There is no way in the fucking world that everyone will agree with you. You have to settle with "good enough". The unfortunate thing is that everyone's idea of "good enough" is different.
The word "feminist" means about as much to me as the word "Christian". It's massive umbrella term that doesn't really mean shit. Feminists range from "If we both work at Maccas, we both deserve minimum wage, isn't that fair?" to "YOU ASSHOLE DO YOU THINK I DON'T EARN MONEY? DO YOU SEEK TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR CHARITY? I AM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING FOR MYSELF."
This is just like how Christians range from "I kind of believe in God and I want to go to Heaven" to "I go to Church every Sunday and I pray 3 hours per day on other days."
I swear I posted before about a biological reason why there are less female CEO's atm, but I can't find it so I may put up a new one. It may not explain the still massive disparity, but I think it does make sense. It will come after this.
I see a card pulled out very often to make a point; I do believe that this is not a valid reason for thinking "our society is fucked, men are still more powerful":
Please don't continue if you will be offended by discussions of rape.
Rape
Rape is quite gender specific. It's not a grounds to hate on all men, for the fact that rape exists.I'm far from saying what the sheik guy said - about how if girls dress in a certain way, they deserve to get raped. No, that's ridiculous. Nobody deserves that shit.
What I am saying is that a crime is a crime and should be seen as such. Rape is assault/murder with an extra "fuck you" in it. The people committing these crimes are depraved and I have no idea why these criminals are being seen as representatives of the rest of the male population. I believe it should not be seen as a reason that men and women are not treated equally. Unless you want to change the fact that women live with a vagina and men live with a penis, it's not fair to make that claim.
As Max so cleverly analogy'd - 'It's like rich people going "WHY ARE ROBBERS STEALING FROM ME?"'
Yes, stealing is wrong. And stealing only happens to rich people because it's kind of futile the other way around.
Just like a woman raping a man. Like, if the guy doesn't get a boner then the rape has instant failed. If you knock the guy out he can't get a boner so it's even more fail. And uhh... say everything goes to plan. Are you going to use a condom... or are you going to get pregnant from your own crime... what?
Rape just isn't a crime that really works the other way around. It's probably easier just to stab them.
Another reason is that sex is a bigger thing for girls than it is for guys. I mean this as in it has more significance on a girl's life than for a guy. Biologically speaking (because socially speaking could get awkward), I'm saying that a guy, without the bounds of social restrictions (ie reverting back to our pre-civilised days), can theoretically go around and mate with every woman in a certain herd/tribe/community/whatever you wanna call primal humans. All he'll feel is a little tired maybe, or a little sore down there. But overall our primal dude is feeling pretty good about himself.
A female has a risk of 9 months of all that crap associated with pregnancy, including morning sickness, joint pains, and like, a motherfucking baby growing in your uterus. So she's not going to run around and mate like no tomorrow.
Culturally a lot of significance is also placed on a girl's virginity. Unless a guy has an STI there is absolutely no way you can tell if he's a virgin or not. This is a more unnatural restraint placed on girls, hence the more massive shame related to sexual acts.
And not to mention that the words "slut" and "whore" are prevalent and would describe overly eager sexual behaviour. So I guess oppression of women does still exist in this respect.
But something interesting: Who are the ones using these words more - is it girls gossiping about each other, or guys?
I actually have no idea and am not insinuating that girls use it more than guys, but it would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it? Food for thought.
In conclusion, rape is wrong and it's fucking retarded. But so is murder, assault and Scientology. The conclusion is not "Men are more dominant in society because rape still exists", but merely "It's much easier for a man to rape a woman than vice versa, but either way it's a crime and they deserve jailtime, just like any other big crime criminal."
24 comments:
hi jeff. as you may have expected, i'm overwhelmingly offended by this post. i will be writing a post shortly to explain how and why. however, i do ask that you place a trigger warning at the beginning of your post, if nothing else. if you're not familiar with the term "trigger warning", it's just when a post deals with issues such as rape/abuse/suicide etc in a way that may remind someone who has experienced such a thing of that experience ("triggering" them), and is put there in order to prevent them from reading onward. it can be as simple as, at the top of your post, placing TRIGGER WARNING: discussion of rape. your post title itself could be considered a trigger, and it would be considerate of you to change it, though i understand that it's your blog.
please and thank you.
sorry if i misunderstood the points you were making; i don't feel like i have a good grasp of the ideas you were trying to convey.
"And not to mention that the words "slut" and "whore" are prevalent and would describe overly eager sexual behaviour. So I guess oppression of women does still exist in this respect.
But something interesting: Who are the ones using these words more - is it girls gossiping about each other, or guys?"
oppression of women by women doesn't show that men are not more dominant in society - when you look at patriarchal dominance from a more holistic point of view, the oppression of women by women is a cycle that helps solidify the dominance of men in society. like a conspiracy that was authored by no one in particular.
it's like how men in n&s didn't concern themselves with marriage etc. as much as women but men were still more dominant in society.
"Just like a woman raping a man. Like, if the guy doesn't get a boner then the rape has instant failed. If you knock the guy out he can't get a boner so it's even more fail. And uhh... say everything goes to plan. Are you going to use a condom... or are you going to get pregnant from your own crime... what?
