Why so much hatred for feminism?

[truethat]

One of the reaons the concept of white privilege and male privilege seems like a joke to me is that it creates it's own bias. It creates a discrimination towards white men that just because they are white and male they don't have to deal with certain discrimination. And this seems to assume that if you don't deal with "certain" discrimination your life is automatically easier. That assumption in and of itself is unfair and not true. Not being discriminated against assumes that all those who are not white and privileged are discriminated against to such a degree that their lives are harder than the white male. Yet the white male might have other issues to look at.

King Merv keeps asking for the motivation for why women are willing to make less money than men. And the studies he has provided as well as others back up what I said earlier. That white men are expected to get out into the world get a job and make money to take care of their families. This is what they are expected to do. And because of this men are taught to be motivated by money more than women are. Woman for the last few years have been encouraged to be smart and to get out in to the workforce. But women also have a biological clock that makes them have to cram everything in to the first two decades after college. So that means meet, marry and have kids. Which means women are also trying to find "Mr Right" and are also less focused at some point on making money.

Women have learned "you can't have it all" or it's modified to "you can't have it all at the same time" so it does make sense that women would opt for less stressful jobs or not work so hard in order to move up the "career ladder" because they can't deal with all that responsibility at the same time.

 

[KingMerv00]

Still looking at those stats. 96 pages...

One of the reaons the concept of white privilege and male privilege seems like a joke to me is that it creates it's own bias. It creates a discrimination towards white men that just because they are white and male they don't have to deal with certain discrimination. And this seems to assume that if you don't deal with "certain" discrimination your life is automatically easier. That assumption in and of itself is unfair and not true.

Not being discriminated against assumes that all those who are not white and privileged are discriminated against to such a degree that their lives are harder than the white male. Yet the white male might have other issues to look at.

I agree. I'm a white male and I have not experienced any direct, overt predjudice in my personal life but problems sexism seem to be stamped "female". This can lead to a minimalization of legitimate discrimination claims when they happen.

King Merv keeps asking for the motivation for why women are willing to make less money than men. And the studies he has provided as well as others back up what I said earlier. That white men are expected to get out into the world get a job and make money to take care of their families. This is what they are expected to do. And because of this men are taught to be motivated by money more than women are. Woman for the last few years have been encouraged to be smart and to get out in to the workforce.

This I find interesting because it seems to contradict your earlier thinking.

You have said repeatedly that women are stay-at-home parents 32.5 times more frequently because they "choose" to, not because of socialization. Now you are saying men are socialized to be the breadwinners. We both agree that socialization exists but you only acknowledge it with respect to men's decisions.

Take your idea to it's conclusion. If men are told "men are the breadwinners", how does that message affect women when they hear it? If men "do as their told", how do their actions affect women? Even if you still don't acknowledge that female socialization exist, you have to grant that the socialization of men has an impact on women.

Direct sexism against one gender is sexism by implication against the other.

But women also have a biological clock that makes them have to cram everything in to the first two decades after college.

The below is not specifically directed at you, truethat. It is an open quesion:

Have there been any studies on the so called "biological clock" and if there is a corresponding effect in men? I've known many women in my life who have never had any interest in bearing children and I've known men who want nothing more than to raise a litter.

I would not be surprised if "the clock" exists but I'm interested in its true nature, not media portrayals. How common is it? How much does it affect people's long term decisions? To what extent is it biological and to what extent is it socialized? Do women really plan ahead for pre-menopausal desires? I think the idea could have merit but it is still only speculative as to what extent if any it has on career.

As a separate question, how do intentionally childless ("childfree" if you like) women fair in wages compared to a man?

So that means meet, marry and have kids. Which means women are also trying to find "Mr Right" and are also less focused at some point on making money.

Men need to plan their lives around the same concerns but you are making an unspoken assumption that women carry most of the burden. After all, finding "Mrs. Right" is just as time consuming for men and tends to happen around the same age. The medical concerns of pregnancy will keep you out of the workforce for a few months but that doesn't explain why women don't use maternity leave laws to return to the workforce immediately. It also doesn't it explain why fathers rarely become stay-at-home parents.

