80 Years of Subtle Sexism

[shuttlt]

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.

Are most people vocal? We presumably don't have to wait for everybody to shut up. Are the most vocal necessarily the most unbiased judges? If you reward people for being victims, some people will find reasons why they are victims and should be rewarded regardless of the true state of affairs. There will also always be people who have had multiple ****** things happen to them and are butt hurt about it. The voices are not going to stop simply because we come within the margin of accuracy of our ability to measure equality.

 

[tuco]

Are most people vocal? We presumably don't have to wait for everybody to shut up. Are the most vocal necessarily the most unbiased judges? If you reward people for being victims, some people will find reasons why they are victims and should be rewarded regardless of the true state of affairs. There will also always be people who have had multiple ****** things happen to them and are butt hurt about it. The voices are not going to stop simply because we come within the margin of accuracy of our ability to measure equality.

If most people who are unhappy are vocal? I would not know about those who are not vocal. Necessarily the most .. should be rewarded etc I dunno I do not use those terms, do not work with those concepts.

I see those who voice something as interest group(s). Its up to interest group, and society, to determine/settle their differences/coexistence. Its not up to me to say when and how this happens.

The voices are not going to stop .. perhaps, some voice never stop because well, there is always something not to be happy with and some people are not happy with anything.

The point being, there is context. The context is this thread, current state of events and well history. Am I to understand that, and no its not possible to rigorously measure it, you feel women should keep their voice down because they have no reason to be unhappy? Because ask me about future when it comes.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

They are enjoying privilege today. People surely don't resent Prince Charles his wealth because of the unequal distribution of power in the 17th Century. If it needs fixing, it isn't because of how unfair the privilege of Charles II was... it's because of how unfair the privilege today is. Past distributions of wealth and power have nothing to do with what should be fixed today.

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.

But all those things are advantages you enjoyed in the present. They don't/didn't need fixing any more or less because they existed in the past and dead people enjoyed/were harmed by similar benefits.

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.

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.

That does seem to presuppose men and women should be making the same choices.

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.

Perhaps, but surely part of the argument about inequality is that you can embed inequality in institutions, expectations, language, culture such that one can fail to perceive ones own privilege. I don't see that the meme would simply die out. Boys doing badly is, after all, due to the patriarchy and will be fixed by solving the structural inequalities that disadvantage girls.

 

[shuttlt]

Am I to understand that, and no its not possible to rigorously measure it, you feel women should keep their voice down because they have no reason to be unhappy? Because ask me about future when it comes.

Of course not, but equally, I don't think it should necessarily come down to how people feel. Many people feel unhappy that women are paid 77c (or what ever it is) on the dollar for the exact same work. Feelings can be unreasonable, misinformed and wrong.

 

[The Don]

They are enjoying privilege today. People surely don't resent Prince Charles his wealth because of the unequal distribution of power in the 17th Century. If it needs fixing, it isn't because of how unfair the privilege of Charles II was... it's because of how unfair the privilege today is. Past distributions of wealth and power have nothing to do with what should be fixed today.

You said that Nobody alive today has enjoyed centuries of privilege.. I identified a small group of people who are very much enjoying the results of centuries of privilege.

But all those things are advantages you enjoyed in the present. They don't/didn't need fixing any more or less because they existed in the past and dead people enjoyed/were harmed by similar benefits.

You're right that the fact that the imbalance has existed for centuries and/or has accumulated over a long period of time doesn't mean that it needs fixing any more or less but:

• It being so ingrained is indicative of how difficult it will be to address
• If it has existed for so long it also explains why people are blind to it - which again relates how difficult it will be to address
• A small discrepancy, amplified over time results in a big issue

That does seem to presuppose men and women should be making the same choices.

Not at all, it presupposes that men and women should be entitled to make the same choices.

Perhaps, but surely part of the argument about inequality is that you can embed inequality in institutions, expectations, language, culture such that one can fail to perceive ones own privilege. I don't see that the meme would simply die out. Boys doing badly is, after all, due to the patriarchy and will be fixed by solving the structural inequalities that disadvantage girls.