Rape just isn't a crime that really works the other way around. It's probably easier just to stab them."
rape is a crime that works the other way around. it is not about sexual arousal; it's about power - the victim is forced to feel vulnerable whether they are female or male. in all humans, the genitals can be mechanically stimulated - you can get a boner even if you're knocked out by the autonomous nervous system via mechanical stimulation.
getting pregnant from the crime would make the male victim feel even more powerless: the rapist would be able to claim child fee thingies since chances are that no one would believe that the male victim was raped.
additionally, males don't even have to be raped to be victimised by cultural expectations about rape. a female can simply claim to have been sexually harassed or raped by a man and that man could, as a result, be ostracised and criminalised.
"In conclusion, rape is wrong and it's fucking retarded. But so is murder, assault and Scientology. The conclusion is not "Men are more dominant in society because rape still exists", but merely "It's much easier for a man to rape a woman than vice versa, but either way it's a crime and they deserve jailtime, just like any other big crime criminal.""
i don't think the original conclusion should be 'men are more dominant in society because rape still exists', but rather 'men are dominant in society, and this can be seen in social practices that help men rape women and the resulting dominance of rape by men rather than women'. these practices include shaming women (while also ironically encouraging 'slutty' behaviour in less noticeable ways) which lumps the blame of rape on women rather than the rapist.
Hey Claudia
Your first point is really good and I didn't see it from that way. So it's a status quo mindset that needs to be lifted fom both genders in order for equal rights to actually come into fruition
And your second point, I realise I made a minisnformed claim. Reflection on things like morning wood would've made that obvious.
I didn't google any cases of women raping men then claiming child benefits... isn't that risky as hell?
And I don't understand why you are saying males don't have to be raped to be victimised. Society's fear of criminals automatically ostracises them from said society.
For your last point, I am aware there is often self-blame within a rape victim. Society and especially personal stigmas are not something that can be fought per se, rather raising awareness and leaving individuals to mull it over would work better.
And something interesting I found (http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm), according to this site (last point), in the US, male-male rape outnumbers male-female rape, which outnumbers female-male or female-female rape (I don't know which one is in higher numbers out of those last two)
This suggests than men just like raping stuff in general. Whether that be because of the way our brains are wired, the relative ease of using a penis to rape as opposed to whatever women use to rape people, we don't know.
But basically, and I agree, men still have a more dominant role in society. And that can't be rectified by only telling men to lay off - equal amounts of effort should be invested in boosting self-confidence and awareness of potential in women.
while i'll let claudia refute whatever other points you've made, that statistic that "male-male rape in prisons outnumbers male-female rape anywhere" is an oft-repeated statistic on the blogosphere that is generally acknowledged as pretty made up (or at least based off faulty statistics). for proof:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/institutional/prison-rape/welcome.htm
the biggest percentage of prison inmates who are raped is quoted as 13%-- which is already less than the percentage of women who are raped outside of prison. and that's saying that the number of males in prison is equal to the number of women not in prison, as well as assuming that all inmates who are raped are male.
that said, i do not mean to marginalise male rape at all; i'm just making sure that no one here is misinformed.
@amanda
13% is a freaking huge number. There is no way in the world that more than 13% of women in the world are raped.
Assuming that men are as afraid to report rape as women.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Statistics
For argument's sake I'll go off the highest rate - some country called Lethoso. That is 91.6 cases per 100,000. That's 0.000916% in the highest reported country in the UN. The number quoted is just under 1900 cases.
If 13% of male inmates are getting assaulted, to match the number of rape cases in Lethoso would mean a measly 14,600 inmates. According to this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States , there over 2 million incarcerated adults in the United States alone. Assuming half are female, that's still a whopping 80 times greater than 14600, the number needed to match Lethoso's rape rate.
Therefore I do not believe that
a) This statistic is unbelievably untrue
b) That the rape rate outside of prison is over 13% (!!!)
second point: (child benefits)
honestly i'm not sure about australia, but i've heard that the child benefits laws in USA are heavily biased towards women. some relevant links:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1183449.ece
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/240960/dead_sperm_donor_ordered_to_pay_child.html?cat=7
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-490699.html
(males victimised by females claiming they have been raped)
rape is a crime where the rapist makes the victim feel vulnerable and powerless. a female can also make a male feel vulnerable and powerless by claiming she was raped by that male since that male would be ostracised etc.. although i think this would have a weaker effect on the victim, it is also much easier for the female to get away with and requires less effort. i think was trying to use this to point out that it can be easier for a female to rape a male but now i think about it, it doesn't really make sense. however it does show that there is more than one side to any aspect of society: the cultural associations of rape can benefit manipulative women as well as male rapists, however i firmly believe that culture benefits male rapists much much more than women.
"This suggests than men just like raping stuff in general."
