Reverse Sexism

[Aaron]

Is anyone else of the opinion that the neo-feminist movement of the 80s/90s has inverted the social values pro-women, in a negative way? As in, do you think that the "We're all equal" attitude has turned into a "I'm female, I deserve.." ?

[Kronos]

Well I certainly believe that the female view is always seen as the correct one. Whatever they say is the truth, and any man who disagrees is just a selfish reactionary pig.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Oh, the beautiful paradox of feminism.



If women need the law to guarantee them against sexual discrimination, they're clearly inferior workers to men.

If women are equal to men, there is no need for the law guarantee them equal working rights.

[Amit]

If women need the law to guarantee them against sexual discrimination, they're clearly inferior workers to men.

If women are equal to men, there is no need for the law guarantee them equal working rights.

because it's women's fault that they are being discriminated

just like how it's their fault if they get raped amirite

[PerpetualBurn]

Screaming is consent.

[Amit]

no means yes and yes means anal and anal means wrap her up in saran wrap, douse her with gasoline, light the bitch on fire and throw her off an overpass onto incoming traffic

[PerpetualBurn]

If she didn't want rape she should've had my dinner on the table when I got home.

[Smokey D]

Oh, the beautiful paradox of feminism.



If women need the law to guarantee them against sexual discrimination, they're clearly inferior workers to men.

If women are equal to men, there is no need for the law guarantee them equal working rights.

Oh, the persistence of institutional sexism.

[2muchket!]

There is an imbalance at the moment so much so, the conservative party want to recruit more women. I don't see the need for more women MP's and if this is going to stop good male candidates being considered for local areas in favour of a worse candidate just because shes female, then the conservatives are commiting political suicide IMO. Of course I'm sure 'dave' camerons has thought about it and thinks he'll more votes via so called 'neo feminists'.

[Smokey D]

No, the Conservatives wouldn't be looking for votes amongst neo- or any other sort of feminists. They probably are trying to make themselves more appealing to women voters, as they tend to vote left more than men.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Oh, the persistence of institutional sexism.

Dude I'm not sexist

I don't think that women are in any way inferior to men, and I think it's good that they work


I just don't think that legislation that ensures this will be neccessary in a generation or so's time

[coheneran]

There is an imbalance at the moment so much so, the conservative party want to recruit more women. I don't see the need for more women MP's and if this is going to stop good male candidates being considered for local areas in favour of a worse candidate just because shes female, then the conservatives are commiting political suicide IMO. Of course I'm sure 'dave' camerons has thought about it and thinks he'll more votes via so called 'neo feminists'.

Why? It's common practice. Labour were choosing not to put forward Muslim candidates for local election in 1998 (and since then, I think), though this particular candidate was popular and had already served one term locally under labour, if I remember the article correctly.

[Reaganista]

If women need the law to guarantee them against sexual discrimination, they're clearly inferior workers to men.
what a shockingly stupid thought to have

[DBoons Ghost]

Women still have a long way to go, but most women know what they are about enough that they use what is at their disposal to their advantage.

Not all women are like that, but most women these days demand many things out of men, when all men require of women is they spread their legs and swallow... and women know this.

Most women feel as though the act of making them happy is what should make you happy.

I know this is off the topic of what the focal point of the discussion is, but for every women who whines about being sexually discriminted against in the workplace, is another woman using her wet hole to get ahead.

Women don't want equal rights, they want special rights.

[Damage]

I doubt women will ever be equal. It will never be okay for a man to hit a woman, even jokingly, it will never be okay for a woman to open the door for her man all the time, and it will never be okay for the woman to pick up the bill on a date.

[PerpetualBurn]

What do you mean by hit a woman jokingly?

[Damage]

What do you mean by hit a woman jokingly?

For instance, if you see a couple together, and the man might do something like make a joke that the woman finds offensive, and she'll hit him on the arm and say something like "that's horrible!" or whatever. That **** would never fly if the roles were reversed.

[PerpetualBurn]

Oh. Well I come from a social group where such playfighting is entirely acceptable. The only concern would be with a woman of small build that a light punch on the arm from me would actually hurt them, whereas she would not hurt me. Still, playfighting is acceptable.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

What do you mean by hit a woman jokingly?

