Why so much hatred for feminism?

[AvalonXQ]

You're just saying that because you are a Christian and want to kill all atheists.

Not all atheists -- just the feminist ones.

 

[KingMerv00]

Not all atheists -- just the feminist ones.

Pfft...womyn liberation begins today! We deWOmYnd equal rights!

Gee, I hope my gyn-mistresses approve of my toadying.

 

[truethat]

1. Gender stereotypes damage everyone.

2. On average, women are measurably deficient in money and power when compared to men. (This in no way negates or diminishes the suffering of men in other areas like child custody.)

3. Everyone should fight to stop gender-based inequality.
.

Has it ever occurred to you and other feminists that the reality of women making less money has a lot more to do with women being mothers than it does with some sort of secret cabal movement trying to oppress women?


When I stayed home with my kids it didn't mean I didn't work. But I was willing to take on lower paying jobs in order to get more flexibility in my hours and my days off.

I often took jobs beneath my skill level or at a lower rate of pay simply because the commute was closer or I was able to work shifts that allowed me to be home when my kids came home from school.

Some examples "overnight shift at a Limo Dispatch" ( the hours were 11 at night to 7 am. The job was around the corner from my house. I would be home to take my kids to school in the morning.. I'd sleep while they were in school. Pick them up from school and spend the rest of the night with them. Put them to bed and go to work. I also was doing Graduate courses and the lull from 3-5 am gave me time to work on my college papers. I made $12 an hour. It wasn't great or exciting work but it helped me make money and be home with my kids.)

"working in a blood lab" (the hours were 8-3 and the office was two blocks away from my kids school)

I know I'm not the only one. I tried bringing this up before and was pummeled by Skeptic Ginger as making disparaging comments towards working mothers. In fact I was trying to bring up the source of the disparity. Many mothers are unwilling to put their kids in afterschool programs and daycare centers for 10-12 hours a day. So they make compromises in their work.

I don't want to speak for any other mother but I would wager that this is not an uncommon phenomenon at all. I have seen it very often. It also explains why more women are in Graduate School. The idea of slinging hash or doing other menial work pales in comparison to furthering your education.

When you take college classes you can arrange them around your children's schedules.

I have literally gone on interviews and been willing to take $10,000 less a year if I could work from home on certain days or could have the days or hours that I wanted. Why? Because not only didn't I have the cost of day care or baby sitting, I could be home with my kids more.

It was a CHOICE not a victimization. This is what I mean about distorting the figures and statistics by ignoring realities and putting a "victim" spin on the numbers.

In the past men were far more likely to get promotions and make more money because they were traditionally considered the "head of household" it was a meme that existed. It was wonderfully explored in Lily Tomlin's character in the movie 9 to 5. Nowadays single mothers are much more understood and that disparity is shifting.

However to say that because women make less money it is automatically a sign of injustice is wrong. It once again paints women as victims rather than autonomous women. Being a mother is not a victim status. It is honor and something I and many other mothers take pride in. We consider our children a priority in our lives and we enjoy being able to provide for them the best way we can. If that means making compromises then we will do it. And so will many fathers.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I would like to address this one specifically. I would like to ask any males here, who've applied for manual labor jobs; if you apply for say, contruction clean up, do your interviewers typically inform you that you get all sweaty and dirty? I've always wondered if they honestly think no one knows this? Granted, I will admit that my sarcastic reply probably didn't help me get that job but the way he was talking to me was really getting on my nerves. Do you really think I have no idea that contruction clean up is hard work? How about applying for a job at a tire place or to do oil changes; do they typically try to warn all potential applicants that your hands get stained with grease? Is this something that most people don't already know? It is not as easy for a woman to get manual labor jobs.

i've had several different manual jobs where there has been heavy lifting, dirty work, dangerous machinery, all day digging and so on

and for every interview i was told about these conditions and asked if it was something i was happy with.

who would have thought before applying to work at a wood yard using chainsaws, large draw saws and wood presses would involve stuff like heavy lifting or using dangerous heavy machinery and chainsaws?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Has it ever occurred to you and other feminists that the reality of women making less money has a lot more to do with women being mothers than it does with some sort of secret cabal movement trying to oppress women?

I would expect there's more to it even than that.

See, among men and women my age when I was in college, I observed an interesting pattern. Note that this was primarily middle class and upper class students.

The men in my acquaintence were primarily focused on the earning potential and growth opportunities associated with different career fields. For them, a job was a necessary part of adulthood, and its purpose was its ability to support a lifestyle.

The women in my acquaintance were primarily focused on job satisfaction and working conditions associated with different career fields. For them, a job was an element of personal identity, and its purpose was to fulfill personal needs.