This statement suggests that men don't have the power to control their sexual desires (so they can be expected to rape other people more than women do). this also manifests in the 'male gaze' (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/).
it's like saying that 'stores should lock down all their goods because people will steal them - i mean, how do you expect these people to control themselves?' the expectation that people will not steal is ingrained into our culture.
the expectation that males cannot control their sexual desires more than females results in the prevalence of male rapists by allowing rapists to justify their own behaviour while also providing tools which protect the rapist - such as the difficulties in reporting a rape.
as a result i believe reducing rape involves a cultural change which can be effected by methods such as raising awareness.
relevant links:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/01/take-my-cunt-please.html
13% is a huge UNDERESTIMATION of how many women are raped, or at the very least, sexually assaulted. the current understanding is that one in FOUR women are.
i'm sorry, but if you feel you are qualified to speak on rape when you clearly have no idea of its prevalence, then i withdraw myself from this discussion. please, i implore you to read the blogs claudia has linked. i'm aware of most of them, and they are really excellent if you do intend on learning more rape.
i have written up my own response to this post, and it's now on my blog.
btw, claudia, i must express my admiration of you in a public forum. it's heartening to see that you have such a commitment to the issue :) and also, it's nice to have someone else in the That Feminist camp!
*do intend on learning more ABOUT rape
i also fear we are getting away from the point. if your initial point was that rape cannot be used as an indication of a sexist society, then that's what i addressed in my post.
"if you're seeking to make EVERY MAN think that women are equal, you're just plain deluded"
first of all, I would like to say that I am quite offended at being called deluded and I think it’s things like this that make you come across as quite aggressive and anti-women. I also think this is quite an ignorant statement.
So let’s look at some statistics now.
(from http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-discrimination-against-women)
women today are paid only 72 cents for every dollar a man earns.
So if we take your attitude and apply it here, you’re basically saying “Well, women are being paid less than 75% of what a man is for the same job. Good enough, all you feminists, stop complaining.”
No, I’m sorry, I will not accept being paid $75k a year if you’re being paid $100k for the same job simply because you have a penis.
Some more statistics from http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html
Women make up 28.3% of the federal parliament members and senators. Only 9% of private board directors are women. And sure you can try to blame away these statistics by saying that women are either less inclined to take these positions, or that in those cases the men were simply more skilled – and no, I’m not saying women should get priority to these positions over men, it should be all skill-based.
What I am saying is that these figures are ridiculously low, and considering more women than men go into tertiary education, it is a sign that Australia is producing highly intelligent and capable women. If women are completing higher degrees of education and yet are holding only a tiny amount of the top jobs, it is a sign that there exists a glass ceiling for women.
So Jeff, I completely agree: we can’t change the opinions of everyone. No matter how hard we work, there will still be groups of people in society who don’t support equal women’s rights, and at some point, we will have to say “good enough”. But we are nowhere near a level of equality at which it would be acceptable to call conditions “good”. When these groups of people are still large enough to affect a woman’s workforce opportunities to the extent they clearly are today, it is not reasonable to say “Oh well, we tried” and give up.
And these are all first-world problems we’re discussing, let’s not forget in developing countries there are still major problems with the trafficking of women and lower education opportunities. The developed nations have more of an influence over some other developing countries, and if we dust our hands of women’s rights, will there ever be any major progress made in other countries in which women are still very restricted?
As you said, feminism is an umbrella term. However whenever you talk about it, you always seem to lean towards the more extremist side, and this is understandable, but I think because of this you always seem to be attacking feminists despite your many claims you support gender equality. This may not be your intention, but it is definitely how you come across.
As for the rape side of things, I agree with everything Claudia previously said XD
I'm pretty much in accordance with your main points except for the third paragraph...
Feminists range from "If we both work at Maccas, we both deserve minimum wage, isn't that fair?" to "YOU ASSHOLE DO YOU THINK I DON'T EARN MONEY? DO YOU SEEK TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR CHARITY? I AM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING FOR MYSELF."
I'm assuming you mean the first example is a normal, rational view on feminism and the second is a feminist who is too easily offended? I understand if your point was that feminism is an umbrella term and it encompasses people from both ends of the scale, but the second example sounds more like an irrational, easily aggravated person rather than someone who should be a representation of feminism.
I also disagree with your analogy with Christians... are you saying a person "praying 3 hours a day" is at the extremist end of the scale and bordering on irrational in their cause (because you have drawn the similarity to the second feminist example)? Or if you weren't intending to portray "praying 3 hours a day" as extreme, but just an example of a different level of dedication (i.e. umbrella term argument), the second feminism example then seems very outlandish in comparison and an unnecessary representation of a feminist.
If that is your view of some feminists, then I guess it's all the more support for Emily's point on her blog that feminism is negatively equated to female dominance and aggression rather than gender equality; which is what it should be.
Also this: As Max so cleverly analogy'd - 'It's like rich people going "WHY ARE ROBBERS STEALING FROM ME?"'
I think the analogy between raping a man and stealing from the poor is a good point, but in other respects I don't agree with the analogy. Being rich doesn't provide an explanation for being stolen from. "Why are robbers stealing from me?" is a completely valid question, just as "Why was I raped?" is as well.
I completely agree with your point about how rapists aren't a representation of the male population (or any general part of society in that matter), nor are they a manifestation of gender inequality. Misogyny is a mental problem on a personal scale, not a reflection of the dominance of males. These are the people who are anti-something for whatever reason (your first paragraph) and in no way are their delusions a reflection of society in general.
