Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Again, here is the ass backwards application of what it means for something or someone to be "Feminine".

Women are not "Feminine" by doing feminine things.
Things become feminine, by women doing them.

High heels?  Feminine, because women wear them-- why? To make themselves appear taller, and have a different body plan ratio to appear more sexually attractive.  They dont put the thought into that usually-- but that's what high heels are about. Wearing them does not make a woman more womanly.  Neither does makeup, or wearing a dress, or having long hair.

The social programming is what needs to change.  The social programming WILL CHANGE, if the women change.  Going against social programming is hard.  Men have their own social programming that is equally if not more hard to overcome.  Being promiscuous whoremongers, or judging self-worth by being wealthy, or by being desired by women-- etc-- those are male social programming that is pathological, and men simply have to overcome it to improve society.  Women have their own battles.

As for smeeprocket's "Blaming the victim" rebuke-- Look at Rosa Parks.  Famous for WHAT?  Was it for complaining and moaning about having to sit in the back of the bus-- or was it for saying "No, my current seat is fine, they can sit in the back instead." and suffering public reprisal for her acts?

What's that? The latter?  And because of it, social norms changed?

EXACTLY.

[Gentlefish]

We have hundred of these "Rosa Parks" you speak of, saying "no" to society, wierd.


The thing is, society is really, really good at ignoring women. So goo, in fact, that Smeep and the women she spoke of earlier who said this, are absolutely right that for a woman to get recognized as good as something done by a man, she has to do it backwards and in high heels.

[smeeprocket]

Again, here is the ass backwards application of what it means for something or someone to be "Feminine".

Women are not "Feminine" by doing feminine things.
Things become feminine, by women doing them.

High heels?  Feminine, because women wear them-- why? To make themselves appear taller, and have a different body plan ratio to appear more sexually attractive.  They dont put the thought into that usually-- but that's what high heels are about. Wearing them does not make a woman more womanly.  Neither does makeup, or wearing a dress, or having long hair.

The social programming is what needs to change.  The social programming WILL CHANGE, if the women change.  Going against social programming is hard.  Men have their own social programming that is equally if not more hard to overcome.  Being promiscuous whoremongers, or judging self-worth by being wealthy, or by being desired by women-- etc-- those are male social programming that is pathological, and men simply have to overcome it to improve society.  Women have their own battles.

As for smeeprocket's "Blaming the victim" rebuke-- Look at Rosa Parks.  Famous for WHAT?  Was it for complaining and moaning about having to sit in the back of the bus-- or was it for saying "No, my current seat is fine, they can sit in the back instead." and suffering public reprisal for her acts?

What's that? The latter?  And because of it, social norms changed?

EXACTLY.

so let me get this straight. Women are socially programmed by the patriarchy to act a certain way and like certain things. by virtue of them liking them and acting this way, those things are BAD. This will only change if women take responsibility and act more like men.

Did I get that right?

Don't forget the link above that shows women acting more like men is detrimental to them.

I don't think you know anything about Rosa Parks. she was an activist long before that bus seat. She was hand picked for what happened. Nor did her refusing to give up her seat (which was on public transit) stop all racism.

What do you think women do all day exactly? When they work at businesses getting paid less for more work, do you think they are actually just sitting on their thumbs and "letting" men walk all over them?

DO you think segregation going away was the -responsibility- of black people? That the rest of us have to EARN what you have by virtue of genetics?

[wierd]

I am not saying they arent suffering reprisals.

I am saying that their actions are not wasted.  The civil rights movement of the 60s was fomenting for at least TWENTY years prior to that. Every time a woman stands up to her employer and demands equal pay, it is a victory for women's rights, even if she gets fired for it.

The more they fire women for it, the more damning it is publicly.  The biggest defence these types have, is to have plausible denial.   The more women there are demanding and not receiving fair compensation for their contributions to society,  the harder it is to have that plausible denial, and the harder it is to silence the movement.

You cant just go whining and expect to get what you want. When there is injustice, there is a reason for that injustice-- SOMEBODY benefits from it, and that somebody will NOT want to let go of the status quo.  You have to MAKE them let it go.

Rosa Parks stood up for herself, and went to court over it.  She became a figurehead for millions to stand up for themselves, by suffering that reprisal with dignity and obstinance.

Whining about how hard it is wont make it any easier. 

[wierd]

Again, here is the ass backwards application of what it means for something or someone to be "Feminine".

Women are not "Feminine" by doing feminine things.
Things become feminine, by women doing them.

High heels?  Feminine, because women wear them-- why? To make themselves appear taller, and have a different body plan ratio to appear more sexually attractive.  They dont put the thought into that usually-- but that's what high heels are about. Wearing them does not make a woman more womanly.  Neither does makeup, or wearing a dress, or having long hair.