Women have learned "you can't have it all" or it's modified to "you can't have it all at the same time" so it does make sense that women would opt for less stressful jobs or not work so hard in order to move up the "career ladder" because they can't deal with all that responsibility at the same time.

It seems odd that both women and men marry and have children around the same ages but only women "can't have it all at the same time" because they need to plan ahead. The only biological difference that is not speculative is the ability to bear children. That, at most, accounts for a loss of around 9 months of work experience and even that is partially negated by labor laws.

 

[truethat]

I agree that it's socialization but if you're going to sit here and pretend the cultural meme is for women to obey their husbands I'm just going to shake my head. Take a look at ANY television show in the US and you get the doofy dumb hardworking guy with the hot wife who runs him into the ground. That is the meme. Not that women simper in the corner like victims awaiting his every order.

Seriously what planet do you even live on?

This is what bugs me about feminism. The confirmation bias. You are insisting that things are true when you admit you don't understand it. Anything that shows otherwise is completely ignore.

End goal: WOMEN ARE VICTIMS one way or another you will manipulate the questions and date until you get what you want.

The fact that women are having children is a BIOLOGICAL ISSUE not a social pressure. You are young and of course I've known women who don't want to have kids. That's not the point of the biological clock.

THINK it's got everything to do with all of your questions. Women can only have a healthy child for so long. So women must graduate from college find a man to marry (if she wants to be married) or a man who will be a father and then have a baby or two or three. She has a limited amount of time to do all this.

If she graduates from college at 21 and then graduate school by 25 and is moving on towards a career and some point she's going to have to consider whether she wants to stay home with her child or not? And for many women they choose to stay home with their children because the money is not that important to them. Their children are more important to them than quality of life issues. So they devote their lives to that for a while. Not all women do this. It's not a "better choice." But it's a reality that happens.

 

[KingMerv00]

Notice the extensive confirmation bias when you do.

Unless you had some specific objection to the study at the time of posting, the above statement is an example of confirmation bias too.

I'm certainly worried about potential bias, though. Looking through CONSAD's history, I see that the papers appear to always be funded by libertarian/conservative groups and consistently reach pro-business/anti-government conclusions. For example they claim the Kyoto Treaty "puts America at risk", opposed the Clean Air Act, favored conservative healthcare options, and (most annoying of all) appear to deny the existence of global warming. The wage gap report in question was paid for by the Bush Administration and is not peer reviewed. That's not a good sign.

None of this refutes the report in and of itself, of course. In fact the CONSAD report does acknowledge the existence of a wage gap of about 6% when controlling for all variables. Even with their dubious record and potential bias, they only disagree with me as to the extent of the problem.

Whatever their leanings I've decided to stop analyzing the paper because one statistical flaw jumped out at me. The "raw wage gap" is the income difference between male and female as determined from the tax returns of full-time employees without controlling for variables. It is about 23% and CONSAD does not object to this. Unfortunately, the CONSAD report includes part-time employees in its estimates and uses it to close the wage gap by a few percentage points. You can't do that. If the raw wage gap estimate had included part-time employees in the first place the result would have been a few percent larger. CONSAD is "correcting" for a mistake that was never made.

There are other problems too. For example, it attributes most of the wage gap to two factors. First, the women's choice to have children and be stay at home moms. I've already discuseed this above; the fact that women are biologically required to carry the child does not explain why men almost never stay at home in the first place. Looking at perceived gender role statistics, the answer appears that "men aren't good caregivers" and "women aren't good breadwinnters". That is sexism by definition.

The second factor CONSAD blames is fact that women take traditionally female jobs and industries which just so happen to pay less. When you think about it, this doesn't explain much and only adds more questions. Why are "female" jobs paid less? What causes women to choose those kinds of jobs? If those questions can't be answered with measurable biological differences, the answer can only be socialization (and there is peer reviewed data to back that up). No one is rushing to explain this in biological terms. I wish they would.

OK, Naive. Your turn. Address some or all of my points. I know you gave other links but I'm not going to plow through more data until you do some work too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Based on my own observation over the years in salary negotions - I agree. Women I've encountered have seemed less motivated to negotiate hard for increased pay, and more likely to give in sooner and/or accept alternatives.

It could be a coincidence, but for what it's worth my own instincts suggest otherwise.