I do agree we should steer from statistics. The reason being
a) Rape is hard to define. As such, when quoting statistics we may actually have to read the study to see what the parameters are, a massive cbf, so we can't make valid claims, even if we have links.
b) Reading this post http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/ and its comments shows the disparity depending on whether quoters want the statistics to skew for shock value or relative insignificance.
c) The rate of reporting rape is inconsistent due to the social constraints you have mentioned previously
d) The internet, and especially blogs, are not the most reliable, and are bound to skew things to match their personal views.
This comment "This suggests than men just like raping stuff in general." was made on the premise that male-male rape has a higher rate than male-female rape based on the statistics I found in the relevant post. Now that the truth of that statistic is unclear, I withhold that argument until we can conclusively find the disparity from an unbiased source.
I'm currently reading all the posts except for the child benefits ones so any posters after Claudia's please wait up =D
@claudia
The one on rape culture and the one called Shakesville. It did open my eyes to the views of society.
The argument that women's bodies are not on the public domain as soon as they get drunk (unlike property theft) did a *mirror shatters* epiphany that that indeed does seem to be society's view in general. It hasn't been brought to my conscious thought previously and I thank you for showing me this
@amanda I'll read your post when I'm done with these comments
@Emily
My argument in context was that there will always be a population of maniacs who enjoy hating things.
Also, your source did not define that it was 72c to the dollar FOR THE SAME JOB, and I think it's unfair to assume that. My understanding is that it's [average women's income in America]/[average men's income in America] = 72/100.
While I'll accept the given figure that 11c is reported to be due to discrimination, the remaining 17c may be due to the fact that the biggest earners are all CEOs or chairmen of massive multinational companies. In the time that equal pay has been established, we've had 2 cycles, maybe 3, or top dogs for companies. It IS true that men are more likely to pass to other men. But I wouldn't say that's discrimination as much as it is that men are just more likely to be close friends with other men. And for jobs like CEO, a great number are passed from friend to friend (because they don't want some random noob of questionable trustworthiness to take over their pride and joy).
Regarding politicians, perhaps the high number of highly educated women is working backwards against itself in terms of politicians. I mean how many people from Ruse, the home of the most intelligent young men and women in NSW, if not Australia, want to become a politician?
Becoming a politician is more about charisma, a crazy drive, leadership and public speaking skills, more than actual intelligence.
And I've stated before I don't believe in forcing our own morals onto other countries. Every time I think about the Vietnam War. Did America really do the right thing? It's difficult without violence, and that's what we're fighting against.
And if women are scared out of their wits because us first-world moralists are telling them it's okay to, are we really helping them? Although I agree that these women deserve, in the long term, to have the same freedom of expression as everyone else, the short term implications of actually enforcing that is difficult in any community steeped in its own traditions.
Hence the morals of doing what is "right for the women" is difficult to define in terms of whether it's right in the eyes of first world countries, or whether it's right in the women's eyes, or whether it's right in the risk of causing psychological damage in encouraging women to do things they've feared for their lifetime.
Feminism is an umbrella term, yes. But throughout I am not targeting feminists in general.
I do agree that the "deluded" comment will come off harsh if you do firmly believe that every person in the world can be changed to view females in the same way. I just want to confirm that you DO believe that EVERY PERSON, men and women alike, will view women as equal to men on all levels? If that is truly the case, then I apologise and will edit the post.
But in other cases I am not addressing feminists in general, but just the rape argument.
@Shelley
My examples for the umbrella term were not carefully pondered for extremity. I just thought of the most basic feminist argument and the most extreme feminist argument (and Lemesurier has actually told us a story of a person who is feminist to that extent). My parallel to Christianity should not be taken for a unit to unit parallel. I didn't bother to think of something crazier that Christians do, and I only included the example to illustrate why I believe it's an ambiguous umbrella term.
To contrast I haven't actually heard any stories of someone praying for 3 hours a day, though I can assume that nuns and priests and the such must.
I was aware that I was more likely to offend feminists than Christians, so in that regard at least I did choose an example, while I can't claim is representative, is at least very much realistic.
I do see what you are getting at with the analogy - the self doubt and self-blame
The answer to "Why are robbers stealing from me?" is not "Because I have money", but "Because the robbers have poor morals."
The answer to "Why was I raped?" is not "Because I have a vagina/dressed inappropriately/was drunk" but "Because the rapists have poor morals."
Now clearly rich people, after being robbed from, do not blame themselves for being robbed, but instead know that all the wrongs lie in the robber.
The challenge now is for society to recognise, and to empower women with the knowledge that after being raped, the blame is never on the woman, but always on the rapist.
@jeff
honestly i expected you to disagree with me so i was thinking about how to counter your next expected argument.
i was going to say something about how our perspective is affected by our culture. (you can skip this if you like :L)
this is clearly seen when we read books written in a different time and place. i'll use n&s as an example since i know a lot of people have read that. well we obviously see that women are highly disadvantaged in victorian society and that is influenced by our culture. if we were victorians, we would think that modern society is full of promiscuity and sexuality, and civilisation has on the whole degraded. this would be a really difficult perspective to remove from the victorian since they have been steeped in their apparently relatively prudish culture since childhood - and the same occurs with most of us.