The social programming is what needs to change.  The social programming WILL CHANGE, if the women change.  Going against social programming is hard.  Men have their own social programming that is equally if not more hard to overcome.  Being promiscuous whoremongers, or judging self-worth by being wealthy, or by being desired by women-- etc-- those are male social programming that is pathological, and men simply have to overcome it to improve society.  Women have their own battles.

As for smeeprocket's "Blaming the victim" rebuke-- Look at Rosa Parks.  Famous for WHAT?  Was it for complaining and moaning about having to sit in the back of the bus-- or was it for saying "No, my current seat is fine, they can sit in the back instead." and suffering public reprisal for her acts?

What's that? The latter?  And because of it, social norms changed?

EXACTLY.

so let me get this straight. Women are socially programmed by the patriarchy to act a certain way and like certain things. by virtue of them liking them and acting this way, those things are BAD. This will only change if women take responsibility and act more like men.

Did I get that right?

Don't forget the link above that shows women acting more like men is detrimental to them.

I don't think you know anything about Rosa Parks. she was an activist long before that bus seat. She was hand picked for what happened. Nor did her refusing to give up her seat (which was on public transit) stop all racism.

What do you think women do all day exactly? When they work at businesses getting paid less for more work, do you think they are actually just sitting on their thumbs and "letting" men walk all over them?

DO you think segregation going away was the -responsibility- of black people? That the rest of us have to EARN what you have by virtue of genetics?

No.  That is how you have chosen to interpret it, but no. that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that what is considered feminine is malleable.  Being born female is not.  One follows from the other. Doing feminine things does not change your gender. 

As for "Earning" things--  That's entirely the wrong way to go about it.  It isn't "earning" anything. It is proving that the prevailing "Wisdom" is wrong.   The only way to prove that, is to stand up and prove it.

[smeeprocket]

I am not saying they arent suffering reprisals.

I am saying that their actions are not wasted.  The civil rights movement of the 60s was fomenting for at least TWENTY years prior to that. Every time a woman stands up to her employer and demands equal pay, it is a victory for women's rights, even if she gets fired for it.

The more they fire women for it, the more damning it is publicly.  The biggest defence these types have, is to have plausible denial.   The more women there are demanding and not receiving fair compensation for their contributions to society,  the harder it is to have that plausible denial, and the harder it is to silence the movement.

You cant just go whining and expect to get what you want. When there is injustice, there is a reason for that injustice-- SOMEBODY benefits from it, and that somebody will NOT want to let go of the status quo.  You have to MAKE them let it go.

Rosa Parks stood up for herself, and went to court over it.  She became a figurehead for millions to stand up for themselves, by suffering that reprisal with dignity and obstinance.

Whining about how hard it is wont make it any easier.

I don't think you could sound more entitled and arrogant. I don't tihnk it would be possible.

Let me clear up again, what you are saying.

It is women's responsibility to fix the oppression they are suffering at the hands of the patriarchy, but when they do they are just "whining" and expecting things to be handed to them.Which shouldn't happen, they should somehow bring awareness to the issue without talking (telepathic communication?) or expecting any help from the men in power.

[wierd]

Who is the patriarchy?

Is the gay man a member of this patriarchy?
What about the asexual man?

What is it exactly, that makes a male a member of the patriarchy?

[palsch]

There is the fact that the pay inequality (which yes is reversed if you are something like a nurse, flight attendant, or secretary, but I don't feel like being pigeon holed into a sparse few jobs counts as inequality being reversed)...

Just want to mention, this bit is wrong.

Comparing average salary among full time workers in those roles show men with the advantage.

While men make up a far smaller number of registered nurses, their median weekly earnings are $1,236 compared to $1,086. Article on this in the Wall Street Journal. There were too few male flight attendants to show an average, but the women's median weekly earnings ($749) are lower than the average for all ($767) which is only possible if men have a higher median there too. Female secretaries make $677 to men's $772.

I've seen some discussion of this elsewhere (can try to dig up links if people are interested). There is some discussion in the WSJ link I gave above. But men tend to do better even in traditionally female dominated areas.

A similar effect can be seen in female dominated media. Men who write in genres heavily dominated by women tend to be seen as more 'serious' and meritorious than the stuff penned by women, to the extent that it either 'validates' the genre or is held apart entirely as some different and better. Couple of examples; the complete remoulding of Young Adult lit in the image of John Green and the arbitrary split between 'Urban Fantasy' and 'Whatever We Are Calling Urban Fantasy Written By Guy's Whose Writing We Happen To Like This Month' (generally 'magical realism', 'new weird' or just plain 'fantasy', even though the first two are actual movements that most authors assigned to them don't belong to).

