|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The trouble with girls
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I societies where for example an established form of Christianity was cuturally dominant people hadn't just simply 'heard of' Christianity. It was a society where they heard Christianity being praised by all the major people in political, cultural, intellectual and economic life. They would do so because there were political, cultural, academic and economic rewards for doing so. Opposition to Christianity was a dissident position to take because the political, cultural, academic and economic consequences of publicly opposing the Christian religion were all negative. The same is true of Islam is Islamic societies and Communism in communist countries.
In no Western societies have atheism or non-Christian views been exclusionary for a very long time. This is a nonsense. A smokewall put up to avoid addressing the issues of abuse against women.
quote:
But why wouldn't people actively speak out against campaigns by feminists. If opposition to feminism is culturally dominant in the West and if Feminism is a dissident point of view then mainstream political, economic, cultural and intellectual figures who actively speak out against feminism will be tend to be rewarded for it, politically, economically, culturally and academically. In such a society people who publicly speak out in favour of feminism will tend to receive negative consequences for themselves in all those areas.
Because they don't fecking have to.
And anyway, try listening to the abuse that women get from trolls whenever they talk about something as seemingly uncontroversial as suggesting a woman should be on a note of currency - and then try telling me that the norm is to ignore women's campaigns. Bullshit, pal.
quote:
By contrast a society where feminism is culturally dominant is one where all those rewards tend to go to to those who publically speak out in favour of feminism whilst the negative consquences are accrued by those who publically speak out against it.
What the? "All the rewards"? What rewards? What the heck are you on about?
quote:
Now what do we see in our society today?
We see women in science who are routinely abused and discriminated against - either actively by the dominant, largely male cabal of senior scientists who seek to use their power over others - or indirectly by structures which are not flexible to allow for sensible working patterns for women (and, actually, for anyone who has other responsibilities outside of work).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.
You have mistaken stated, theoretical ideals for real-life considerations. Many people will willingly subscribe to the idea of equality ("Of course women should pursue scientific endeavors") without accepting the changes these require of them ("as long as they don't try to do this in my labs").
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, a phrase like 'overwhelmingly feminist' enables one to equivocate, since while many organizations pay lip service to equality between the sexes, their practices belie that. It's a kind of dishonesty at the core of many institutions.
For example, all British political parties subscribe to equality, yet women occupy about 25% of parliamentary seats.
The same with science - 13% of science jobs are held by women.
On pay, women were earning about £15, 000 on average, men about £25, 000, (2014 figures), yet I'm sure that most companies would say they support equal pay.
Oh Lord, make the sexes equal, but not just yet.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: Perhaps you could name a major mainstream politician in any Western country who publicly opposes feminism or advocates opposition to feminist goals? (by major mainstream politician I mean a politician who is in or who has prospects of getting into national government, not someone on the political fringes)
I've seen a number of GOP politicians publicly speaking out both against feminism and against feminist goals.
Perhaps you could name them and say what they said.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.
You have mistaken stated, theoretical ideals for real-life considerations. Many people will willingly subscribe to the idea of equality ("Of course women should pursue scientific endeavors") without accepting the changes these require of them ("as long as they don't try to do this in my labs").
But a central part of what makes a religion or an ideology culturally dominant in society is that its ideals are held up as the ideals of society and opposition to it and its ideals tends to have negative consequences politically, economically, culturally an academically. That continues to be true even where many people fail to live up to those ideals, as is always the case
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... Where is the evidence that this man has a hatred of women -- Oxford dictionary definition of Misogynist.
Oh, FFS. Not that tired old argument from simplistic etymology again.
After all, homophobes don't really hate homosexuals, they just don't want to serve homosexuals in their business, don't want to work with them, don't want them to be teachers, don't want to live next to them ... it's not really hatred, no, no, no ... it's not hatred to want to systematically exclude an entire group of people from all the opportunities our society has to offer. It's just ... what? Mild dehumanization?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think with homophobia the argumentum ad lexicon is that 'phobia' means fear, and I'm not afraid of gays, I just don't want them in my shop. Same with misogyny, a really pathetic argument.
Well, you know that 'scruple' is from the Latin for a stone in the shoe, so when I have my sandals on, I have no scruples!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But a central part of what makes a religion or an ideology culturally dominant in society is that its ideals are held up as the ideals of society and opposition to it and its ideals tends to have negative consequences politically, economically, culturally an academically. That continues to be true even where many people fail to live up to those ideals, as is always the case
Look, this is really quite easy to understand: women express views openly in Western society about the way that it works against them and their needs. Society does not prevent them from voicing these views.