HOWEVER. we apparently believe in gender equality. once you apply the concept of gender equality to issues such as pay (assuming that statistics are accurate), you get to see reality without the tinting of our culture - females deserve the same pay as males for the same job, right? whether a person has a penis or a vagina or neither or both shouldnt matter! lets try this again with rape statistics instead. there are more male rapists than female rapists. although you could assert that biological factors come into play, by the analysis of various social practices you'll see that culture definitely plays a very significant part. (see http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/ - i posted this up there as well) it's still entirely possible that biological factors are acting as well but the only one that i can think of is the association between testosterone and violence which affects rape since culture associates violence with sex.
how about maternity/paternity leave? (maternity leave is much higher than paternity leave, if paternity leave even exists.) well, ideally, the parents would have equal roles in bringing up a child by gender equality so maternity and paternity leave should be equal. although this feels like a wishy-washy answer, i think that since the baby is essentially living off the mother parasitically during pregnancy, the mother's role is taking care of herself while the father's (or mother's) role is taking care of the pregnant mother.
== end planned counter argument
i was also going to say this, but this is going to sound biased and shit after you've started agreeing with me xD:
thanks for discussing feminism and rape! the only way to truly spread awareness is by discussion and by convincing people thoroughly that rape culture exists etc. etc. :D
My aim is to voice my own opinion, biased and misinformed as they may be. I won't disagree for the sake of disagreeing - I'll disagree if I actually don't agree.
I personally have learnt quite a bit from this discussion.
While I think the points I actually discussed within my post are not incorrect in themselves, there was just another bigger point that I didn't see (and hence didn't address) until I read that rape culture article (Y)
@Claudia
"the oppression of women by women is a cycle that helps solidify the dominance of men in society."
--So the question is; why do women do it?
"it's like how men in n&s didn't concern themselves with marriage etc. as much as women but men were still more dominant in society."
--That was due to the social context of the time though; where women were viewed as an inferior class. Presently, most people are aware that women should be
afforded equal rights and opportunities compared to men. Anyone else who argues against that are mostly bigots, with their opinion a result of the society
they grew up in and the education they received. For example, Sheik al-Hilali.
(on rape) "it's about power - the victim is forced to feel vulnerable whether they are female or male."
-- +1 this point. Rape isn't necessarily physical, but it's also psychological. For a rapist it's about asserting their perceived power and dominance over a
"lesser" person.
"a female can simply claim to have been sexually harassed or raped by a man and that man could, as a result, be ostracised and criminalised."
--Dominique Strauss-Kahn is an example. A victim of society where he hasn't done anything "wrong" legally. Yes, the maid blew him. But no, he did not force
her to blow him (rape, per se). BUT because of contemporary society, most people believed the accusations of the maid that he had raped her (when it has been
proved he hasn't). Now if this was in the Victorian Context that you had referred to, it would've simply been laughed off.
'men are dominant in society, and this can be seen in social practices that help men rape women and the resulting dominance of rape by men rather than women'
--There aren't any social practices that help men rape women (in regards to Australian society anyway, can't speak for a third world country). Rape is bad.
You go to jail for rape. A man will rape a women because he feels he is lacking something and needs to exert dominance over someone and because of his primal
urges, not because society accepts this practice (except for the few bigots).
So yeah, society plays a big part in determining who is "at fault" in a rape, but it is foolhardy to say that first world countries condone rape I think.
@Emily
"women today are paid only 72 cents for every dollar a man earns."
--Which is a massive improvement over zilch.
"Women make up 28.3% of the federal parliament members and senators. Only 9% of private board directors are women."
--It's parliament... If people are elected on merit we wouldn't be screwed as a state/country. So you can assume that your statistics are skewed, since every
Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane can get into parliament one way or another if they really wanted to. Then you have the "old boys club" where people get into jobs due to their networks and social spheres. Whilst an "old boys club" may seem to hinder women, no one has said to a woman "you're not allowed to network and make business contacts so that it's easier for you to get a job in the future".
"If women are completing higher degrees of education and yet are holding only a tiny amount of the top jobs, it is a sign that there exists a glass ceiling for women."
--"In 2006, women accounted for 54.8 per cent of all tertiary education students and 47.5 per cent of all students enrolled in vocational education and training courses." (Taken from: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html)
Yes, women are completing higher degrees of education, but this is only a recent trend. No company in their right mind would give a newbie whose been out of university for a few years the role of CEO, unless they are really, really, amazing and have proven their competence, regardless of gender. The "glass ceiling" that exists for women is slowly being removed (or raised if you like) as time goes on - take for example, Julia Gillard, Quentin Bryce, Marie Bashir and Gail Kelly. As society starts to recognise that women are just as capable as men, then they'll slowly accept women into higher places within the workforce; but you can't exactly expect this to happen overnight just with some sort of degree. In the end when it comes to workplace employment, it should depend on the individual's qualifications, skills and experience; with other things such as attitude in mind. As you can see, women are slowly entering the "top jobs" in society as their abilities are recognised; but at a slow place (slower than some feminists would like, you could say). An analogy would be the time lag associated with monetary policy being set by the Reserve Bank. :L
"will there ever be any major progress made in other countries in which women are still very restricted?"