I'd be interested in Skeptic Ginger's take on this.

I have often said nurses were their own worst enemy in reference to our lack of professional status and worth (much improved now but still not quite there).

For the record, I've not discussed 'root' cause here, rather just cause and effect of certain aspects of the way society is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unless you had some specific objection to the study at the time of posting, the above statement is an example of confirmation bias too. ...

I didn't have the time when I posted that to address specifics. I have, however, seen some blatant confirmation bias in all the cherry picked sources Naive1000 keeps citing as evidence.

We could go on infinitely tossing picked cherrys back and forth. It gets nowhere in this kind of discussion. That's why I tried to discuss underlying concepts when the white male privilege exchange was ongoing. The discussion went something like this:

SG:The things that define white male privilege are specific to power and wealth.

Person not listening: Men are worse off here and there, women are better off there and here...etc. etc.

SG: Here and there and there and here are not in the definition of white male privilege, that is a different question.

Person not listening: Look there are poor white men and rich minority women therefore white male privilege doesn't exist.

SG: White male privilege does not extend to all white males. Again, that is not what white male privilege means.

Person not listening: rinse and repeat.


So, is it confirmation bias because I am using the standard definition of white male privilege? Sure. That doesn't mean it is erroneous bias. Arguing about who is better off or why some white men are not privileged is a straw man argument.


I have lived with and experienced feminism and women's lib first hand in a big way because of my profession. Of course I'm going to have confirmation bias. Perhaps I should have said, look for the extensive cherry picking instead.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm certainly worried about potential bias, though. Looking through CONSAD's history, I see that the papers appear to always be funded by libertarian/conservative groups and consistently reach pro-business/anti-government conclusions. For example they claim the Kyoto Treaty "puts America at risk", opposed the Clean Air Act, favored conservative healthcare options, and (most annoying of all) appear to deny the existence of global warming. The wage gap report in question was paid for by the Bush Administration and is not peer reviewed. That's not a good sign.

I was trying to find a link to Lynn Cheney's women's group advocating against equal pay but I couldn't find it. The argument was from an extreme Libertarian point of view.

None of this refutes the report in and of itself, of course. In fact the CONSAD report does acknowledge the existence of a wage gap of about 6% when controlling for all variables. Even with their dubious record and potential bias, they only disagree with me as to the extent of the problem.

Whatever their leanings I've decided to stop analyzing the paper because one statistical flaw jumped out at me. The "raw wage gap" is the income difference between male and female as determined from the tax returns of full-time employees without controlling for variables. It is about 23% and CONSAD does not object to this. Unfortunately, the CONSAD report includes part-time employees in its estimates and uses it to close the wage gap by a few percentage points. You can't do that. If the raw wage gap estimate had included part-time employees in the first place the result would have been a few percent larger. CONSAD is "correcting" for a mistake that was never made.

There are other problems too. For example, it attributes most of the wage gap to two factors. First, the women's choice to have children and be stay at home moms. I've already discuseed this above; the fact that women are biologically required to carry the child does not explain why men almost never stay at home in the first place. Looking at perceived gender role statistics, the answer appears that "men aren't good caregivers" and "women aren't good breadwinnters". That is sexism by definition.

The second factor CONSAD blames is fact that women take traditionally female jobs and industries which just so happen to pay less. When you think about it, this doesn't explain much and only adds more questions. Why are "female" jobs paid less? What causes women to choose those kinds of jobs? If those questions can't be answered with measurable biological differences, the answer can only be socialization (and there is peer reviewed data to back that up). No one is rushing to explain this in biological terms. I wish they would.

OK, Naive. Your turn. Address some or all of my points. I know you gave other links but I'm not going to plow through more data until you do some work too.

Good analysis. I would add to the evidence against the conclusion that women 'choose' lower paying jobs the history of women in the workforce. It reveals that certain jobs like nursing were at one time the only jobs open to women. Look at Sandra Day O'Conner's employment history. After graduating with top grades from law school the only job she could get was as a legal secretary.

 

[Lithrael]

Women can only have a healthy child for so long. So women must graduate from college find a man to marry (if she wants to be married) or a man who will be a father and then have a baby or two or three. She has a limited amount of time to do all this.