It was not particularly surprising, then, that after college, a large portion of the men went after "mind-numbing" jobs promising career growth, while the women held out for "satisfying" jobs pursuing what they "loved". And, assuming no gender discrimination in hiring or promotions at all, which of these two groups would you expect to be making more money in five years?

As another data point, I'll submit myself. I'm at a pretty low rung on the ladder where I work. I'm also happy with the kind of work I do and the amount of money I make -- and I like the fact that the responsibility level I have right now allows more time spent with family than at higher levels of the company. I will not climb this ladder nearly as fast as someone who's more interested in increased responsibility for a higher reward, because it's just not as important to me. If men and women have different training or inclinations as to what they're aiming for, whether more like me or more like my top-gunning colleagues, I would expect the outcome to also be different.

 

[KingMerv00]

Has it ever occurred to you and other feminists that the reality of women making less money has a lot more to do with women being mothers than it does with some sort of secret cabal movement trying to oppress women?


When I stayed home with my kids it didn't mean I didn't work. But I was willing to take on lower paying jobs in order to get more flexibility in my hours and my days off.

I often took jobs beneath my skill level or at a lower rate of pay simply because the commute was closer or I was able to work shifts that allowed me to be home when my kids came home from school.

Some examples "overnight shift at a Limo Dispatch"

"working in a blood lab" (the hours were 8-3 and the office was two blocks away from my kids school)

I know I'm not the only one. I tried bringing this up before and was pummeled by Skeptic Ginger as making disparaging comments towards working mothers. In fact I was trying to bring up the source of the disparity. Many mothers are unwilling to put their kids in afterschool programs and daycare centers for 10-12 hours a day. So they make compromises in their work.

I don't want to speak for any other mother but I would wager that this is not an uncommon phenomenon at all. I have seen it very often. It also explains why more women are in Graduate School. The idea of slinging hash or doing other menial work pales in comparison to furthering your education.

When you take college classes you can arrange them around your children's schedules.

I have literally gone on interviews and been willing to take $10,000 less a year if I could work from home on certain days or could have the days or hours that I wanted. Why? Because not only didn't I have the cost of day care or baby sitting, I could be home with my kids more.

It was a CHOICE not a victimization. This is what I mean about distorting the figures and statistics by ignoring realities and putting a "victim" spin on the numbers.

In the past men were far more likely to get promotions and make more money because they were traditionally considered the "head of household" it was a meme that existed. It was wonderfully explored in Lily Tomlin's character in the movie 9 to 5. Nowadays single mothers are much more understood and that disparity is shifting.

However to say that because women make less money it is automatically a sign of injustice is wrong. It once again paints women as victims rather than autonomous women.

Of course this idea "occurred to me and other feminists". No need to insult my intelligence.

You are absolutely right to say that choice is not victimization. If parents take time to analyze the costs and benefits I fully support whatever decision they make.

Stay-at-home parents do pay a price, though. They are financially dependent on their spouse and lose years of career advancement. For whatever reason, this price is almost exclusively paid by women. In 2010, there were 5 million stay-at-home moms but only 154,000 stay-at-home dads. Why this gap? I fear the the stereotype that "dad can't parent" is the cause. I hope that fear is wrong but the data demands an explanation. I don't want stay-at-home parents to be ashamed, I want parenting decisions unclouded by arbitrary gender roles. Maybe your choice wasn't clouded. I hope not.

The point is moot anyway. Women make less than men even when controlling for variables like children so your hypothesis is insufficient to explain the wage gap.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

If you're tying to cite it as evidence backing up your assertions, then yes.

Yes I do.



Then you shouldn't have brought it up. And you really shouldn't have doubled down and gotten indignant when Travis doubted your story.

I tend to somehow overlook Arkade's posts so I didn't see that until it got quoted. I know Arkade is Swedish (because I am too) and I also know where he got that emoticon he tried to hotlink.

I think what he is referring to and which he completely failed to interpret properly is that there was, in the nineties, a program in place to entice young women to apply to engineering programmes by promising them - that given the same merits - a female candidate would have preference to admission.

The thing is that at that time, young women in Sweden generally had higher GPAs than young men. The reason they weren't applying to engineering programs wasn't that they couldn't get in but that the EPs had horrible reputations for blatant misogyny, in particular, among the male students but also a horrible reputation in general as they were known for the worst hazings, an extremely homogenous culture that made it tough for male students who didn't enjoy drinking hard liquer from funnels and projectile vomit. As an example: when girls started entering the EP the hazings changed from general chugging contests etc to often include a game whereby the "zeros" (app: pledges) were divided into teams that competed in making as long a line of their clothes as possible. I.e. to get undressed. The more pieces of clothing, the longer the line and thus putting peer pressure on female pledges to remove all clothes with baying crowds yelling at female pledges to "take it off" and by "it" meaning the bra.