But equally, it a) does almost nothing to address the structural issues that the women are talking about and b) fosters an environment where vocal women are fair game for trolling men.
This does not add up to a society which is "overwhelmingly feminist" as anyone with half-a-brain can appreciate.
[ 14. June 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, when Bibliophile says that 'many people fail to live up to these ideals' (i.e. equality between the sexes), s/he is either being naive or disingenuous.
Many individuals and organizations are perfectly prepared to pay lip-service to a certain ideal, while in practice, subverting it.
This is not particularly unusual either; I would say that in the UK, British politicians and businesses are well practised in this art, whatever you call it. Thus, the Empire was extolled as a means of civilizing savage areas, while of course, the requisite profits were extracted!
Of course, women are equal, but we don't quite have the market conditions yet to give them equal pay. Sorry about that, maybe in the next century.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've seen a number of GOP politicians publicly speaking out both against feminism and against feminist goals.
Perhaps you could name them and say what they said.
Let's start with the 174 representatives and 36 senators that voted against the Lily Ledbetter act. And all that legislation did was extend the time available for women to file a complaint.
Then let's move on to the ongoing battle over contraceptive coverage under the ACA, which is a clear example of sex discrimination. And the congressional hearings without a single female witness.
Oh, I'm sorry, you were asking for quotes from misogynist GOP creeps. Quotes like "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut the whole thing down." Really, though, actions speak much louder than words. And if there are non-misogynist, non-creepy Republicans, it would be nice to hear from them occasionally. Or even see some action.
The stated goal of the GOP has been to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. Yet no matter how teeny it gets, they still think there's a place for it in every woman's reproductive system.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I societies where for example an established form of Christianity was cuturally dominant people hadn't just simply 'heard of' Christianity. It was a society where they heard Christianity being praised by all the major people in political, cultural, intellectual and economic life. They would do so because there were political, cultural, academic and economic rewards for doing so. Opposition to Christianity was a dissident position to take because the political, cultural, academic and economic consequences of publicly opposing the Christian religion were all negative. The same is true of Islam is Islamic societies and Communism in communist countries.
In no Western societies have atheism or non-Christian views been exclusionary for a very long time. This is a nonsense. A smokewall put up to avoid addressing the issues of abuse against women.
I think you missed my point. My point was that in pre secular Christian societies, societies where Christianity was culturally dominant people were expected to actively speak in favour of Christianity and those who actively spoke against it suffered negative political, cultural, economic and/or academic consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
But why wouldn't people actively speak out against campaigns by feminists. If opposition to feminism is culturally dominant in the West and if Feminism is a dissident point of view then mainstream political, economic, cultural and intellectual figures who actively speak out against feminism will be tend to be rewarded for it, politically, economically, culturally and academically. In such a society people who publicly speak out in favour of feminism will tend to receive negative consequences for themselves in all those areas.
Because they don't fecking have to.
No if feminism really were a dissident position and opposition to feminism was culturally dominant then public figures in politics, corporations, culture and academia would be expected to give at least lip service to opposing feminism.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And anyway, try listening to the abuse that women get from trolls whenever they talk about something as seemingly uncontroversial as suggesting a woman should be on a note of currency - and then try telling me that the norm is to ignore women's campaigns. Bullshit, pal.
A few twitter trolls do not form the dominant culture. If you could name a politician, corporate leader, mainstream cultural figure or academic who publicly criticised the campaign to put a woman on a banknote that would make your point better.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
By contrast a society where feminism is culturally dominant is one where all those rewards tend to go to to those who publically speak out in favour of feminism whilst the negative consquences are accrued by those who publically speak out against it.
What the? "All the rewards"? What rewards? What the heck are you on about?
Well lets take an example from academia since that's what this thread talks about. Lets say an academic (lets call him Sir Tim Hunt) makes a crudely antifeminist comment. Other people critise him for. Lets say another academic publicly makes a pro feminist comment. Other people criticise him or her for it.
In a society where opposition to feminism is culturally dominant an feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with Sir Tim and will critise those who criticise him. He will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his critics might.
In such a society anti-feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching anti-feminist theory but feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching feminist theory.
In a society where feminism is culturally dominant and opposition to feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with the feminist academic and will critise those who criticise him or her. He or she will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his or her critics might.
In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.
Now what do we see in our own society?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think you missed my point. My point was that in pre secular Christian societies, societies where Christianity was culturally dominant people were expected to actively speak in favour of Christianity and those who actively spoke against it suffered negative political, cultural, economic and/or academic consequences.