I suppose that's one stage short of japing

[DBoons Ghost]

All that's true, and is exactly the kind of things I am talking about..

Due to the age old "etiqutte" of being a gentlemen, which women are no longer deserving of. Women haven't been deserving of such since they expected it, and although I still hold doors open for women, wait for them to enter the elevator first, open their door for them on a date.. etc etc..

However, in the work place it's not the same thing. We've had female techs work for us who participate in a large scale office move, only to not be able to carry things like PCs and monitors, due to their weakness with such matters. Barring situations like that, it's not a matter of equality that prevents them for being equal, it's the fact THEY ARE NOT LIKE MEN.

Pretty simple. Granting them basic human rights are one thing, and all said and good, but extra rights because they are women? Nah.

[Damage]

Oh. Well I come from a social group where such playfighting is entirely acceptable. The only concern would be with a woman of small build that a light punch on the arm from me would actually hurt them, whereas she would not hurt me. Still, playfighting is acceptable.

I dunno, typically around here at least, if a guy even playfully hits a girl, people automatically think "that guy's kind of an asshole." By the same token, if a girl hits a guy hard, it's not that big of a deal.

[coheneran]

However, in the work place it's not the same thing. We've had female techs work for us who participate in a large scale office move, only to not be able to carry things like PCs and monitors, due to their weakness with such matters. Barring situations like that, it's not a matter of equality that prevents them for being equal, it's the fact THEY ARE NOT LIKE MEN.

I thought this until recently, and it turns out women are weak because they don't use their muscles. I know plenty of women who are just as strong as me, if not stronger. I know slightly more who are weaker, but if you compare that with the amount of men I know stronger than me and weaker than me (all of these people are around my age of course), it's pretty much the same percentage. Also, in nature, females hunt with the males, and that's how it used to be prehistorically, according to some university student I met who used to study archaeology and pre-ancient society and crappola like that. The conclusion is that nowadays, women are weaker than men because they have been kept weaker. Like there's not much likelihood of a poor group to get richer, same with a weak group to get stronger. Although, happily, it is happening, slowly, though women who show "male" tendencies like being strong get ridiculed.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm just glad my superior male brain is 45% larger than the average female's.


:cool:

[DBoons Ghost]

I thought this until recently, and it turns out women are weak because they don't use their muscles. I know plenty of women who are just as strong as me, if not stronger. I know slightly more who are weaker, but if you compare that with the amount of men I know stronger than me and weaker than me (all of these people are around my age of course), it's pretty much the same percentage. Also, in nature, females hunt with the males, and that's how it used to be prehistorically, according to some university student I met who used to study archaeology and pre-ancient society and crappola like that. The conclusion is that nowadays, women are weaker than men because they have been kept weaker. Like there's not much likelihood of a poor group to get richer, same with a weak group to get stronger. Although, happily, it is happening, slowly, though women who show "male" tendencies like being strong get ridiculed.


You "used" to think that and some crap guesswork changed your mind eh?

I am referrring to 15+ years of work experience with females of many sizes shapes and various degrees of strength. All of whom worked out, and quite frankly, none had been "kept down".. Some could do it, but refused because "women shouldn't do physical labor" was the primary excuse.
Whatever you wish to digest is your boat, but I'll stick to what I know from my years in the workplace with women who have never been "kept" down but chose when how and where to play the gender card to their liking. Except when bonus time came around and all were treated equal by the standard of law. Law. Equal treatment, when equality had yet to ever be earned. I aint even truly all that indifferent about it in the least, I just don't hire women into those jobs anymore. If you can't do it all, you can't do it at all.

Just so I understand it though.. what you're saying is genetics have been altered and we've changed the course of evolution to women having smaller frames due to being kept down?

[Jude]

I thought this until recently, and it turns out women are weak because they don't use their muscles. I know plenty of women who are just as strong as me, if not stronger. I know slightly more who are weaker, but if you compare that with the amount of men I know stronger than me and weaker than me (all of these people are around my age of course), it's pretty much the same percentage. Also, in nature, females hunt with the males, and that's how it used to be prehistorically, according to some university student I met who used to study archaeology and pre-ancient society and crappola like that. The conclusion is that nowadays, women are weaker than men because they have been kept weaker. Like there's not much likelihood of a poor group to get richer, same with a weak group to get stronger. Although, happily, it is happening, slowly, though women who show "male" tendencies like being strong get ridiculed.
That's absurd.