--Who are we to tell other countries what to do though; especially deeply religious ones such as Muslim states which believe in the suppression of women?
What's to say that we shouldn't follow their ideals of disadvantaging women? (I'm not saying I agree with their ideals, but rather trying to point out the flaw in your argument.) You can link this back to Modern History and the "White Man's Burden" where the western world has to solve the crisis of less civilised countries.
@Jeff
"But basically, and I agree, men still have a more dominant role in society. And that can't be rectified by only telling men to lay off - equal amounts of effort should be invested in boosting self-confidence and awareness of potential in women."
--Men have a dominant role in society at present, but it won't last forever as women are afford the same access to education and qualifications as men. A business is about turning a profit. If a man and a woman are both equally qualified, the business would still most likely hire the man. Why? Because (going back to the topic primitivity) the man won't need to take maternity leave and such. There are costs associated with replacing an employee such as retraining new ones and then the period of time that they take to get adjusted. If you can hire a man, and keep him for a longer timeframe than a woman (who'll go on maternity leave at some point) and leave your business in a limbo, why wouldn't you? I realise this is gender discrimination, but it all comes down to efficiency and profit for a business. Personal feelings and morals/ethics don't come into the equation a lot. It also accounts for why in cases where a man and a woman are equally qualified, the firm will hire the man over the woman. It also accounts for the gap in salaries. Once again, this comes back to primitivity where women are held back by their genetic make up where nature expects them to rear children. For a lot of women, the big question is "Career or family?" and Mr. Flood's wife is an example of this. You can have one at the cost of the other unless you find the perfect balance.
Telling men to "lay off" though is wrong, because then it's just handing things to others on a platter at another person's cost instead of affording people equal opportunities.
@Shelley
"If that is your view of some feminists, then I guess it's all the more support for Emily's point on her blog that feminism is negatively equated to female dominance and aggression rather than gender equality; which is what it should be."
--That's because there are always two sides to every story, and two extremes to every point. News is sensationalised. No one wants to hear about the feminist whose pursuing extra studies, or working overtime in order to gain more experience and qualifications so that they can attempt to gain equality with men.
Instead, when it comes to feminism, what you see are the extreme nutjobs who come out of the woodwork, which the majority of society cannot identify with based on facts and knowledge. It's like the negative stigma that the news attaches to Islam/Muslims and immigrants; it's there because the news has to sell itself and profit, not because it wishes to present an objective view to educate society. The more sensational the headline/broadcast, the more people will tune in and listen. Yes, feminism is about raising the standards of women in society and gaining gender equality, but the portrayal of dominance that we are shown is often female dominance because it will gain an audience (think of it as feeding the troll).
Long story short: equality will take time to achieve, you can't expect it to just happen overnight.
Interesting links I came across - Robber kidnapped, raped for 3 days (http://www.inquisitr.com/22016/russian-hairdresser-kidnaps-robber-rapes-him-for-three-
days-p2s/) who said it doesn't happen?
Gail Kelly rejecting gender quotas (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8297691) she's a feminist whose taking the right approach. She realises that you can't force sudden changes, and that the changes you want to make have to be within reason and achievable.
MFW first world problems at 2:48am in the morning... ~_~" /dons flamesuit in case I've said something out of line.
@andrew
"--There aren't any social practices that help men rape women (in regards to Australian society anyway, can't speak for a third world country). Rape is bad."
when i say social practices, i don't mean legal practices. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/faq-ive-got-nothing-against-equal-rights-for-women-but-weve-got-that-so-isnt-feminism-nowadays-just-going-too-far/
"--So the question is; why do women do it?"
because society and culture rewards them for doing so. why does mrs thornton tell margaret off for being outside with her brother? because mrs thornton was able to insult margaret while being condoned by society. similar thing here - the gossiping woman would feel that they were more powerful/better/etc. than the woman they were gossiping about.
"--That was due to the social context of the time though; where women were viewed as an inferior class. Presently, most people are aware that women should be afforded equal rights and opportunities compared to men."
since most extinct civilisations had a stronger gender inequality compared to ours, it's difficult for us to see that women are still treated as an inferior class - we have nothing to compare it to. so even though people are aware that women should be afforded equal rights, there are still many facets of life where women are treated as an inferior class.
"You go to jail for rape. A man will rape a women because he feels he is lacking something and needs to exert dominance over someone and because of his primal urges, not because society accepts this practice (except for the few bigots)."
there are no primal urges involved. sex is not a drug that makes you so horny that you feel the need to rape a person.
so you say you believe in gender equality. if that is the case, then i presume you will agree that males and females should have equal responsibility and have equal ability to control their urge for sex. then why is there such a wide gap between the number of male and female rapists? it's in our culture and it's seen in the fact that you added 'primal urges' to your comment: males are portrayed as perverts who are constantly hungry for sex while females who display similar behaviour are considered weird. this culture basically says that it's alright for males to be 'so horny' that they will rape females since 'they can't control themselves' and 'it's in their nature' etc.. this culture JUSTIFIES certain types of rape, as if it were a lesser crime just because the victim is a different person.
from the rape culture article i linked earlier: 'The “normal” rapist (whose crime is most likely to be dismissed with a “boys will be boys” sort of jocular apologia) is the man who forces himself on attractive women, women his age in fine health and form, whose crime is disturbingly understandable to his male defenders...the rape of “pretty girls,” [is] so easily cast in a fight-fuck fantasy of squealing and squirming and eventual relenting to the “flattery” of being raped.'
it's like suggesting that 'since men are more violent, it's alright if they murder people! they can't help it!'