Saying the same thing three times does not make it relevant. It isn't.
quote:
No if feminism really were a dissident position and opposition to feminism was culturally dominant then public figures in politics, corporations, culture and academia would be expected to give at least lip service to opposing feminism.
IT ISN'T FECKING LIKE THAT. FFS. Just asserting things does not make them true.
quote:
A few twitter trolls do not form the dominant culture. If you could name a politician, corporate leader, mainstream cultural figure or academic who publicly criticised the campaign to put a woman on a banknote that would make your point better.
Can you stop saying that? Why should I have to name particular names? Were you not aware of the huge amount abuse that happened in that particular case? What difference does it make if I can or cannot name a politician?
quote:
Well lets take an example from academia since that's what this thread talks about. Lets say an academic (lets call him Sir Tim Hunt) makes a crudely antifeminist comment. Other people critise him for. Lets say another academic publicly makes a pro feminist comment. Other people criticise him or her for it.
In a society where opposition to feminism is culturally dominant an feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with Sir Tim and will critise those who criticise him. He will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his critics might.
Riiiight, so the fact that the university lived up to its equal opportunity policy is evidence of the dominant feminist view.
You've clearly not understood any of what I've said above, and I'm not saying it again.
quote:
In such a society anti-feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching anti-feminist theory but feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching feminist theory.
That's just total bullshit. Structurally scientific society is arranged primarily for men. That this guy has been caught out has absolutely no bearing on the rest of society which women have to navigate the rest of the time.
quote:
In a society where feminism is culturally dominant and opposition to feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with the feminist academic and will critise those who criticise him or her. He or she will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his or her critics might.
Assertion does not equal fact. I don't agree with your characterisation of society and you've offered no proof this is a reasonable way to see society.
quote:
In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.
Now what do we see in our own society?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
See you in hell.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a difference between the formal and the actual. Formally, many countries have accepted the equality of the sexes, and many politicians also.
But what do we see in practice? Women are the majority of the world's poor; women are paid unequal pay; women do unpaid domestic work at home; women are still raped; domestic violence is still common; women are objectified in sexual terms; women are underrepresented in STEM jobs, and other professional areas; reproductive rights in many countries are hedged about with restrictions.
One can go on and on. Some feminists argue therefore that feminism has failed, which is maybe too pessimistic, but you can certainly argue that patriarchal society has an ability to absorb criticism, and continue with its oppression of women.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
.... In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.
Now what do we see in our own society?
We see anti-feminist academics in many different fields making anti-feminist statements. Like the biochemist that started this thread. Or Larry Summers, the economist who claimed that "there are issues of intrinsic aptitude" that keep women out of STEM fields. And while there is always some public negative response to this sort of idiocy, apparently the "negative political, cultural, economic and/or academic consequences" aren't enough of a deterrent for the next sexist dinosaur who shoots his/her mouth off. So either these academics are very slow learners or the consequences just aren't that serious.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also conservatives often make this argument, not just to women, but to other oppressed people - what are you complaining about? We have legislated for equality, we have criminalized discrimination, we all want equality, what is the problem?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is bollocks, because they speak with forked tongue. We bring peace, so shut the fuck up, or we might bring war.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
No if feminism really were a dissident position and opposition to feminism was culturally dominant then public figures in politics, corporations, culture and academia would be expected to give at least lip service to opposing feminism.
IT ISN'T FECKING LIKE THAT. FFS. Just asserting things does not make them true.
It is like that. When a religion or an ideology is culturally dominant then public figures are expected to give public lip service to it. The fact that such lip service can often be hypocritical does not alter this.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
A few twitter trolls do not form the dominant culture. If you could name a politician, corporate leader, mainstream cultural figure or academic who publicly criticised the campaign to put a woman on a banknote that would make your point better.
Can you stop saying that? Why should I have to name particular names? Were you not aware of the huge amount abuse that happened in that particular case? What difference does it make if I can or cannot name a politician?
What public figures like politicians, academics and corporate leaders will publicly say reflects the dominant culture. Some twitter trolls represent part of culture but it won't necessarily be the dominant part.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Well lets take an example from academia since that's what this thread talks about. Lets say an academic (lets call him Sir Tim Hunt) makes a crudely antifeminist comment. Other people critise him for. Lets say another academic publicly makes a pro feminist comment. Other people criticise him or her for it.
In a society where opposition to feminism is culturally dominant an feminism is a dissident position then public figures in various areas will say that they agree with Sir Tim and will critise those who criticise him. He will certainly not suffer any negative career consequenses although his critics might.