Women are biologically smaller and weaker than men. Obviously there are exceptions but they don't disprove the rule.

[Shell]

Women (for the most part) make too big a deal out of being treated "fair." I personally do not expect any special treatment because I'm a female. However, I will not argue that there aren't plenty out there that do... and each of them pisses me off to no end.
I really don't think I'd have a problem being turned down for a job because it was too physically demanding for me... as long as that was addressed from the get-go that strength was a requirement for the position.
I don't need any laws to help me get a job... my qualifications are enough. Any employer who can not see past my gender is not someone I'd want to work for anyway.

[Reaganista]

I doubt women will ever be equal. It will never be okay for a man to hit a woman, even jokingly, it will never be okay for a woman to open the door for her man all the time, and it will never be okay for the woman to pick up the bill on a date.
funny that all those things are ok then

[Damage]

funny that all those things are ok then

I'm exactly not sure what you just said...

[coheneran]

I am referrring to 15+ years of work experience with females of many sizes shapes and various degrees of strength. All of whom worked out, and quite frankly, none had been "kept down".. Some could do it, but refused because "women shouldn't do physical labor" was the primary excuse. Whatever you wish to digest is your boat, but I'll stick to what I know from my years in the workplace with women who have never been "kept" down but chose when how and where to play the gender card to their liking. Except when bonus time came around and all were treated equal by the standard of law. Law. Equal treatment, when equality had yet to ever be earned. I aint even truly all that indifferent about it in the least, I just don't hire women into those jobs anymore. If you can't do it all, you can't do it at all.

I'm not saying all women are angels who are constantly being oppressed and so should be excused "playing the sex card." You said it yourself, "Some could do it, but refused because women shouldn't do physical labor." They could do it, but they didn't want to, they're lazy, not weak.

Just so I understand it though.. what you're saying is genetics have been altered and we've changed the course of evolution to women having smaller frames due to being kept down?

What are you talking about? I didn't say women are born weaker, I said women are weaker because they are not as physically active. You could say it's because they do not want to be, or you could say it's because they are encouraged not to be. You get the odd "tomboy" (a pretty sexist term in itself, but let it pass) who is just as physically capable as her male peers, if not more so, and you could say that it's because she was born like that, or you could say she ignored society's encouragement to be a "barbie". The fact is, women are generally not as physically active and therefore not as physically capable as men. You interpret this by saying they are born so with the odd exception, I interpret it by saying they are born equal but most are manipulated into staying physically weak.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Women (for the most part) make too big a deal out of being treated "fair." I personally do not expect any special treatment because I'm a female. However, I will not argue that there aren't plenty out there that do... and each of them pisses me off to no end.
I really don't think I'd have a problem being turned down for a job because it was too physically demanding for me... as long as that was addressed from the get-go that strength was a requirement for the position.
I don't need any laws to help me get a job... my qualifications are enough. Any employer who can not see past my gender is not someone I'd want to work for anyway.

See the bold i totally agree with should be the case

and the underline is what i was trying to get at before when i got accused of institutional sexism


I interpret it by saying they are born equal but most are manipulated into staying physically weak.


The notion that everyone is born equal is a communist ideal that is sadly crushed by biodiversity

[Amit]

What are you talking about? I didn't say women are born weaker, I said women are weaker because they are not as physically active. You could say it's because they do not want to be, or you could say it's because they are encouraged not to be. You get the odd "tomboy" (a pretty sexist term in itself, but let it pass) who is just as physically capable as her male peers, if not more so, and you could say that it's because she was born like that, or you could say she ignored society's encouragement to be a "barbie". The fact is, women are generally not as physically active and therefore not as physically capable as men. You interpret this by saying they are born so with the odd exception, I interpret it by saying they are born equal but most are manipulated into staying physically weak.

lmao yeah man housework especially outside of the developed world is very physically inactive stuff

[Jude]

The fact is, women are generally not as physically active and therefore not as physically capable as men.
If you take the "therefore" out of that sentence it would be correct.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Tucker Max describes it very well in this article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tucker-max/pass-the-beer-in-defense_b_22530.html

[Mr. Ron]

The thing is, women LOVE to be treated as women. They want to be seen as fragile, sensitive and in need of care because thats how they get things out of men in society. It is only in the work place or a competative situation where they want to be treated as equals.