None of this really answers his question. Men who want children are sort of de facto constrained to figuring these questions out at about the same time as women, if they want to have a family with a woman who isn't much younger than they are.

It seems to me you keep missing the point he's trying to discuss - it isn't 'why do women often choose to do this' - at this point it's more like 'why is it that the parent that stays at home is the mother so much more often than the father.' The reasons you keep bringing up aren't exclusive to women. They're reasons any parent might choose child rearing over career power. AvalonXQ for example had some good points on why a man wouldn't want to be the homemaker a few pages ago:

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.

But nobody really picked up on this post even though I think it goes a long way towards figuring this out.

I really don't understand why you disagree with the idea that culture encourages women to do as they're told by pointing out that there are enough controlling women and whipped men that it's a comedy trope. It's another case of saying a trend doesn't exist because of the outliers that exist that show the opposite of the trend. I do think that it's far less pervasive now than it has been in the past but I don't think it's gone.

 

[truethat]

ts

tion.

The second factor CONSAD blames is fact that women take traditionally female jobs and industries which just so happen to pay less. When you think about it, this doesn't explain much and only adds more questions. Why are "female" jobs paid less? What causes women to choose those kinds of jobs? If those questions can't be answered with measurable biological differences, the answer can only be socialization (and there is peer reviewed data to back that up). No one is rushing to explain this in biological terms. I wish they would.

OK, Naive. Your turn. Address some or all of my points. I know you gave other links but I'm not going to plow through more data until you do some work too.

The problem with your entire questioning effort is that you want ONE ANSWER that explains why ALL WOMEN do something. This is bullship science. This is why sociology is a joke. And it really sounds very sexist and racist.

Why do more women stay home than men? Because they want to. You keep rejecting this as if there's another answer. But there isn't. Yes there are many women who have to stay home or have to work. But if given the choice most women do what they want to do.

Part of why this question is so confusing is what I posted on page one. The way women feel they are being judged by their choices because of feminism in the past.

Women who work usually work because status and money matter more to them than the pleasure of staying home with their kids. This has nothing to do with how they feel about their kids (Awaits backlash that ignores this statement) but just not liking the way it feels to stay home.

There are some women who must work and some women who must stay home. For example a friend of mine is a nurse who has two non verbal autistic children. She stayed home with them. She could have put them in day care and other services but she wanted to stay home.

To answer the question of why, many times day care centers are not good places to put your children. I've seen horrible day care centers and I've seen good ones. If it benefits the child to go to day care many mothers will do it. But many choose not to.

Because you completely ignore the "pleasure of staying home" the "pride in being a SAHM" etc you can't understand this reality. Part of this also has to do with working mothers getting very angry at any SAHM who takes pride in her work and in staying home.

It is considered an "attack" on working mothers. So even though I do this job every day for say 12 years I'm supposed to pretend that me and the working mother are both completely equal in our experiences and abilities. Because to say otherwise is not being "sensitive" to mothers that have to work outside the home. When you are a SAHM you are WORKING. You are just working at home.

Funny because most mothers I know who really do have to work and wish they could stay home don't have a problem with knowing about my day. The ones who pretend they "have to work" when in reality they simply prefer the lifestyle that comes with having money.

There are benefits to working, you can often provide "services" for the child that the SAHM would do themselves. You can also afford to hire experts and professionals to work with your child in a way that would exceed the abilities of the SAHM.

So each has it's benefits. Each mother is also doing what she wants to, for the most part.

A large part of the problem of why there are no easy and clear answers is IMO women lie a lot about how they really feel because of societal pressures.

Ex I know never to exclaim any sort of pride in the ability to stay home. I am not supposed to point out that often mothers say they have to work have very expensive clothes, cars, top of the line phones, go on vacations in expensive locations, eat out a lot. I sacrifice these things because I WANT to stay home. So pointing it out isn't knocking the other woman. It's just pointing out that if money is important to you then that is a different perspective.

Ex. Some working moms who really want to go to work, lie and say they have to work because they feel guilty.

At the end it comes down to what I said in the beginning. That other women have lot more to do with holding women back than men do.

 

[KingMerv00]

I agree that it's socialization but if you're going to sit here and pretend the cultural meme is for women to obey their husbands I'm just going to shake my head.