Riiiight, so the fact that the university lived up to its equal opportunity policy is evidence of the dominant feminist view.
The fact that they have an equal opportunity policy in the first place and the fact that it was enforced in this and other cases is indeed a sign that feminism is culturally dominant. If feminism truly were a dissident view then not only would the University not have had the equal opportunity in the first place but it would more likely have had a policy for disciplining staff who expressed pro-feminist views.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
See you in hell.
See you there!
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So either these academics are very slow learners or the consequences just aren't that serious.
Bingo. Especially the latter.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
If feminism was culturally dominant then universities wouldn't need an equal opportunity policy.
I'm pretty soft hearted and believe in grace, so I do agree with Hunt that he should have been given a chance to address the issue with the university before being pressured to resign. Perhaps he could have provided some free mentoring to young female scientists or free lectures to girls aspiring to work in STEM fields (with his speeches being vetted to make sure he didn't say anything else stupid).
On the other hand, how often do men make comments like this, people get outraged and then women are the baddies for letting some poor, old man lose his job or be made to cry? Hunt needs to take responsibility for this and acknowledge it was his comments that have caused this, not women's reactions. If every time this happens the culprit faces no consequences and the critics are made out to be the bullies, these sort of comments against women will continue to go unchecked.
It's all very well to say it was "just a joke/can't you take a joke" - that's what bullies from ages 5 to 90+ say when the target of the "joke" gets upset and tries to get them in trouble.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
If feminism was culturally dominant then universities wouldn't need an equal opportunity policy.
I'm pretty soft hearted and believe in grace, so I do agree with Hunt that he should have been given a chance to address the issue with the university before being pressured to resign. Perhaps he could have provided some free mentoring to young female scientists or free lectures to girls aspiring to work in STEM fields (with his speeches being vetted to make sure he didn't say anything else stupid).
My observation is that UCL did not need external pressure to withdraw the honorary (still not been able to verify that it was unpaid, but we think it very likely) position he had. UCL did that pretty much on their own because the views he expressed did not meet the standards UCL hold on women in science.
However, the Royal Society did come under pressure to remove Hunt from several committees he sat on, on the basis that these were involved in appointments and he expressed views which seemed to be in conflict with this position. Several other top scientists at the Royal Society put pressure on for his removal.
Another point is that I wonder how much he actually did for UCL - as far as I can work out, it is really a 'flag of convenience' for an academic writing a book etc with little actual responsibilities to the university. As far as I can understand, he was essentially retired.
For someone of that age in that position, I think there is little that really could be done other than suggesting that he has probably reached the time to stop the associations with UCL and the Royal Society. If he had been a much younger academic with an actual job and teaching responsibilities, I'd have tended to agree with this assessment.
quote:
On the other hand, how often do men make comments like this, people get outraged and then women are the baddies for letting some poor, old man lose his job or be made to cry? Hunt needs to take responsibility for this and acknowledge it was his comments that have caused this, not women's reactions. If every time this happens the culprit faces no consequences and the critics are made out to be the bullies, these sort of comments against women will continue to go unchecked.
Again, I don't understand what he thought he was doing. I still can't see any other reason to do it than provoking a response.
[ 14. June 2015, 21:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I don't understand what he thought he was doing. I still can't see any other reason to do it than provoking a response.
Nor can I - it's really weird behaviour. The fact that his wife is a prominent scientist and active in promoting women in science makes it even stranger. From the Guardian interview I linked to earlier:
quote:
Collins [his wife] clutches her head as Hunt talks. “It was an unbelievably stupid thing to say,” she says. “You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim. But really it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s. Nevertheless he is not sexist. I am a feminist, and I would not have put up with him if he were sexist.”
Then they have a couple of quotes from senior female scientists, Ottoline Leyser and Dame Athene Donald, both professors from Cambridge who know him well:
quote:
Prof. Leyser: “It is quite clear to me that he is not a sexist in any way. I don’t know why he said those silly things, but the way his remarks have been taken up implies that women in science are having a horrible time. That is not the case. I, for one, am having a wonderful time.”
[...]
Dame Donald: “During the time I worked with him he was always immensely supportive of the ERC’s work around gender equality. His off-the-cuff remarks in Korea are clearly inappropriate and indefensible, but … he has worked tirelessly in support of young scientists of both genders.”
It sounds like people who know him are just as baffled.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My observation is that UCL did not need external pressure to withdraw the honorary (still not been able to verify that it was unpaid, but we think it very likely) position he had. UCL did that pretty much on their own because the views he expressed did not meet the standards UCL hold on women in science.