I would be interested in seeing a nation by nation breakdown of the pay gap, as my anecdotal experience based on my workplace has more women employed in general, and in more powerful positions. It would be nice to know how out of the ordinary my experiences are. I suspect that they are, but also any data may be skewed by the USA and weight of numbers, as EU nations seem to be far more successful (note, "more", not totally) in terms of social equality.

Not aware of any particularly strongly endorsed or studied, but a quick google result. The UK is bad for the parts of Europe that report, actually with a larger gap than the US in the metric they use to measure (I believe it's median wage for full time workers).

Men, too, have been groomed to think that they dominate a conversation. I'll find the study when I get home, but it's been empirically noted that when women share 50% of the conversation that the men in the group think they are talking too much, and when 50% of a group is women, most people think there are more women than men. What's interesting is that's because in most media, most crowd of people consist of 30-40% of women. That is considered an even spread by most people, without numbers to back it up.

Speaker sex and perceived apportionment of talk

Spoiler: Abstract (click to show/hide)

It  is  a   widely held  belief that   women   talk   more  than  men;  but   experimental   evidence  has suggested  that this  belief is  mistaken.   The  present   study   investigated   whether   listener   bias contributes to this mistake. Dialogues were recorded in mixed-sex and single-sex versions, and male and female listeners judged the proportions of talk contributed to the dialogues by each participant. Female contributions to mixed-sex dialogues were rated as greater than male contributions by both male and female listeners.  Female contributions  were more likely to  be overestimated when they were speaking a dialogue part perceived as probably female than when they were speaking a dialogue part perceived as probably male. It is suggested that the misestimates are due to a complex of factors that may involve both perceptual effects such as misjudgment of rates of speech and sociological effects such as attitudes to social roles and perception
of power relations.

[penguinofhonor]

I am not saying they arent suffering reprisals.

I am saying that their actions are not wasted.  The civil rights movement of the 60s was fomenting for at least TWENTY years prior to that. Every time a woman stands up to her employer and demands equal pay, it is a victory for women's rights, even if she gets fired for it.

The more they fire women for it, the more damning it is publicly.  The biggest defence these types have, is to have plausible denial.   The more women there are demanding and not receiving fair compensation for their contributions to society,  the harder it is to have that plausible denial, and the harder it is to silence the movement.

You cant just go whining and expect to get what you want. When there is injustice, there is a reason for that injustice-- SOMEBODY benefits from it, and that somebody will NOT want to let go of the status quo.  You have to MAKE them let it go.

Rosa Parks stood up for herself, and went to court over it.  She became a figurehead for millions to stand up for themselves, by suffering that reprisal with dignity and obstinance.

Whining about how hard it is wont make it any easier.

This is like judging people for not being martyrs. Yeah, it's admirable to stand by your principles and take whatever comes, but not everyone can. Some women need their jobs to support their kids and can't sacrifice that for vague societal progress that might not pay off for years.

[smeeprocket]

Who is the patriarchy?

Is the gay man a member of this patriarchy?
What about the asexual man?

What is it exactly, that makes a male a member of the patriarchy?

I actually prefer the term kyriarchy, but we were speaking of men and women specifically. We are not speaking about sexuality. You are trying to deflect.

Please, mansplain to us womenfolk how we should act exactly like men, not get hired nor speak out about not getting hired for it, then when we DO get hired, get fired for not being feminine enough (since we are not allowed to be successful and feminine) or be feminine and get paid less (and rightly so, what with being all feminine.) Then we repeat this cycle over and over (though it all sounds very familiar by now, almost as if this has been done quite a bit already) without any of the pesky speaking out about it, or being "loud" and "disruptive" until the problem just fixes itself.

Because my tiny feminine brain can't wrap around that solution. I can not see how it would result in any sort of success.

[wierd]

If you dont make the effort, you dont get the results.

If you dont study for your tests, you dont make the grades, you dont get the scholarship. I am sure there are plenty of people who would prefer to party instead of study. Do they deserve easy As?

Is the bias against women bullshit? Yes.  Is the bias real? Yes.  Will the bias go away on its own? FUCK NO. 

If you want it to change, you have to make it change.

[wierd]

Who is the patriarchy?

Is the gay man a member of this patriarchy?
What about the asexual man?

What is it exactly, that makes a male a member of the patriarchy?

I actually prefer the term kyriarchy, but we were speaking of men and women specifically. We are not speaking about sexuality. You are trying to deflect.