I never said anything so extreme. Please stop painting as that person. The meme that men are the unquestioned head of the household is definitely dying out and that is fantastic news. Glaring misogyny like glaring racism is generally frowned upon in polite society.

That doesn't mean there arent still echos to deal with. Deeply religious households still support "traditional" views and older women are suffering the effects of starting their careers at a time when sexual harassment and gender roles where strictly enforced in the workplace.

Take a look at ANY television show in the US and you get the doofy dumb hardworking guy with the hot wife who runs him into the ground. That is the meme. Not that women simper in the corner like victims awaiting his every order.

You are absolutely correct and that is a fine example of a harmful cliche. Men are almost universally portrayed as "bumbling dads" with down to earth wives in sitcoms: The Simpsons, Family Guy, Home Improvement, South Park, King of the Hill...the list goes on. Interestingly, the cliche started out as a witty subversion of shows like Father Knows Best, Ozzy and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, and other shows where the father was the head of the household. Unfortunately, the parody became the norm.

Ironically, how many of the above shows had stay-at-home dads with female breadwinners? Hmm...

Pointing out one cliche doesn't negate others though. Look here for examples on both sides.

Seriously what planet do you even live on?

This is what bugs me about feminism. The confirmation bias. You are insisting that things are true when you admit you don't understand it. Anything that shows otherwise is completely ignore.

End goal: WOMEN ARE VICTIMS one way or another you will manipulate the questions and date until you get what you want.

This kind of sarcasm and generalization is starting to get on my nerves. Have I been rude to you somehow? Have I not agreed with you when you make a good point? Look at more previous posts. I have repeatedly and consistently acknowledged that sexism against men is alive and well. I OPENLY acknowledged that the idea of "white male privilege" has negative effects, men are put upon as breadwinners, and that the "bunbling dad" stereotype is a pathetic and harmful idea. This is "confirmation bias" apparently.

When I DARE suggest sexism against women exists my motives are attacked, I'm compared to obvious bigots (who we ALL hate), insults are hurled, and people fight the point tooth and nail. When someone is so clever and open minded to point out (accurately) that men are victims too...nothing. No one questions the assumption, they aren't associated with the worst elements of misogyny, and we don't wonder aloud if they can get laid. I don't think this schism is due to sexism, though. I think it is due to the personal failings of the individuals who took part in this thread. You are out for a fight but I'm not giving it to you. I'm going to keep plugging forward until you understand I am not your enemy. At the very least, you will understand I am not the enemy you want me to be.

The fact that women are having children is a BIOLOGICAL ISSUE not a social pressure. You are young and of course I've known women who don't want to have kids. That's not the point of the biological clock.

THINK it's got everything to do with all of your questions. Women can only have a healthy child for so long. So women must graduate from college find a man to marry (if she wants to be married) or a man who will be a father and then have a baby or two or three. She has a limited amount of time to do all this.

If she graduates from college at 21 and then graduate school by 25 and is moving on towards a career and some point she's going to have to consider whether she wants to stay home with her child or not? And for many women they choose to stay home with their children because the money is not that important to them. Their children are more important to them than quality of life issues. So they devote their lives to that for a while. Not all women do this. It's not a "better choice." But it's a reality that happens.

The part you are missing is that it takes two people to make a baby and that men need to plan their lives the same way. Men are just as aware they will almost certainly marry and have children by their late 20s but don't choose the same career path as women even though it is just as logical. Men COULD plan their lives around finding Mrs. Right in college, settling down, and then be a stay-at-home dad. The fact is they don't. This is probably because, as you pointed out, men are socialized to be breadwinners.

If you don't want to view the issue as female victimization, you don't have to. Look at it as men are being socialized to be away from their children.

 

[Aepervius]

I didn't have the time when I posted that to address specifics. I have, however, seen some blatant confirmation bias in all the cherry picked sources Naive1000 keeps citing as evidence.

We could go on infinitely tossing picked cherrys back and forth. It gets nowhere in this kind of discussion. That's why I tried to discuss underlying concepts when the white male privilege exchange was ongoing. The discussion went something like this:

SG:The things that define white male privilege are specific to power and wealth.

Person not listening: Men are worse off here and there, women are better off there and here...etc. etc.