However, the Royal Society did come under pressure to remove Hunt from several committees he sat on, on the basis that these were involved in appointments and he expressed views which seemed to be in conflict with this position. Several other top scientists at the Royal Society put pressure on for his removal
Again this is an example of how Feminism is culturally dominant in the West and is certainly not a dissident idea.
I should probably explain what I mean by cultural dominance and dissident ideas. An ideal or ideology or religion is culturally dominant if the dominant culture promotes holds that having that ideal or ideology or religion is desirable and opposing that ideal or ideology or religion is undesirable.
A dissident idea or ideology or theology on the other hand is an idea or ideology or theology that the dominant culture views as undesirable for a person to hold and defend and desirable for people to oppose.
Now what do I mean by a dominant culture. A dominant culture is that part of a culture that has the power to impose its will on those that disagree with it my means of rewarding the expression of ideas it approves of and punishing expression of ideas it disapproves of. A non dominant culture may attempt to do the same but will not be able to do so effectively.
What do I mean by feminism. Well the definition of "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." seems a good one to me so I hope we can agree on that definition.
So by those definitions a culture where feminism is culturally dominant is a culture where the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of he equality of the sexes is seen as desirable by the dominant culture and is whilst advocating opposition to women's rights and/or equality of the sexes is seen as undesirable and is punished by the dominant culture. It is not necessarily a society where full equality of the sexes has been achieved it is however a society where it is seen as a desirable goal.
By contrast a culture where feminism is a dissident is a culture where advocacy of women's rights on grounds of equality of the sexes is seen as undesirable an is punished by the dominant culture.
So looking again at the quote at the top of this post. Sir Tim Hunt has made an anti-feminist statement. He has had negative economic and academic consequences. The part of the culture that is able to impose such negative economic and academic consequences is, by definition, the dominant culture. So the dominant culture has punished the advocacy of opposition to women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.
By contrast the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes does not have the same negative economic and academic consequences.
So feminism is a culturally dominant and not dissident idea
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Again this is an example of how Feminism is culturally dominant in the West and is certainly not a dissident idea.
Nope. Incorrect. Wrong.
This is an example of how feminism has had an effect, not how it is dominant.
dom·i·nant
ˈdämənənt/
adjective
adjective: dominant
1.
most important, powerful, or influential.
cul·tur·al
ˈkəlCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: cultural
of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.
fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
So, if feminism is the dominant cultural view, why are women paid less at jobs they have to fight harder to get and still judged more by their appearance?
If feminism is dominant, what the hell do women have to do to be treated equally?
[ 14. June 2015, 23:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
.... In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.
Your statement here conflates society and the academy. They have quite different mores, operating standards, rules, etc. It's kind of like saying "America's black subculture is dominated by African American ideas, therefore American society is dominated by African American ideas." It don't work that way.
[ 15. June 2015, 00:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Again this is an example of how Feminism is culturally dominant in the West and is certainly not a dissident idea.
Nope. Incorrect. Wrong.
This is an example of how feminism has had an effect, not how it is dominant.
dom·i·nant
ˈdämənənt/
adjective
adjective: dominant
1.
most important, powerful, or influential.
cul·tur·al
ˈkəlCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: cultural
of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.
fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
So, if feminism is the dominant cultural view, why are women paid less at jobs they have to fight harder to get and still judged more by their appearance?
If feminism is dominant, what the hell do women have to do to be treated equally?
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?
What does happen however is that women can make choices with regards to work that result in them being less well paid than men. They might for example be more likely to chose to work in some sectors than others. Men might be more likely to chose to work in other sectors.
Women might be more likely to chose to take a career break to have children.
Women might be less likely to demand a pay rise.
Now the obvious response to all these points is 'why do men's choices' get better economically rewarded than women's choices?' Its not because employers want to give extra money to their male employees for being male its because they have other reasons for rewarding those particular choices. Thoe reasons might be to do with economic self interest, they might be social reasons or they might simply be habit.
Now if you are saying that feminism is not totally dominate over all other aspects of culture (such as the culturally dominant view that employers have the right to look after their own economic self interest) then I'll have to agree.
What I am saying is that women's rights on the grounds of greater sexual equality is seen as a desirable goal by the dominant culture. Not the only desirable goal or even necessarily the most important goal but 'a' desirable goal. That is why Sir Tim Hunt has had negative consequences for making a statement that implied it was not a desirable goal.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
.... In such a society feminist academics might even be able to get academic jobs teaching feminist theory but anti-feminist academics would find it impossible to get jobs teaching anti-feminist theory.