[Shell]

The thing is, women LOVE to be treated as women. They want to be seen as fragile, sensitive and in need of care because thats how they get things out of men in society. It is only in the work place or a competative situation where they want to be treated as equals.

Not all women are that way.

[Mr. Ron]

Not all women are that way.
It's not like they can help it. They are conditioned to be that way.

[Shell]

It's not like they can help it. They are conditioned to be that way.

To a certain point. Then comes the realization that we've been conditioned to think a certain way. At that point, a woman can decide to go along with that conditioning, or go against it.

[Mr. Ron]

To a certain point. Then comes the realization that we've been conditioned to think a certain way. At that point, a woman can decide to go along with that conditioning, or go against it.
But you can't deny ever acting "girly" to get your way. But then again, thats the fault of the male for giving into it.

[Shell]

But you can't deny ever acting "girly" to get your way. But then again, thats the fault of the male for giving into it.

There's only one thing that I'd use my woman-ness to get... :naughty:
To me, acting girly = being whiney... and that only pisses me off. And yes, women only get something out of acting girly because there is a man there who is willing to give in to that. For every woman who acts girly to get something... there's a man who wants her to act girly.

[Mr. Ron]

There's only one thing that I'd use my woman-ness to get... :naughty:
To me, acting girly = being whiney... and that only pisses me off. And yes, women only get something out of acting girly because there is a man there who is willing to give in to that. For every woman who acts girly to get something... there's a man who wants her to act girly.
True.

[Reaganista]

I'm exactly not sure what you just said...
Well I'm not planning on learning your language anytime soon, so if you want to continue this you'll have to learn english

To me, acting girly = being whiney
and here I thought they were two seperate things

[sr800bkBassist]

well after thousands of years of the way women were treated, i'm not complaining about what's going on now.

[Egggo]

The thing is, women LOVE to be treated as women. They want to be seen as fragile, sensitive and in need of care because thats how they get things out of men in society. It is only in the work place or a competative situation where they want to be treated as equals.

It's not like they can help it. They are conditioned to be that way.

lol where's waldo the contradiction

[Damage]

Well I'm not planning on learning your language anytime soon, so if you want to continue this you'll have to learn english

Excuse me? I was referring to your poor excuse for a sentence that I wasn't understanding, it has nothing to do with a language barrier. I can only assume you meant something along the lines of "It's funny that all of those things are okay," in reference to your apparent belief that it's a common social trend for men to be able to hit women, for women to open doors for their man all the time, and for women to pick up the tab on dates, in which case you'd either be living under a rock, or horribly mistaken.

[strummerkid]

I've had many a door held open for me by women, and sometimes when i go out with my partner i pay, other times she pays - and joke fighting is seen as perfectly acceptable in my part of sydney? So maybe we're just living under different rocks?

I think all this talk of women using sex to their advantage is completely missing the point. We live in a society that see's women as primarily sexual objects, our media pushes this image on us constantly as does the advertising industry. We also live in a society that seems very reluctant (as evidenced by this thread) to allow women to progress in anyway whatsoever. The logical conclusion - which i see is being played out (im not sure of the frequency obviously) is that women are not seen as equals and their "worth" is something that is only "validated" when they perform sexual acts.

Is it really women using sex to get promotions, or men using promotions to get sex?

[PerpetualBurn]

But you can't deny ever acting "girly" to get your way. But then again, thats the fault of the male for giving into it.

Are you telling me you've never acted "manly" to get your way? If people want something specific then they use what they have to get it. It certainly doesn't mean that all women therefore want to appear like a tiny defenceless person.

[Smokey D]

All that's true, and is exactly the kind of things I am talking about..

Due to the age old "etiqutte" of being a gentlemen, which women are no longer deserving of. Women haven't been deserving of such since they expected it, and although I still hold doors open for women, wait for them to enter the elevator first, open their door for them on a date.. etc etc..