This was why female students with good grades from Science and Math-prep high school programmes chose medicine or law instead of engineering.

Nonetheless the young men were enraged at the idea that someone with the exact same grades at them would be accepted before them and demanded preferential treatment on female heavy programs. Which they got but had in fact already had in practice all along, other than in writing, as the nursing and teaching programs really wanted more men to apply.

This is the background to a situation that happened a few years later when a particular college decided to quota in male applicants to a law program. Which would have been fine, except they chose to quota in young men with poorer grades than the young women they replaced. Not equal grades but poorer. Because they were facing an entire year of only female law students as these all outperformed all the male applicants on grades and references they decided to increase the scope of their quota to include male applicants with poorer grades than the next female applicant.

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids. Basically, someone got hold of the story and all female applicants with higher grades than the accepted males sued. I'm guessing somewhere in that whole debacle someone said something that went through the Arkade filter of wishful thinking and persecution complex before ending up as a vague reference to a non existing article which he can't back up or find or even reference properly and most certainly can't put in context.

In the end the female applicants were awarded monetary re-imbursement but were not given their rightful spots in the program, while the male, less able, applicants kept their places because, presumably, the college didn't want to break their little hearts. (And of course, it wasn't their fault. They thought they got in on merit and didn't know until the story broke.)

This, I hypothesize, could be how Arkade came to believe he had a source when he really didn't. I follow Swedish news pretty closely and I have never come across anything like the claim he made - not to say no one ever said that but even if there was a source for that it would not really prove anything as it would only be one admission officer's opinion (I presume the person who Arkade thinks said that had something official to do with admissions as it would otherwise make an even dumber source) and not how the admissions rules are actually written - other than as loose claims from private individuals on the disreputable forum boards where he got that emoticon.

Up until a few years ago, first line of admission in Sweden was handled centrally and you actually didn't add your gender to your application forms. Only your grades. If there were spots left or if spots were vacated before the fourth week of the semester, eligible students who re-applied were taken in on a first come first served basis, so it paid to bug the schools if you didn't get in where you wanted to.

These days I believe schools handle their own admission and apply their own rules - as long as they don't break the law. There is also a special admissions group for people with poor or incomplete grades but a good Högskoleprov (app: SATs) and for people with work experience. All these quotas make it a mess to handle admissions and mistakes are probably made. The above example, though, was a deliberate exclusion of students with higher GPAs.

I have not heard anyone defend any of those mistakes by claiming that men can't be discriminated against. And anywhichway, that defence would never hold up in a court. It is not an institutionalized inequality.

 

[KingMerv00]

The men in my acquaintence were primarily focused on the earning potential and growth opportunities associated with different career fields. For them, a job was a necessary part of adulthood, and its purpose was its ability to support a lifestyle.

The women in my acquaintance were primarily focused on job satisfaction and working conditions associated with different career fields. For them, a job was an element of personal identity, and its purpose was to fulfill personal needs.

It was not particularly surprising, then, that after college, a large portion of the men went after "mind-numbing" jobs promising career growth, while the women held out for "satisfying" jobs pursuing what they "loved". And, assuming no gender discrimination in hiring or promotions at all, which of these two groups would you expect to be making more money in five years?

Leaving aside for the moment that anecdotal evidence is of minimal value, women make less even when career choice is controlled as a variable. See my final link in my previous post.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy and relieved to see it.

 

[truethat]

Of course this idea "occurred to me and other feminists". No need to insult my intelligence.

You are absolutely right to say that choice is not victimization. If parents take time to analyze the costs and benefits I fully support whatever decision they make.

Stay-at-home parents do pay a price, though. They are financially dependent on their spouse and lose years of career advancement. For whatever reason, this price is almost exclusively paid by women. In 2010, there were 5 million stay-at-home moms but only 154,000 stay-at-home dads. Why this gap? I fear the the stereotype that "dad can't parent" is the cause. I hope that fear is wrong but the data demands an explanation. I don't want stay-at-home parents to be ashamed, I want parenting decisions unclouded by arbitrary gender roles. Maybe your choice wasn't clouded. I hope not.

The point is moot anyway. Women make less than men even when controlling for variables like children so your hypothesis is insufficient to explain the wage gap.

No it's not exclusively paid by women. It's paid by families. I am assuming that you are not a father or you would not make such a suggestion.