Your statement here conflates society and the academy. They have quite different mores, operating standards, rules, etc. It's kind of like saying "America's black subculture is dominated by African American ideas, therefore American society is dominated by African American ideas." It don't work that way.
Well do you think that if an employee of a major corporation, or the employee of a major cultural institution or a government minister had said something similar on a public platform that there would have been no negative consequences for them? Can you give me any examples of the reverse happening, of someone being sacked for speaking in favour of feminism?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Patriarchy is culturally dominant and feminism and womanism are just parts of that system. Some feminists and womanists fight for equal rights and representation within the dominant paradigm, increasingly many others seek to dismantle it all together since it is damaging to men, women and the rainbow of genders in between.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What I am saying is that women's rights on the grounds of greater sexual equality is seen as a desirable goal by the dominant culture.
But all you have done is provide an incredibly naive, or disingenuous, narrative. If you truly think that is how business works and have no greater understanding of economics and social progress, I may discontinue engaging you on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Not the only desirable goal or even necessarily the most important goal but 'a' desirable goal.
And here you argue against yourself.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?
What does happen however is that women can make choices with regards to work that result in them being less well paid than men. They might for example be more likely to chose to work in some sectors than others. Men might be more likely to chose to work in other sectors.
Women might be more likely to chose to take a career break to have children.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Several studies in the US, carried out to correct for precisely these issues, reveal that, even taking into account breaks for maternity leave, child rearing, etc., women are paid less than men with the same service records for the same kinds and amounts of work.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Women might be less likely to demand a pay rise.
Congrats. You finally got something right.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Now the obvious response to all these points is 'why do men's choices' get better economically rewarded than women's choices?' Its not because employers want to give extra money to their male employees for being male its because they have other reasons for rewarding those particular choices. Thoe reasons might be to do with economic self interest, they might be social reasons or they might simply be habit.
Or, gasp, it could be sexism.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?
Because if he paid his male employees as little as he paid his female employees, his male employees would walk. Why don't his female employees walk? Because it's the same everywhere.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?
Because if he paid his male employees as little as he paid his female employees, his male employees would walk. Why don't his female employees walk? Because it's the same everywhere.
Well if that was the situation then why wouldn't the employer respond to his male employees walking by saying to himself something along the lines of "Thank goodness for that, all those money draining parasite men have ****ed off out of my business, I can replace them now with some nice cheap women and make more profit for myself"
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK answering that question. Its not because employers are wilfully paying women less than men for exactly the same work. If that were the case then the pay gap would represent a huge amount of extra money that employers were giving to male employees when they could keep it in their own pockets. Why would any male employer deliberately give his male employees extra money for the same work when he could keep that money in his own pockets?
Because if he paid his male employees as little as he paid his female employees, his male employees would walk. Why don't his female employees walk? Because it's the same everywhere.
Well if that was the situation then why wouldn't the employer respond to his male employees walking by saying to himself something along the lines of "Thank goodness for that, all those money draining parasite men have ****ed off out of my business, I can replace them now with some nice cheap women and make more profit for myself"
Probably because he doesn't much like women, or he'd pay them the same as he paid his men.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Several studies in the US, carried out to correct for precisely these issues, reveal that, even taking into account breaks for maternity leave, child rearing, etc., women are paid less than men with the same service records for the same kinds and amounts of work.
Frankly I'm sceptical of that
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-yearly-reminder-that-the-gender-wage-gap-is-due-to-choice-not-discrimination/article/2563 010
But rather than taking the 'Washington Examiner's' word for it perhaps you could link to the studies you are talking about so I could have a look.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Women might be less likely to demand a pay rise.
Congrats. You finally got something right.
In other words that would be an instance of employers paying a bit more to men because they're more likely to ask for a pay rise (perhaps because of higher average aggression levels due to male hormones) not paying them more because they're men.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Now the obvious response to all these points is 'why do men's choices' get better economically rewarded than women's choices?' Its not because employers want to give extra money to their male employees for being male its because they have other reasons for rewarding those particular choices. Thoe reasons might be to do with economic self interest, they might be social reasons or they might simply be habit.
Or, gasp, it could be sexism.
As I say I'd be interested to see your evidence for that.
[code]
[ 15. June 2015, 06:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What I am saying is that women's rights on the grounds of greater sexual equality is seen as a desirable goal by the dominant culture.
But all you have done is provide an incredibly naive, or disingenuous, narrative. If you truly think that is how business works and have no greater understanding of economics and social progress, I may discontinue engaging you on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Not the only desirable goal or even necessarily the most important goal but 'a' desirable goal.
And here you argue against yourself.