However, in the work place it's not the same thing. We've had female techs work for us who participate in a large scale office move, only to not be able to carry things like PCs and monitors, due to their weakness with such matters. Barring situations like that, it's not a matter of equality that prevents them for being equal, it's the fact THEY ARE NOT LIKE MEN.

Pretty simple. Granting them basic human rights are one thing, and all said and good, but extra rights because they are women? Nah.

I would argue the vast majority of women want equal rights and oppurtunities.

This is not necessarily the same thing as societal expectations or ettiquette.

[Lupus]

From my experience it seems that most feminists became feminists not by logic, but just by seeing feminists and thinking, "That's cool", or what they're parents told them. Hence why so many of them are sexist themselves, because they haven't critically thought about anything, they're just following a trend. And now we have a bunch of angry guys who just don't give a **** about sexism anymore, because of the hypocrisy of these feminists they've met. And these angry guys are just as stupid as these hypocriticial feminists, and they make the exact kind of stupid claims.

As for legislating against sexism, I don't think it does anything to help. I mean, think how retarded affirmative action will be if and when we get to the stage where racism is practically nonexistant.

[Smokey D]

Legislating against sexism already has helped immeasurably.

[Lupus]

Legislating against sexism already has helped immeasurably.
There will always be cases of mass stupidity in society, like racism or sexism etc. Banning one kind won't do anything, and I wonder what would happen the moment we removed those laws.

[Smokey D]

The 19th Ammendment says you're wrong.

[Egggo]

so do the 13th and 15th hehe

[Steerpike]

And yes, women only get something out of acting girly because there is a man there who is willing to give in to that.

S'truth.

Essentially, the root of the issue is that a handful of stupid people try to take a good idea too far. Feminism was founded on the idea of equal rights. Great idea! But now there is a splinter group among the movement that wants special treatment. Bad idea.

However, it's a lot like the issue with the reparations movement. These extremists continually play the card of oppression and degredation, and say you owe them something because you come from a system that was designed to benefit people like me (white males) by exploiting people that aren't like me. Which is utter crap. No one should have to apologize for the way they were born.

But by playing up these irrational guilt trips, extremists are able to dupe the gullible into believing they really do owe these schmucks something.

[Egggo]

umm men do the same exact thing (act "manly") to get their way from others remember

essentially the real root of this issue of reverse sexism is that most people complaining about this have absolutely no idea and no experience of what they are complaining about and instead parrot off whatever poorly constructed arguments they heard from their favourite witty and hilarious comedian of choice

or fox news (same thing really)

the mere fact that guys can complain so vehemently kind of defeats any image of marginalization and oppression they are trying to create

same thing goes for the people complaining of reverse racism in america

[Steerpike]

umm men do the same exact thing (act "manly") to get their way from others remember

Never denied that.

What I was railing against was the idea that certain groups believe they deserve more than equal rights, that they deserve special treatment.

[Egggo]

i think people with disabilities deserve special treatment

[DBoons Ghost]

I would argue the vast majority of women want equal rights and oppurtunities.

This is not necessarily the same thing as societal expectations or ettiquette.


It is the same thing when the means to the ends is a good showing of the ol' T&A.

If a woman's got it like that, she's gonna use it to her advantage. The ones who cry loudest are generally the ones who don't. Again, this is merely in my experience, and as much as I dislike making any sweeping generlizations about it, there it is all the same.

[Steerpike]

i think people with disabilities deserve special treatment

In my view of things, being black or having certain genitalia is a little different than being born with a disability or being paralyzed from the waist down in an accident.

If someone's stuck in a wheelchair, sure I'll let him have the really good parking space. No big deal. But I'm not going to write a black guy a check simply because he thinks one of my ancestors might have owned a slave at some point.

I know somebody's going to ride my *** about that last paragraph, but I'm just exaggerating. I'm only trying to point out that there is a line between deference and lunacy.