"So yeah, society plays a big part in determining who is "at fault" in a rape, but it is foolhardy to say that first world countries condone rape I think."
it's definitely foolhardy to say that first world countries condone rape if you compare it to the victorian context, but it's foolhardy to say that first world countries do not condone rape if compare it to an ideal world where gender equality actually exists.
@andrew
i'm going to presume that you believe that gender equality is a good thing.
"--Which is a massive improvement over zilch."
there is a MAJOR discrepancy between the amount a woman gets paid compared to the amount a man gets paid, which shows that there's a SYSTEMATIC reason for the discrepancy, i.e. WOMEN ARE NOT GETTING THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES. if the difference was 98c to a dollar, then i think it would be safe to say that it was due to chance.
"Then you have the "old boys club" where people get into jobs due to their networks and social spheres. Whilst an "old boys club" may seem to hinder women, no one has said to a woman "you're not allowed to network and make business contacts so that it's easier for you to get a job in the future". "
that's true but it also means that WOMEN ARE NOT GETTING THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES/SERVICES/ETC. because they are not allowed in old boys clubs SOLELY DUE TO THEIR GENDER.
@claudia
>"the gossiping woman would feel that they were more powerful/better/etc. than the woman they were gossiping about."
Hence my statement that the problem lies within women as much as men.
A lot has been done in telling men to lay off - less has been done to tell women to lay off each other.
If I may use a slightly contrived analogy (using the ATAR bahaha) to describe this - The same amount of time and effort is used in raising a 97 to a 98 as it is in raising a 60 to an 80. The same amount of effort can be use to much greater effect to boost the pool in general.
I am in no way insinuating that the societal situation with men is worth a 97/100 or that the situation with women is worth 60/100.
But it seems that less effort is spent on women than is spent on men, which is why the equilibrium will always restore itself - the overall societal values have not been lifted, as traditionalistic women will just drag the levels back down again.
>"there are no primal urges involved."
Violence is definitely a primal urge - it is not condoned by society, yet it is a natural choice for resolving conflicts both on a personal and international level.
Society says that violence is idiocy and solves nothing. If not for primal urges, why does it still exist as a go-to option for so many?
>"sex is not a drug that makes you so horny that you feel the need to rape a person."
Sex addiction is a, while not clearly defined or clearly documented, a well considered mental issue, with many institutions researching and attempting to document it. So the notion that someone is that desperate for sex to the point of depravity isn't unthinkable.
Even as such, it is not an excuse for such behaviour, and does not make it okay. Just like having paranoia is not an excuse for reckless violence, and does not make it "okay".
>"males are portrayed as perverts who are constantly hungry for sex while females who display similar behaviour are considered weird. this culture basically says that it's alright for males to be 'so horny'"
I do agree with this statement, but I feel the way you said it twists it just a little bit past credibility.
I agree that men can make sleazy comments and jokes and it's "cool", whereas if a girl does that she's "down to fuck" or "slutty"
I even agree that a man of multiple sexual encounters is a "stud" or "player", while a girl is again a "slut".
But I do not agree that a man horny to the point of raping someone is not "weird" by societal views. A man like that cannot be accepted into any society.
That being said I still agree that society is undoubtedly sexist, and that males and females have a huge double standard in terms of sex.
I just think you have twisted and extrapolated above facts for shock value at the compromise of reduced credibility.
@cloudier/andrew
>""--Which is a massive improvement over zilch.""
I similarly don't agree that zilch is a very good benchmark.
But the 72c to $1 ratio quoted, as I pointed out, was not specifically stated to be "for the same job". As it is a feminist site, it is VERY UNLIKELY that they would miss out a detail like that, which would cause greater shock value. Hence it can be deduced that it more likely than not means "72c to $1 in general for the whole workforce, if not the whole population".
Apparently only 11c of that 28c is due to discrimination (quoted on site Emily linked).
Now discrimination could be, and probably is counted as, "If you're going to take maternity leave we can't promote you." It is most definitely marginalisation due to gender, but I think it's a well founded reason - You can't leave a 9month hole in your company's fiscal year.
If a company could be run by a woman to gain say $1.2million/yr profit, while another male applicant could run it to profit only $1million/yr, why should the company deny the job?
You can't pretend that there are NO female CEO's. In fact there is a decent amount seeing in how short a time women have actually cared about being CEOs. These female CEOs that can profit the company more have been hired.
However the discrepancies in females in top jobs, at this point in time, can still be attributed to time. The amount of companies that are rotating CEOs is just not high enough to meet the demand. The CEO ratio of men and women is an oft-quoted argument, and like I said before, it's been a relatively short time of caring about being CEOs to expect massive results.
"that's true but it also means that WOMEN ARE NOT GETTING THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES/SERVICES/ETC. because they are not allowed in old boys clubs SOLELY DUE TO THEIR GENDER."