Please, mansplain to us womenfolk how we should act exactly like men, not get hired nor speak out about not getting hired for it, then when we DO get hired, get fired for not being feminine enough (since we are not allowed to be successful and feminine) or be feminine and get paid less (and rightly so, what with being all feminine.) Then we repeat this cycle over and over (though it all sounds very familiar by now, almost as if this has been done quite a bit already) without any of the pesky speaking out about it, or being "loud" and "disruptive" until the problem just fixes itself.

Because my tiny feminine brain can't wrap around that solution. I can not see how it would result in any sort of success.

You have not answered my question, then doubled down on gender centrism.

I will ask you again, WHO IS THIS PATRIARCHY?   Define it.

[smeeprocket]

Who is the patriarchy?

Is the gay man a member of this patriarchy?
What about the asexual man?

What is it exactly, that makes a male a member of the patriarchy?

I actually prefer the term kyriarchy, but we were speaking of men and women specifically. We are not speaking about sexuality. You are trying to deflect.

Please, mansplain to us womenfolk how we should act exactly like men, not get hired nor speak out about not getting hired for it, then when we DO get hired, get fired for not being feminine enough (since we are not allowed to be successful and feminine) or be feminine and get paid less (and rightly so, what with being all feminine.) Then we repeat this cycle over and over (though it all sounds very familiar by now, almost as if this has been done quite a bit already) without any of the pesky speaking out about it, or being "loud" and "disruptive" until the problem just fixes itself.

Because my tiny feminine brain can't wrap around that solution. I can not see how it would result in any sort of success.

You have not answered my question, then doubled down on gender centrism.

I will ask you again, WHO IS THIS PATRIARCHY?   Define it.

we are all the patriarchy, some of us just choose to fight against it.

It's irrelevant though, it matters who the patriarchy benefits. Which is rich white straight cis-gendered males. The more of those you qualify for, the more benefits you reap.

You probably missed this memo, but there are quite a few of us already actively fighting the good fight. I don't know what kind of power you think we have over the patriarchy, but men also have to take responsibility for their biases and behavior. The oppressed don't generally just unoppress themselves. Otherwise, we would already be equal. We are already pulling our weight, and frankly, a lot of yours as well.

Slaves didn't just snap their finger and become free, white people had to stop enslaving them. You are clearly confused as to who holds the power here.

Furthermore, the public at large just doesn't care about the plight of women. This negative factor that is supposed to put down the oppressors doesn't exist. The negativity is directed towards feminism.

You have a very distorted concept of reality.

[wierd]

I am an asexual male.

According to you, I only reap "some" of the benefits of the patriarchy.  However, your definition, by nature of its structure, asserts that heterosexual non-white females hold the least power.  Again-- Rosa Parks.

The belief that there is such a boogeyman, itself lends power to the existence of that boogeyman.  There is no reason for this boogeyman to exist. Refusal of the boogeyman, and demonstrating his falseness is the solution.  Blaming the boogeyman does not do this. It only reinforces the existence of the (Genuinely fake) boogeyman.

The only way that cultural norms-- like-- "Women make better caregivers for children than do men",  get eradicated is for those norms to be rubbed so full-faced in the shit that they are, that believing those things is an obvious act of stupidity.

The only way we get there as a society, is to stand resolute and show, again and again, that such societal norms are bullshit.

We only get there by fighting the good fight.  Not from whining about it.

[palsch]

Who is the patriarchy?

Is the gay man a member of this patriarchy?
What about the asexual man?

What is it exactly, that makes a male a member of the patriarchy?

I think this is a problem with your expectations of what the patriarchy is in such a context.

It is not some cabal or subset of the population. It is a power structure that is overarching and (broadly) incorporates everyone into it unless they actively work in opposition to it.

The easiest way for me to think about patriarchy is as a set of assumptions, legal/social structures and (less directly) behaviours which favour men (or the culturally defined masculine) over women (or the culturally defined feminine). People's actions are shaped by these assumptions and structures, and those behaviours are an expression of patriarchy. It's something that is broader than any subset of people but which might shape the actions of any individual at any given time. So a gay man might be oppressed in some cases (eg, oppressed for not acting in an accepted masculine manner) but still act in a patriarchal manner in other cases (eg, act in a sexist manner in line with patriarchal assumptions about women).

In pure (original? classic?) patriarchy theory this is purely about sex and gender expression. The assumptions privilege masculine over feminine (nearly uniformly) and the structures privilege men over women (again, near uniformly). Expanding this to kyriarchy you incorporate other dimensions of bias, such as racial or sexuality. Even gender really (patriarchy theory suffers when addressing transgender issues). Many people incorporate the wider ideas of kyriarchy into the label patriarchy. Hey, if you have the banner already...

By the way, there are several pages of results if you google patriarchy 101 if you want other perspectives.