Women don't exist in a vacuum. Neither do children. Fathers are more than sperm donors that walk out the door and leave it all behind.

This kind of manipulation of information is what causes me to have very little respect for feminists. Any married couple will tell you that the burdens in the family are felt by all members of the family. There are different kinds of burdens. Just because a woman traditionally will have one type of burden doesn't mean that men have it easier. I see hard working men every day with many struggles that are completely glossed over by feminists because they have a blind spot of only seeming to care about things that traditionally matter to women.

I know many many many men who feel like hamsters in a cage running in place to pay their bills. They are stressed out, they feel unempowered. Men have many health issues that relate to their stresses. But since they don't matter to feminists we'll just completely ignore them and focus our attention elsewhere.


As far as the gap, read your own source. There are different variables not just one variable. But one major consideration is that women can only conceive for a limited period of time. So women are often trying to combine, college, work and family withing a two decades of graduating from college. Men can have children for their entire lives, so this is a very significant factor.

And once again if you read your own source studies show that women are WILLING to make less money. That is a consideration you want to ignore. No they must somehow be "victims." Not autonomous women who aren't as worried about making more money because in general the cultural meme is that men are supposed to "take care of the women and the children" and so this effects the decisions and motivations of women.

It's common sense really. But I know that's difficult for some people.


Also why the gap between women and men as far as stay at home goes? This is also lost on feminists who don't have children. Staying home with your children is a job that many women love. THEY LOVE IT. THEY WANT TO DO IT. THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT.


You are typical of feminists in setting up "CAREER ADVANCEMENT" as a more important thing than the "career of being a homemaker" somehow this is lost?

When I know how to take care of my children very well, when I know how to cook excellent meals, when I know how to make a home it is not "lost years of career advancement" It IS my career. Just because you don't consider it a real job doesn't mean I don't.

 

[KingMerv00]

No it's not exclusively paid by women.

I said "almost exclusively" but that's a quibble on my part.

Women don't exist in a vacuum. Neither do children. Fathers are more than sperm donors that walk out the door and leave it all behind.

Of course fathers aren't just sperm donors. That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Men can and do make wonderful caregivers financially and emotionally. That's why I don't understand why they aren't stay-at-home parents more often.

This kind of manipulation of information is what causes me to have very little respect for feminists. Any married couple will tell you that the burdens in the family are felt by all members of the family.

I want to make this abundantly clear. Your relationship seems to be a happy one and you have no regrets. You've worked hard and that is truly admirable. I am sinerely happy for you. I don't doubt your husband is a good man nor do I think you are a victim. There are millions of women just like you. Unfortunately, millions are not. When I quote statistics, please know that it is only an illustration of society as a whole and may or may not apply to you specifically. As an analogy, one could use crime statistics to say that rape victims are primarily female and perps are primarily male. You could not use those statistics to say anything about any random individual. In fact, most women are NOT rape victims and most men are NOT rapists.

If relationships were always happy and unbreakable, we wouldn't be having this conversation. In the real world divorce is common and breadwinners die. Stay-at-home parents may have to jump into the labor force at an advanced age with no advanced education, experience or means to support themselves. People in abusive relationships remain tethered to their abusers. This is risk and for some reason couples tend to slant that risk towards women.

I am fighting for choice, same as you. The only difference between us is that I look at the statistics and need an explanation why women stay home 32.5 times more often than men. Doesn't that interest you, even on an academic level? As a regular on a skeptic forum you must know decisions (like women) don't exist in a vacuum and that the human mind is susceptible to subtle socialization. I can't explain that statistical chasm without resorting to arbitrary gender pressures. If I'm you have a better rationale, I definitely want to hear it. I want to live in a world where I am wrong about this.

BTW, you never addressed the other part of my post. Why do women still make less even when confounding variables are controlled for?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Of course fathers aren't just sperm donors. That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Men can and do make wonderful caregivers financially and emotionally. That's why I don't understand why they aren't stay-at-home parents more often.

Significant stigma. The stay-at-home dads I know face unique problems in two directions:

1) Parents and in-laws berate them for not supporting their family. It doesn't matter that the wife is better qualified and supports the family fine on her income; it's "just not right".

2) Moms refuse to allow them to be a part of the community. Moms actually take their kid away when a man comes to the playground; they aren't welcome at stay-at-home mom meetings and activities. The moms are suspicious. It's the old males-as-predators meme, which for some reason persists even when the man clearly has an age-appropriate kid of his own.