You may discontinue engaging me on this if you like, of course, but I would be interested to know where you think my narrative is "incredibly naive, or disingenuous".
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
The wage gap exists in all sectors. As for women dominated sectors paying less, this is largely because until recently under law women did not have to be paid as much as men because it was assumed that the husband would be the breadwinner and therefore needed to earn enough to support a family and single women only needed to support themselves. However single men still got paid as well as married men, and married women who continued to work still got the lower wage.
Even after it became more of a norm for women to work after marriage and laws were passed requiring equal pay, women were still seen as supplementing the family income, rather than being the main breadwinner.
I find today in teaching and childcare where I work that some women are not concerned about lower wages because their husband or partner has a well paid job. Too bad for us singles though, who still need to house ourselves on wages that are much lower than in business or even in male dominated trades. Even worse for single mothers who have to use these lower wages to support and house their children too.
And it's all very well to say just choose a better paying job - Joe Hockey, the Australian treasurer has suggested that to all Australians who can't afford to buy a house - but many of these jobs require specific skills and training, which some of us are well suited to, yet still are not renumerated well, because they are considered women's work. Anything involving childcare or caring for other people is considered too naturally easy for women to deserve decent pay no matter if they also require a university degree or a very specific skill set and high EQ.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
it was assumed that the husband would be the breadwinner and therefore needed to earn enough to support a family
This is part of the broken system, as others have noted. And, it's a broken system that also works against men if they choose to act outwith the expectations of the system.
Common examples could include rights to flexible working, which are written into contracts but require line manager approval. A woman asking for flexible working to manage child care is more likely to be granted, because"it's only right that she take time to look after her children", whereas if a man asks for flexible working to manage child care it's less likely to be granted, because "his duty is to work long hours to earn the money to maintain the household". The underlying assumption is that a womans career is less important than a mans. Or, if a man has a 9 to 5 contract, but then finds he's criticised for not taking care of his career if he decides to leave work before 6pm so that he can spend some time with his children before they go to bed.
Legislation has taken massive steps towards equality in the work place, but has done very little to address the underlying attitudes of society. The law has been adjusting the extremes of the system, but hasn't really fixed it. Feminism (approximately defined as women and men treated equally) will only be dominant when the base assumptions of society treat both equally, when it won't be considered unusual for a man to take a 5 year career break to be an at home parent while his wife works, when the man as "breadwinner" is not the dominant paradigm, when women start to complain that their male colleagues choice of clothing makes them too distracting in the lab ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Women don't get paid as much as men because they take time off with their small children.
In a couple with small children, the mother will more frequently take time off to raise the kids than the father, because she gets paid less and so it's less of a burden on the family.
She gets paid less because she takes time off to be with her small children.
She's with her small children because it's better for the family's finances if she takes the time off rather than her husband, because she gets paid less.
She gets paid less because she takes time off to be with her small children.
She's with her small children because it's better for the family's finances if she takes the time off rather than her husband, because she gets paid less.
Every step in this circle makes perfectly good sense given the previous step in the circle. But you can't discuss it as if the circle exists all by itself. The circle exists in a larger society, and we can well ask why.
[ 15. June 2015, 07:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's not necessarily true. I know several couples when the wife was earning more when she gave birth and she was the one who continued to be the main breadwinner after she started having children. But she then had to deal with those attitudes.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Yes. I stayed at home and brought up the Torlets, because Mrs Tor earned easily over twice what I did, and still does.
We are aware that our situation is, while not rare, a minority one, and it was seen as anomalous (certainly in the early 2000s). I'm gladdened by the number of baby-changing stations in male public toilets now, whereas before they were rarer than hen's teeth, and the roll-out of disabled access across public spaces and public transport now makes it so much easier to use a pram.
It put me in the position of being a man in a female-dominated sub-culture, which had its own disadvantages, but overwhelmingly, the main problem was that architecture and planning was inherently sexist and anti-access. Something you don't think about until you have two children under 3 to lug about.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's not necessarily true. I know several couples when the wife was earning more when she gave birth and she was the one who continued to be the main breadwinner after she started having children. But she then had to deal with those attitudes.
And those attitudes really are astonishing, when you think about it. In fact, I have not been in full-time employment since becoming a parent, and in fact that is possible because I'm one of those women identified upthread whose partner earns considerably more than her, making the drop in my contributions less of a concern. But there was never really any doubt in my mind that I would go back to work, (with my first, I did this at 11 months and with my second at 9 months) and I remember being simply dumbfounded when someone my own age responded to this decision by saying; "But you will miss her first words - you might miss her first steps, you might think you've seen her first step and then find out that actually she did it the day before, at daycare! How would you feel about that?" (subtext) "How could you live with yourself in such a circumstance?" I responded by saying, "Well [husband] is even more likely to miss those things. How is he supposed to feel?" What I got back was a look as befuddled as the one I had given out. All of which makes me think that the two camps* represented here are likely to continue talking past one another until kingdom come, and then some.