SG: Here and there and there and here are not in the definition of white male privilege, that is a different question.

Person not listening: Look there are poor white men and rich minority women therefore white male privilege doesn't exist.

SG: White male privilege does not extend to all white males. Again, that is not what white male privilege means.

Person not listening: rinse and repeat.


So, is it confirmation bias because I am using the standard definition of white male privilege? Sure. That doesn't mean it is erroneous bias. Arguing about who is better off or why some white men are not privileged is a straw man argument.


I have lived with and experienced feminism and women's lib first hand in a big way because of my profession. Of course I'm going to have confirmation bias. Perhaps I should have said, look for the extensive cherry picking instead.

The problem with your reasonning, is that there will NEVER be equality. It might over around a few advantage to male, a few advantage to female, but since some individual will be disconsiderate to women or men, you can never have a total 100% sure fire equality.

So yes, what is to look at , is the globality of all advntage / disadvantage on both side, and try to make them disappear. But if your response to any remark that some male have much less power than women in some domain is "male white privilege exists somewhere, somewhen somehow" then you are requiring an utopia which will not exists.

If all you consider is that some white male might be privileged, then frankly, you are missing the whole point.

That is why by the way I am agaisnt masculinism/feminism, these induce an inherent bias agaisnt the other "privileged" sex. I am for gender equality , point final.

 

[Lithrael]

True, I really think you are talking completely past most of this discussion.

Plenty of feminists have certainly gone over the top and are unfairly judging stay at home moms. I don't think anyone here is denying this. There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to stay at home and raise your kids. I don't think anyone here is denying this.

But you seem to be stuck on the idea that asking why it's so often the mother and not the father, is an attack on the women who wants to stay home and raise the kids. You've already weighed in with your opinion: 'because it's what they want'. That's fine. We're still wondering why the gender disparity, though. The answer does not have to be 'because women are conditioned baby-machine victims' OK? I don't think anybody here has started with that conclusion in mind.

 

[truethat]

Really? Are you sure about that? Because it sure seems like that to me. It treats women as if they are brainwashed. Why do more men like to go to baseball games than women? Is it because they are programmed by society to like baseball? Why do more women than men go into the teaching profession? Is it because we are programmed by society to like to teach?

This treats women like borgs. Like we have no personal preferences. This is what I mean about the backlash. Feminists were so convinced that all women would think the same way they did when challenging some of the issues in the work place that they were stunned to see that many women chose to stay home anyway. Instead of honoring women as intelligent and autonomous women who made decisions about their lives, they treat them as if they are some how socialized drones who are acting in a way that society programs them to act. It's dumb.


Saying that there are "echoes to deal with" suggests that there is a problem with the way things are. Questioning why so many more women than men stay home, suggests that there is a problem going on that needs to be fixed.

 

[Wildy]

SG:The things that define white male privilege are specific to power and wealth.

...
SG: Here and there and there and here are not in the definition of white male privilege, that is a different question.

...
SG: White male privilege does not extend to all white males. Again, that is not what white male privilege means.

May I ask how you're defining "privilege"? Or at least what you define "white male privilege" because it seems to differ with the definition of "privilege" that I've read from other feminists.

 

[KingMerv00]

Really? Are you sure about that? Because it sure seems like that to me. It treats women as if they are brainwashed. Why do more men like to go to baseball games than women? Is it because they are programmed by society to like baseball? Why do more women than men go into the teaching profession? Is it because we are programmed by society to like to teach?

No. "Programmed" implies a conscious attempt to acheive a desired outcome. You've already agreed that men are socialized to work but no person or persons in society directed them along that path. Pick up that idea and run with it. If it can be applied to something as life-changing as deciding to be a breadwinner, why couldn't it apply to things like baseball, teaching, the color pink, parenting...

This treats women like borgs. Like we have no personal preferences. This is what I mean about the backlash. Feminists were so convinced that all women would think the same way they did when challenging some of the issues in the work place that they were stunned to see that many women chose to stay home anyway. Instead of honoring women as intelligent and autonomous women who made decisions about their lives, they treat them as if they are some how socialized drones who are acting in a way that society programs them to act. It's dumb.