So I don't blame dads for not wanting to deal with the stigma; I certainly wouldn't want my spouse, male or female, to have to undergo the mental stresses of stay-at-home parenting without community support.

 

[KingMerv00]

You added quite a bit to your post after I posted...

This kind of manipulation of information is what causes me to have very little respect for feminists. Any married couple will tell you that the burdens in the family are felt by all members of the family. There are different kinds of burdens. Just because a woman traditionally will have one type of burden doesn't mean that men have it easier. I see hard working men every day with many struggles that are completely glossed over by feminists because they have a blind spot of only seeming to care about things that traditionally matter to women.

I know many many many men who feel like hamsters in a cage running in place to pay their bills. They are stressed out, they feel unempowered. Men have many health issues that relate to their stresses. But since they don't matter to feminists we'll just completely ignore them and focus our attention elsewhere.

Your post is in response to me so I'm assuming that criticism is at least partially directed at me. I can't speak for other feminists but I have gone out of my way over and over again to specifically state that men have burdens too. I don't have that blind spot.

As far as the gap, read your own source. There are different variables not just one variable. But one major consideration is that women can only conceive for a limited period of time. So women are often trying to combine, college, work and family withing a two decades of graduating from college. Men can have children for their entire lives, so this is a very significant factor.

That could be a valid explanation but you are speculating. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Every study I've seen explicitly states that no matter how they crunch the variables, women are still behind.

And once again if you read your own source studies show that women are WILLING to make less money. That is a consideration you want to ignore.

There were 13 potential explanations for the wage gap in my link. That consideration only applies to a few of those explanations and is explicitly dismissed as adequate each time.

No they must somehow be "victims." Not autonomous women who aren't as worried about making more money because in general the cultural meme is that men are supposed to "take care of the women and the children" and so this effects the decisions and motivations of women.

The question remains why men and women choose as they do. I'm looking for an explanation.

It's common sense really.

We are in a skeptics forum. "Common sense" is not an explanation.

But I know that's difficult for some people.

Please stop with the personal jabs. I don't think I've done anything to deserve it.

Also why the gap between women and men as far as stay at home goes? This is also lost on feminists who don't have children. Staying home with your children is a job that many women love. THEY LOVE IT. THEY WANT TO DO IT. THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT.

Take a step back and consider your unstated assumptions. Why is that supposedly not true of men? Are you saying men don't "Love it. Want to do it. Choose to do it."? Do you attribute that entirely to biology? If so, what evidence do you have?

You are typical of feminists in setting up "CAREER ADVANCEMENT" as a more important thing than the "career of being a homemaker" somehow this is lost?

When I know how to take care of my children very well, when I know how to cook excellent meals, when I know how to make a home it is not "lost years of career advancement" It IS my career. Just because you don't consider it a real job doesn't mean I don't.

I don't know how to make this any clearer: I admire and respect homemaker as a career. It is not more or less important than going to an office. That being said, being a homemaker carries special risks regarding the relationship a "regular" job does not.

I just happen to be curious why men and women choose one honor over another. I do not accept "common sense" as a valid answer.

 

[lomiller]

I would expect there's more to it even than that.

See, among men and women my age when I was in college, I observed an interesting pattern. Note that this was primarily middle class and upper class students.

The men in my acquaintence were primarily focused on the earning potential and growth opportunities associated with different career fields. For them, a job was a necessary part of adulthood, and its purpose was its ability to support a lifestyle.

The women in my acquaintance were primarily focused on job satisfaction and working conditions associated with different career fields. For them, a job was an element of personal identity, and its purpose was to fulfill personal needs.

It was not particularly surprising, then, that after college, a large portion of the men went after "mind-numbing" jobs promising career growth, while the women held out for "satisfying" jobs pursuing what they "loved". And, assuming no gender discrimination in hiring or promotions at all, which of these two groups would you expect to be making more money in five years?

As another data point, I'll submit myself. I'm at a pretty low rung on the ladder where I work. I'm also happy with the kind of work I do and the amount of money I make -- and I like the fact that the responsibility level I have right now allows more time spent with family than at higher levels of the company. I will not climb this ladder nearly as fast as someone who's more interested in increased responsibility for a higher reward, because it's just not as important to me. If men and women have different training or inclinations as to what they're aiming for, whether more like me or more like my top-gunning colleagues, I would expect the outcome to also be different.

I think this effect does exist, and would even go a step farther and attribute it to the testosterone driven hyper-competitive nature of males in the 20’s and 30’s.

 

[KingMerv00]

Significant stigma. The stay-at-home dads I know face unique problems in two directions:

1) Parents and in-laws berate them for not supporting their family. It doesn't matter that the wife is better qualified and supports the family fine on her income; it's "just not right".