The issue of poor white youths underachieving probably has a different set of causes (and hence a different set of solutions) than those that historically excluded girls from tertiary education.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I haven't heard the term used in a very long time, but in my youth I recall it being said to people of both genders.


(Should I put an asterisk on "both"? That's how we talked back then.)

 

[tuco]

Of course not, but equally, I don't think it should necessarily come down to how people feel. Many people feel unhappy that women are paid 77c (or what ever it is) on the dollar for the exact same work. Feelings can be unreasonable, misinformed and wrong.

Well, what to say? People have right to be unreasonable, misinformed and wrong. Also everyone is free to campaign for anything. You can campaign, for example, again interest group which by your standards .. is not reasonable, misinformed and/or wrong.

What is the problem here exactly? You are not happy with the way the group in OP voiced, what they feel .. , are important issues? Cry me a river.

 

[shuttlt]

You said that Nobody alive today has enjoyed centuries of privilege.. I identified a small group of people who are very much enjoying the results of centuries of privilege.

Adding "the results" changes the meaning. It started with you saying "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.". If somebody is disadvantaged because of their gender now, I don't see that the fact that their gender had a great time in the past, or that other people may be trading well off that gender makes their complaints pathetic.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Guilty.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Attached image removed. Mildly NSFW and I couldn't figure out how to put NSFW tags around an attachment.

 

[marplots]

Gender. Everybody gets one. It's what you do with it that matters.

 

[casebro]

Guilty.

I like the thought. And the photographic proof there of.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like the thought. And the photographic proof there of.

I freely admit to being a slut when I'm single.

 

[tuco]

Guilty.

I used to say that if it was not for sex, I'd rather be in relationship with man, than woman. I am not so sure any more.

 

[shuttlt]

What is the problem here exactly? You are not happy with the way the group in OP voiced, what they feel .. , are important issues? Cry me a river.

I'm not arguing with the OP. I've been disagreeing with specific things in specific posts. The OP isn't really arguing much of anything, so it's hard to disagree with.

 

[Meadmaker]

Guilty.

Hmm..speaking of subtle, or even not so subtle, sexism......

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hmm..speaking of subtle, or even not so subtle, sexism......

Yep. People be sluts. Thank Buddha for that!

 

[tuco]

I'm not arguing with the OP. I've been disagreeing with specific things in specific posts. The OP isn't really arguing much of anything, so it's hard to disagree with.

Sure no problem. Lets go back. You asked question: How long? and I answered: As long as needed.

Do we have anything else to discuss?

 

[shuttlt]

Sure no problem. Lets go back. You asked question: How long? and I answered: As long as needed.

Do we have anything else to discuss?

I don't see where your "as needed" comes from. As long as people are sufficiently motivated to sustain it seems closer. It may also be needed.

 

[tuco]

It comes from the nature of society we live in - democracy - where interest group compete (for their interests) and where such competition is settled through democratic process in form of legislature or consensus. I can only repeat myself, which makes me lets say uneasy.

Indeed, as long as an interest group is motivated (not happy). You said:

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.

something interested you. I gave the answer. You dont like it, fine. If you do not see where "as needed" comes from, well, I cant make it clearer.

If you believe there is some line, like only up to here and not more or something, and somebody can draw the line, then it is your right. I am saying that the line is to be drawn yet. After public debate where interests conflict.

 

[The Don]

Adding "the results" changes the meaning. It started with you saying "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.". If somebody is disadvantaged because of their gender now, I don't see that the fact that their gender had a great time in the past, or that other people may be trading well off that gender makes their complaints pathetic.

If men were significantly at a disadvantage now then your argument could have some traction but it could be argued that a period of positive discrimination can be justified if it helps to re-balance the whole situation. An example was MIT's admission process back in the 1980's. In order to address the gender imbalance at that institution, for a period women were given preference (as long as they were adequately qualified). With a 54/46 male/female split, the positive discrimination of the 80's seems to have had the desired effect.

The actual situation, whatever the poor darlings bleating about the War on Men^TM may claim, is that in most Western countries and in most situations, men still enjoy a significant institutional benefit.