You've acknowledged that men have been socialized into a certain style of behavior. Are they borgs? Do you honor them as intelligent autonomus people?

Are you suggesting that women are immune? It's sexist to say women are mentally stronger than men.

Saying that there are "echoes to deal with" suggests that there is a problem with the way things are.

"Echo" was probably a poor choice of words but my point still stands. The workplace has women who paid the price and are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. That is most certainly a problem. In retrospect, I shouldn't have downplayed religious issue. Religious fundamentalists with sexist views are running for president and women are still prevented from getting an education by domineering husbands in some circles.

Questioning why so many more women than men stay home, suggests that there is a problem going on that needs to be fixed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the gender ratios in America. The problem is that they are partially the result of irrationality and assumptions about our biology. The world is missing out on thousands of brilliant female scientists and thousands of brilliant male teachers.

 

[Mark6]

1975? You know that's like 37 years ago, right? Back when people used to actually dial phones, with their index finger and everything.

TrollTongue has been on my Ignore list for over a year. Thank you for reminding me why!

 

[truethat]

"Echo" was probably a poor choice of words but my point still stands. The workplace has women who paid the price and are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. That is most certainly a problem. In retrospect, I shouldn't have downplayed religious issue. Religious fundamentalists with sexist views are running for president and women are still prevented from getting an education by domineering husbands in some circles.

Ok please tell me the "price" that women have paid and the "disadvantage" that SAHMs have in their lives?


Domineering husbands preventing women from getting an education. Please also back that up. That's what's called a stereotype. The same way Muslim women who choose to wear the Hijab are stereotyped as being forced to wear it.

But I'd really like you to answer the bolded question.

Also please prove that world is missing out on brilliant female scientists. Because unless you are sexist you will acknowledge that the world has many brilliant female scientists. Most of the things you are stating are stereotypes btw.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem with your reasonning, is that there will NEVER be equality. It might over around a few advantage to male, a few advantage to female, but since some individual will be disconsiderate to women or men, you can never have a total 100% sure fire equality.

Who are you arguing with here? How is this fact a problem with my reasoning? Why would chipping away at an injustice be wrong because perfection was unlikely?

So yes, what is to look at , is the globality of all advntage / disadvantage on both side, and try to make them disappear. But if your response to any remark that some male have much less power than women in some domain is "male white privilege exists somewhere, somewhen somehow" then you are requiring an utopia which will not exists.

If all you consider is that some white male might be privileged, then frankly, you are missing the whole point.

How do you see this straw man applying to what I have posted? Because I've made no such assertion that white male privilege is the root of all evil. I merely said it exists. That's all I said, along with what it was.

White male privilege exists. I describe reality. To claim it doesn't exist by re-defining it doesn't change reality.

That is why by the way I am agaisnt masculinism/feminism, these induce an inherent bias agaisnt the other "privileged" sex. I am for gender equality , point final.

Perhaps you are echoing one of those confirmation bias problems here. If I describe an unequal situation that is unjust (mildly or more severely unjust) that means I'd like to see the injustice corrected, not that I want some revenge return injustice to befall men. I like men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

May I ask how you're defining "privilege"? Or at least what you define "white male privilege" because it seems to differ with the definition of "privilege" that I've read from other feminists.

I did address this in post #360:

White male privilege can be seen in the following:

Privilege is systemic.
It’s the people who do the hiring, who make the art, who market it.
It's in the fact that higher economic status neighborhoods are more often de facto white neighborhoods, with households more often headed by males, and include better schools than minority neighborhoods.
School funding is higher and there are differences in the education that students in rich white neighborhoods receive.
How many directors are men, or white, or both? How many executives of television studios or record labels? How many big sports club owners are white men compared to the number of black players?
How many Presidents were not white males?
What is the percentage of white males in Congress, on boards of directors, or are CEOs of the fortune 500 companies?

These are the measures by which white male privilege is defined, ....

 

[truethat]

It's a dumb measuring stick. Seriously stupid. It also pisses a lot of people off because it creates a stereotype that if you are a white male, your life is easier than that of a black woman. Which is very patronizing to black women and demeaning to white men.

These sociology googles create "realities" that don't exist. Like saying if you live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan you are rich. Meanwhile broke college students live there all the time.