2) Moms refuse to allow them to be a part of the community. Moms actually take their kid away when a man comes to the playground; they aren't welcome at stay-at-home mom meetings and activities. The moms are suspicious. It's the old males-as-predators meme, which for some reason persists even when the man clearly has an age-appropriate kid of his own.

So I don't blame dads for not wanting to deal with the stigma; I certainly wouldn't want my spouse, male or female, to have to undergo the mental stresses of stay-at-home parenting without community support.

You sir, are a bigot and just saying that to get laid.

Whoops, sorry. Those insults don't apply when you point out sexism against men. Silly me.

 

[A'isha]

I have not heard anyone defend any of those mistakes by claiming that men can't be discriminated against. And anywhichway, that defence would never hold up in a court. It is not an institutionalized inequality.

Thank you!!

 

[ConspiRaider]

Jeez, you go away for a weekend and the furniture gets rearranged...Anyway, I got what I was looking for from this thread. I definitely have a better understanding how and why people feel the way they do.

I put a fair amount of energy into the early parts of this thread so I'm not sure how much more I want to spend on catching up. If I vanish, don't be surprised. Thanks everyone for your opinions, especially those who could disagree civility.

Up until now, I've never understood anti-label mentality. Labels are useful. They are shorthand when longhand won't do. But it turns out people will read more into your words if you label yourself "inappropriately". Had I expressed my ideas without the using "feminist" I probably wouldn't have reaped as much disappointment, been called a bigot, or been accused of secretly hating men. It's possible some people will never respect me again.

Live and learn.

Know thine audience. I discussed money and power because they are easier to quantify. I can quote statistics on CEO gender ratios but there is no metric unit for likability. In this forum, how for do you think I'd get trying to convince peope that women, on average, are "less liked"?

Sorry to further disappoint you. I am being honest.

I'll admit surprise and disappointment on my end too, Conspi. It seems I've lost some of your respect for espousing what I consider to be rather bland ideas in this thread:

1. Gender stereotypes damage everyone.

2. On average, women are measurably deficient in money and power when compared to men. (This in no way negates or diminishes the suffering of men in other areas like child custody.)

3. Everyone should fight to stop gender-based inequality.

No one has disagreed with me on 1 or 3. Some reasonable people questioned the accuracy of #2. I gave examples of how gender ratios are out of balance in government, business, and the media and then went away for the weekend. I am still willing to discuss the topic.

Sadly, most of the criticism was indirect. Several people people suggested I had a secret agenda, masked my hatred for men, and was only trying to get laid. There really isn't anything I can say to counter that sort of attack because I cannot prove a negative. I can only restate that I am hiding nothing.

Thanks much for the response, Kingsterino, and NOPE - not a chance that you've lost any respect from my point of reference. I only lose respect for folks when they're deliberate do-badders, harmers, deceivers and so forth. Oh - and if they're a Baltimore Ravens fan (but that's obvious).

I eschew the living hell out of labels for folks. Remember when I'd rage on the Chatz about acronyms? And of course the ubiquity of silly notions like texting and twittering (hoo boy sheez). All have this in common: Limiters. Reducers. Thought-shrinkers. I hate that crap. Expansive. Limitless. AAAAAHHHhhhhhhhhhhh ... now we're talking.

You stick a son of a bitching label on somebody and guess what? You end up whittling that person down to, at most, several basic thoughts. Maybe even ONE thought. And with that - easy peasy to discount them, dislike them - hate them.

No. We need to cut out this labeling crap immediately if not sooner. Folks referring to themselves via labels, and others reacting predictably. Why do we do this? Are we that mentally limited? I think not. We're bigger than this - much bigger. People are far, far too layered, complex, contradictory, paradoxical, talented, exasperating, brilliant, compassionate, ignorant and on and on about a myriad of issues, events, trends. "She's a feminist, hain't gonna even deal with her!" The hell izzat? It's a stock reaction - when the proclaimer has funneled a person down to a label and the associated thought or two.

You may think of yourself as a feminist, Kingster. I do not. Same as women who claim to be feminists. No you're not - it's merely an aspect of the whole. You're much bigger, much greater than a one-word label.

King, show me your wallet so I can verify that you are NOT a Baltimore Ravens Backer and you can go on your way, respect intact...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So a woman choosing to stay home, raise the kids, and take care of the household is valued at zero wages. Child care workers and housekeepers are extremely low paid, supposedly this is unskilled labor. A housewife of 20 years who gets alimony in a divorce is undeserving.

