patriarchy, but to a large extent that's because to resist it (even passively) is dangerous.

We aren't in Saudi Arabia and I see very little sexism if any

 

[shuttlt]

I suspect that members of both genders were complicit in creating the "traditional gender roles" at least to a certain extent.

But people raised in modern first-world countries may not fully grok just how sexist society used to be, and women really had very little power to "create" these roles or to resist them. IOW, the "patriarchy" was very real in the olden days.

For a modern example, just look at how Saudi Arabia is. It really is a "patriarchy". I don't see any other way around it. Women may participate in reinforcing the patriarchy, but to a large extent that's because to resist it (even passively) is dangerous.

Is Saudi Arabia really a good model for gender relations in Europe a few years ago? I'm honestly curious.

 

[shuttlt]

You are a male descended from centuries of males. Women are descended from centuries of women. Does that make it clearer to you?

Ah, it's an original sin thing?

 

[Puppycow]

Is Saudi Arabia really a good model for gender relations in Europe a few years ago? I'm honestly curious.

I'm talking about 18th century and earlier mainly. Are you familiar with the legal concept of coverture for example?

The principle of coverture was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.[2]

A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name, while a feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband.

 

[tuco]

Nobody alive today has enjoyed centuries of privilege. Why would inequalities from decades before I was born that happened to have favoured some groups I'm a member of mean anything in terms of what inequalities should be allowed today? When you say "tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed" it makes it sound as if you have some notion of how to quantify inequality. How one might do that, and hence how one might know when we could stop equalizing things interests me.

That is pretty simple actually. When the voices stop. Because who is vocal? Those who are not happy, be it with state of affairs after those centuries.

 

[The Don]

Yes, because drugs and terror have enjoyed decades, centuries even, of privilege.

That doesn't even make sense

It seems to me that the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism aren't successful. Drugs are are still a huge (and growing ?) issue and the last 15 years and trillions of dollars have resulted in a situation where Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists have us in a position where we're happy to give up basic liberties in an effort to keep us safe.

If there is a War on Men (I've seen little actual evidence for it - I've seen a lot of bleating but little actual evidence) then it seems to be equally ineffective. Men still enjoy immense privilege in U.S. society and even the least unequal societies in places like Scandinavia are still heavily skewed in favour of men.

 

[The Don]

Nobody alive today has enjoyed centuries of privilege.

Untrue, for a simple example look at the British royal family. A largely unremarkable group of individuals who have immense wealth and privilege toady simply as a result of inequality in the past.

I've certainly been on the receiving end of centuries of privilege having been encouraged (as a male) into science and engineering and having had a career in a discipline (consultancy) in and industry (financial services) where men have enjoyed an immense advantage.

It's still the case today (or more accurately a couple of years ago when I last worked in the sector), it's a "blokes" environment where the challenges that an ambitious woman has to face are greater than a comparable man.

Why would inequalities from decades before I was born that happened to have favoured some groups I'm a member of mean anything in terms of what inequalities should be allowed today? When you say "tiny fraction of the imbalance is finally being addressed" it makes it sound as if you have some notion of how to quantify inequality. How one might do that, and hence how one might know when we could stop equalizing things interests me.

There are various metrics. Income inequality and inequality of opportunity are two measures but there are other ways of assessing it. The Gender Equality Index is another. Of course choosing to bicker about which is the most (in)accurate measure of gender equality is an excellent way to avoid having to address the underlying inequality.

One way of knowing whether inequality is adequately addressed is if it ceases to be a "thing". 30 years ago when I went to university here in the U.K., male students were vastly in the majority. These days the position has changed to the extent that there are concerns that poor white youths are becoming under-represented.

 

[Aepervius]

Then you better take my number sweet heart because I am all about geeks in the basement. I even wear glasses!

Ohhhh then i don't care what age you are, care for a date if you stay somewhen in germany ?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If you are a man, has anyone, ever in your life, called you "bossy?" If you are a woman and have ever exercised anything approaching leadership, it's almost certain that someone has.

Many times, starting in childhood and onwards - I'm really surprised to learn this is meant to be a criticism that is only directed at women.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But people raised in modern first-world countries may not fully grok just how sexist society used to be, and women really had very little power to "create" these roles or to resist them. IOW, the "patriarchy" was very real in the olden days.

...snip..

One of the issues in looking at the past is that things really were different. For example go back 120 years and most working class families were a mixture of patriarchal and matriarchal.

I would say where things really have changed is in the "public sphere", women now have so much more freedom to live their lives as they wish which they never did in the past.