I hope you do not find it sexist that most men have other men as their longest lasting friends.
As we all know, hiring top jobs like CEO's is not based on credentials alone - the leaving CEO must also have confidence in the new CEO's trustworthiness, and must be sure they share similar visions for the company.
No CEO wants to pass to some random schmoe with good credentials but could literally do ANYTHING with your company.
So I know that Bill Gates passed the position of CEO to a close friend.
The reason that the notion of "old boys club" has been established is because only "old boys" were previously in charge of companies. I find it quite plausible that current female CEOs will similarly pass it onto other female CEOs, and hence making "old girls clubs".
To be part of a long-lasting friendship is a lifetime dedication. You can't just force your way into a close group of men and go "gimme in or you're discriminating".
So yes, maybe women are getting marginalised when trying to CEO old companies. But all those old companies have been started by an innovative group of men. Maybe the goal should not be to take over pre-established companies, but just start your own successful one.
"only 11c of that 28c is due to discrimination"
i personally think that anything over 5% is a significant result, but ugh statistics. I could conjecture about what factors could affect a statistic all day but in the end it doesn't really matter since you don't know how the statistic was measured (unless the statistic came from a scientific paper). i think that if the figure was of the whole workforce, it could be affected by:
- maternity leave by itself, which would decrease the measured pay of a female dramatically
- i heard somewhere that females work less hours? which also decreases measured female pay
- the fact that it doesn't measure the pay for the SAME SKILL - women might simply be attracted to jobs with low pay
"The reason that the notion of "old boys club" has been established is because only "old boys" were previously in charge of companies. I find it quite plausible that current female CEOs will similarly pass it onto other female CEOs, and hence making "old girls clubs".
To be part of a long-lasting friendship is a lifetime dedication. You can't just force your way into a close group of men and go "gimme in or you're discriminating"."
you're right, that was a bad argument. the creation of 'new-girls clubs' is apparently happening in silicon valley: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all
now that i've found this article i've got another point. to become a CEO, a younger person is 'sponsored' by an older male - sponsors were often found via old boys networks, but can also be found from other places.
"Sponsorship, which often involves an older, married male spending one-on-one time, often off site and after hours, with a younger, unmarried female, can look like an affair; and the greater the power disparity between the male and the female, the more intense the speculation becomes that the relationship is more than professional. If the woman is subsequently promoted, her achievement will be undermined by office gossip that she earned it illicitly."
oh yeah you commented on female ceos in this blogpost: http://jwhero.blogspot.com/2011/07/girlbasher.html
i feel like this comment went on tangents; sorry about that and point it out if it did thanks
"Society says that violence is idiocy and solves nothing. If not for primal urges, why does it still exist as a go-to option for so many?"
I don't believe that society universally says that violence is idiocy. For example;
- violence is highly prevalent in movies and TV shows.
- the Iraq War. if people thought violence solved nothing, then there would not have been enough momentum for the war to happen - although i suppose many people were scared out of their wits by 9/11.
- i remember reading that one of the top 3 most common reasons for the death of a black male in LA under 75 years of age was murder. if the media's portrayal of urban gang-oppressed areas in the US is to be trusted, then violence (and revenge) is highly ubiquitous in that society.
Also, i believe that violence is an option that doesn't force a person to sacrifice their pride or ego - as opposed to negotiation or compromise - so it is actually often the easy way out.
"Sex addiction is a, while not clearly defined or clearly documented, a well considered mental issue, with many institutions researching and attempting to document it. So the notion that someone is that desperate for sex to the point of depravity isn't unthinkable."
i personally don't know enough about sex addiction to be able to say if it can cause a person to rape another. whether or not sex addiction can lead to rape, i think there are a significant number of cases where rape has occured because a person has rationalised it in their minds to the point where they are okay with raping others (with the aid of aspects of culture), not because they are addicted to sex - and this could explain the discrepancy between the number of male and female rapists. i'll talk about this more after the next quote.
"But I do not agree that a man horny to the point of raping someone is not "weird" by societal views. A man like that cannot be accepted into any society."
rapists and rape is accepted in some parts of society to some extent, and the characterisation of males as perverts helps males sympathise with rapists.
links on the portrayal of men as perverts in the media and stuff like that:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllMenArePerverts
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitleem16myh5
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsLove
i think that the sentence 'rape is universally unacceptable' is definitely true in sheltered, rusian society, but it's definitely untrue when you talk about the whole world. in south africa, male teenagers, some younger than us, regularly rape females as a pastime and social/cultural activity. it actually is this bad - it's significant enough to have it's own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_South_Africa . if i'm not mistaken, a similar relationship between society/culture and rape happens to a much lesser extent in western countries although i am almost completely detached from the situations in which it occurs. (i think i would feel stunned if i personally met people the same age as me who have had sex.)
i can't confirm which countries the following anecdotes come from, but i presume that they're from the USA since the biggest audience to these websites is the US.
http://www.dearcoketalk.com/post/9550393436/on-non-consent
http://www.reddit.com/r/rapecounseling/comments/jkvzo/friend_was_raped_cops_told_her_not_to_press/
Post a Comment