If you believe in the Libertarian philosophy, women do not deserve equal pay for equal work, pay is best determined by the market, (ignoring any rigged aspects of said market).

It's fine if OSHA ignores an entire category of workplace hazards that mostly affects nurses. Women should not consider that discrimination.

Hospitals colluding to keep nurse's wages low went unnoticed for decades. The idea that was the reason for the nursing shortage was well below the radar of most people including the nurses.

I'll stop there, this is tiring.

 

[truethat]

The question remains why men and women choose as they do. I'm looking for an explanation.

Because we want to. Otherwise you are perpetuating the myth of vicitimization which is necessary for feminism to support their beliefs.


The reason feminism got such a backlash in the first place was because of so many people assuming that if women could choose otherwise they would. When the opportunities were presented and SOME women continued to choose the same thing people were flabbergasted and then started creating NEW reasons for women to have chosen the way they did.

They are brainwashed

or

It's a cultural meme

or

It's a cultural hegemony

or


Learned helplessness


or whatever.

Not all people care about making so much money. I don't. Money does not impress me at all. As the owner of my own business I have the choice of receiving MORE MONEY but having to deal with people I don't want to deal with. My personal stress and ease of lifestyle matter more to me than money.

Others may have a stronger threshhold. But to assume that money is an indicator of anything other than money is ridiculous.

 

[KingMerv00]

Because we want to.

That's no more an explanation than "because they choose to". Choices are made for reasons and reasons don't occur in isolation. When huge chunks of society make choices along gender lines, a curious person wonders if gender is involved in that decision.

Otherwise you are perpetuating the myth of vicitimization which is necessary for feminism to support their beliefs.

Fine, forget all of the stuff I said about the downsides of being a stay-at-home parent. Feel free to consider both choices to be precisely equal and a stay-at-home parent isn't a victim...now explain why men and women make choices on gender lines. All you have established is that you are absolutely certain it isn't social. Do you think it is entirely biological? If so, why?

The reason feminism got such a backlash in the first place was because of so many people assuming that if women could choose otherwise they would. When they opportunities were presented and SOME women continued to choose the same thing people were flabbergasted and then started creating NEW reasons for women to have chosen the way they did.

They are brainwashed

or

It's a cultural meme

or

It's a cultural hegemony

or


Learned helplessness


or whatever.

You keep restating the wrongs of feminists throughout history. I agree that was important to the question I asked in the OP but it isn't to the discussion at hand. It has got to the point you are using them to make straw arguments. I am not "flabbergasted", I just think that socialization plays a big part in the choices we do make and the choices we don't make. See here:

About 42 percent of men and 39 percent of women agreed with the statement that it's better for everyone "if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children." That's down from 74 percent of men and 52 percent of women who supported traditional gender roles in 1977.

You can see that opinions of gender roles can change over time. That means biology alone is an insufficient explanation for the stay-at-home phenomenon. It also means that there were women in 1977 who would have made a different choice today. In other words, gender roles play a important part in how we choose. Ideally, the goal is to have no one (man or woman) agree with the survey statement.

Again I ask for counter evidence is you have any.

Not all people care about making so much money. I don't. Money does not impress me at all. As the owner of my own business I have the choice of receiving MORE MONEY but having to deal with people I don't want to deal with. My personal stress and ease of lifestyle matter more to me than money. Others may have a stronger threshhold.

For the last time, I'm happy for you and I'm glad you are satisfied with your choice. You've discussed you personal story at length but this isn't about JUST you. I've told you how I feel and why it we need to shift your focus. Your story, no matter how important it feels to you, does answer my questions about society at large.

But to assume that money is an indicator of anything other than money is ridiculous.

Money is an indicator of power and well being to some extent since it gives you more access to goods and services.

You've seem dead set on ignoring the wage gap issue. Everything I've posted says it exists and that it can't be accounted for by career choice or children. You keep discussing what happened in YOUR life. While illuminating, it doesn't explain the statistics. Stop speculating. Please give me evidence.

 

[curi0us]

Quite the cynical conclusion. Did it ever dawn on you that the requirements were simply standardized and lifting a 165lb dead weight was determined not to distinguish a qualified firefighter?

One interpretation of this is the requirement was unnecessarily blocking women from a job they were essentially qualified for. You could have a job requirement: penis required. But unless it was a position of male porn star, it doesn't mean the requirement was valid.

Actually I just looked into matter more closely and you seem to have made a false claim that confused us both. I don't think there is a NPFA standard like you said and it sure as hell isn't the CPAT test you posted a link for. That's a fire fighter academy entrance test and not what is actually required to actually be a firefighter. People who can only do what is required in the CPAT test will wash out of academy training.