*with one camp consisting of one tent occupied by one outlier, in this instance.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Large parts of this thread basically consist of differing definitions of what "culturally dominant" means.
I would've thought what actually happens is more relevant than the formal position. You know when feminism is going to be "culturally dominant"? When it's actually reflected in culture. When films pass the Bechdel test as a matter of course. And when Joss Whedon doesn't repeatedly win awards for writing great female characters because no-one else is.
Feminism might be widely present in law, on the books, but law sure isn't culture.
[ 15. June 2015, 09:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
Boris Johnson is defending Hunt and calling critics ridiculous because women do cry more than men and it's obvious men and women fall in love so there's nothing to criticise. So I guess society isn't too feminist when a famous and popular politician totally misses the point of why the comments upset female scientists.
(Courtesy of my conservative, male English friend who linked to Johnson's post on Facebook)
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
It put me in the position of being a man in a female-dominated sub-culture
That's an interesting point, and is my experience too - it's lonely doing this as a man.
We can iron the tit jokes out of the workplace and try to make it work for women - and perhaps for me too, as there aren't so many funny tit jokes. But the childcare environment is not and can't be gender neutral, and I guess the few men in it have to suck it up and deal with it for the sake of their kids.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I know some funny tit jokes, but I am hoarding them, until there is a special thread, when I will unleash them on an unsuspecting world.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I took 10+ years out of the "workplace" to look after my child as my wife also has a much better paying occupation. I experience some - but not all - of the barriers that women face when trying to return to work after looking after their children.
But even having said that, I'd still say that being a woman in the same situation is worse.
In academia I know talented women who are left with few options having taken a much shorter time out than me for childcare duties. I have heard senior academics telling women that they should give up even contemplating a career to support their partners. I have also been told this as a male supporting partner of a female academic with children.
Some honestly believe that academia is a good place for women to work - whilst at the same time displaying evidence that it is not. Senior academics have told me about the way that their departments are 'family friendly' - meaning that academics do not have to book off time for holidays, have some leeway to bring in children to parties and (occasionally) emergencies. At the same time they seem to blindly ignore the pressures that women are under in the same department - including heavy research and teaching pressure, regular stressful "reapplying" for jobs and funding, time off to travel around the world to conferences, long days at work and full evenings of additional work, meetings, seminars and even social events with other staff in the evenings... and so on. Yes, ok sometimes these departments include a lot of women, sometimes in senior positions. But they are often struggling to hold things together and frequently crack.
Men frequently take these things on the chin (but also in increasing numbers are cracking) because they know they have supportive partners to pick up the strain. Women regularly have to also juggle household demands.
One academic mother told me last week that she was having to drive to an academic seminar in another town with her children because there was nobody else to look after them and there is no way to avoid it.
We have also heard about the double-body issue. Sometimes this can work (and there is also the other phenomena of a busy academic married to someone with a busy job outside of academia), but the financial and logistical problems are very large. Most junior academics cannot afford to do it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
women chose to work in safer jobs they will tend to be paid less because of this. Now I don't know how much of the pay gap that particular factor accounts for but unless you think it unfair that employees in more dangerous jobs should be paid more that part of the pay gap is not caused by any sexism or unfairness against women.
Well let's see. What is the most dangerous occupation? In the UK that is agriculture. Generally a male-dominated occupation, I'll agree, but not always one that is very well paid.
Yet again, your assertions are complete shite.
[ 15. June 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you're confusing 'choice' with 'forced into'.
So you're saying that women don't chose to jobs that are less likely to kill them, they're forced into them?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
I have no problems with jobs like mining being paid extra danger money. However that still does not explain the wide disparity between traditionally male and female jobs. Physical jobs like bricklaying I think also need a bit more pay as workers cannot do these jobs as long or to as great an age as less physical jobs. However I know a number of women who work in aged care with bad backs in their twenties and thirties - although there are hoists to help with lifting they still have to physically support patients quite a bit. And aged care is one of the worst paying jobs, despite its importance. This is also an issue for nurses and even childcare workers lifting toddlers on a regular basis. Yes, it won't kill them, but can shorten their working life and earning time.
[ 15. June 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: Mili ]
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