Like I said ...

And herein lies the sexism. Some women make excellent firefighters. Some are well qualified. Is there any evidence firefighters are less effective with the new standard? Have lives been lost due to changed physical requirements?

You just took the conversation down a misleading path by presenting false standards. New York and LA despite having extensive programs trying to recruit more female fire fighters still have almost none due to lack of female interest combined with women being much more likely to fail the physicals.

Is it beyond your belief that Steinem was right?

Do you actually know what Steinem said about firefighting?

Again, you argue for the discrimination based on "it used to be that way" and not based on evidence that how it used to be was necessary. Is there evidence this change had an impact on the professional outcome? Or does it appear now that the requirement was indeed unnecessary?

Actually most fire departments have kept the kind of standards I talked about and your posts were very misleading on this topic.Women today are still firefighters in very low numbers and without giving them a different set of physical standards that will continue to be the case.

As far as evidence it was staring you in the face. Why do you think dragging an 165 lb dummy was a CPAT requirement? What do you think happens if a person weighs more then 165 and/or is in a situation where they can't be dragged to safety? Just goto YouTube and look at fire fighting training and you will see them carrying people as part of their training. What kind of evidence do you want exactly?

I also never said anything remotely like it should be that way because "it used to be that way" that is pure sexist fantasy on your part.

Sentiment against affirmative action neglects consideration of the problem affirmative action was needed to address.

No, I know the history. My sentiments are based upon specific knowledge, yours are based upon stereotypical assumptions. Do have any idea of what the specifics of the SFFD affirmative program were? sure doesn't seem like it. So how in the world could you know what my sentiments are neglecting to consider?

It's a one sided argument just like arguing for equal numbers (which is a straw man because I think it depends on the profession what the natural ratio should be). An argument needs to consider both sides of the coin at the same time.

The man, or the white male who fails to get the job because an equally qualified woman or minority had a hiring preference is no different than the thousands of women and minorities that failed to get the jobs because an equally qualified white male had a hiring preference.

I have specifically described a situation with my fire department where the women were not equally qualified and given the job anyways.

However, in the case of the white male currently (or recently) it is necessary to restore proper balance. In the case of the women and minorities originally, it was necessary to maintain the status quo.

There are two ways to view affirmative action: one, it is more a necessary evil or, two, it is more an unfair practice. It comes down to point of view. There is no evidence one can base the argument on. Stalemate.

Explain to me what sexism is and why it is wrong and I may be able to resolve the stalemate.

You are trying very hard to redefine what I actually said and believe. Your revision is a distortion. It is diversity that is the benefit. All individuals are going to vary in skills ideally with everyone meeting the minimum standard.

I didn't distort anything. Read what you wrote again that I was replying to:

The NFPA standards for firefighters, which to my knowledge most departments in the US follow, does not have any different standards for men and women when it comes to physical strength or performance. I suspect it is the same with police.

However, physical strength is not the only asset an individual might bring to either profession and women can do a number of things better than men in many situations. They can often diffuse a hostile person or comfort a child or search a female suspect in ways men cannot always do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8014458&postcount=238

You were not talking about diversity, you explicitly said "women can do a number of things better then men" and listed off examples. The only one possibly relevant to firefighting that you actually named was "comfort a child" but besides being a sexist stereotype it's an argument for women being better day care workers not firefighters anyways.

Now even if you backpedal into only arguing for the benefits of diversity you need to explain how that works. If five men are fighting a fire does an sixth person who is a women intrinsically benefit the outcome more then a sixth person who is man just because of greater gender diversity? The sixth women may bring a unique ability to the team that it previously lacked but the exact same thing is true for a sixth man as well. There are situations in police work where it is easy for me to see the benefits of diversity, but in firefighting I really don't see it.

I also note that you never actually provided the NPFA standards for fire fighters and the CPAT you linked to is not the standard.

It's a judgement call, not an evidence based decision. With religion and sexual orientation chances are you just need to make sure those things are not considered in the applicant evaluation and affirmative action isn't needed. With affirmative action sometimes it is needed to break down some old boy barriers. Just eliminating the discrimination does not do enough to correct an identified problem.

If you think for sexual orientation and religion just making sure those things be not considered in the application process is enough why is that different then race and gender? This is very serious point because there was a very easy path to nondiscriminatory hiring (and promotion) practices available but it was not utilized.

The need for and use of affirmative action should be reassessed on a regular basis. This is the one thing I think hasn't occurred.

Affirmative action supporters should have been doing this thirty years ago.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment.

You were the one insisting there are things women do better then men.