[Reaganista]

Excuse me? I was referring to your poor excuse for a sentence that I wasn't understanding, it has nothing to do with a language barrier. I can only assume you meant something along the lines of "It's funny that all of those things are okay," in reference to your apparent belief that it's a common social trend for men to be able to hit women, for women to open doors for their man all the time, and for women to pick up the tab on dates, in which case you'd either be living under a rock, or horribly mistaken.
I think you need to go back and reread rather than rephrasing your argument in completely different terms
it's not my fault it takes you a half dozen tries to read something

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If a man sleeps with lots of women he's a stud

if a women sleeps with lots of people she's a slut



Who here will admit that they sometimes forget themselves and apply this reasoning even though they know it's wrong

[Jude]

If a man sleeps with lots of women he's a stud

if a women sleeps with lots of people she's a slut



Who here will admit that they sometimes forget themselves and apply this reasoning even though they know it's wrong
As if there's no biological or historical reason for any double standards :rolleyes:

[Hababi]

One thing I'll say, and I haven't read this whole thread:

the idea of womens colleges, and programs to get women into college, is a little outdated. Women now outnumber men in colleges and the divide is growing. If anything, we should start programs for menm to get into college :p

There's still a glass ceiling in the workforce, though. Women made up something like 11% of all fortune 500 CEO's.

[coheneran]

If a man sleeps with lots of women he's a stud

if a women sleeps with lots of people she's a slut



Who here will admit that they sometimes forget themselves and apply this reasoning even though they know it's wrong

I've never called a man a stud, that's a stupid word. I've called members of both sexes sluts, though never in a bad way. The only time I've ever been angry at anyone for being slutty is when a very drunk friend of my sister's started flirting heavily with a bunch of Israeli chavs late at night on the beach. The attitude towards women in Israel is still pretty sexist, and rape is too common. You actually get bastards cruising around central Tel-Aviv, four in a car, so that there's only one space left for some random chick to sit. Right ****ers. Anyway, I got angry at her because her sluttiness put both her and my sister in danger. Acting like she did in the UK wouldn't cause so much of a problem, not nearly as dangerous, but things are different in Israel.

[Egggo]

If a man sleeps with lots of women he's a stud

if a women sleeps with lots of people she's a slut



Who here will admit that they sometimes forget themselves and apply this reasoning even though they know it's wrong

it makes perfect sense in terms of biology and evolution

[croniun]

Is anyone else of the opinion that the neo-feminist movement of the 80s/90s has inverted the social values pro-women, in a negative way? As in, do you think that the "We're all equal" attitude has turned into a "I'm female, I deserve.." ?

The problem is that the concept of "We're all equal" was flawed from the beginning. No, one person isn't of more "worth" then the other but certain people are certainly more deserving of respect and privilege then others.

[Egggo]

like who

[Hababi]

like who

Jihadists < most everyone else :p

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Jihadists < fundamentalists < most everyone else :p

aye it's true

although i blame the parents

[coheneran]

I blame imperialism...

[AA-12]

because it's women's fault that they are being discriminated

It is.

[coheneran]

It is.

(At first I thought this was a joke post, but then I saw who posted it)

You must be shrooming.

[Mr. Ron]

(At first I thought this was a joke post, but then I saw who posted it)

You must be shrooming.
It is their fault if they do nothing about it.

[coheneran]

It is their fault if they do nothing about it.

Yes, like it's most German people's fault when they didn't do anything about Hitler. It's men's and women's fault when they see sexism and don't do anything about it. But for it to be women's fault that sexism exists is silly.

[Shell]

If a man sleeps with lots of women he's a stud

if a women sleeps with lots of people she's a slut



Who here will admit that they sometimes forget themselves and apply this reasoning even though they know it's wrong

I can't say I've ever applied this reasoning. I get just as pissed at my male friends for sleeping around as I do my female friends.

It is their fault if they do nothing about it.
I somewhat agree with this. A woman can see discrimination and either let it get to her and hold her down, or do something about it. But then again, if you try to do something about it, you become a "feminist bitch." :p

I guess I'm just glad I don't have this problem.

[Damage]

I think you need to go back and reread rather than rephrasing your argument in completely different terms
it's not my fault it takes you a half dozen tries to read something

I can't see an instance where I rephrased my argument in different terms. Care to enlighten me?

[Perhaps Crickets]

I blame crap like,

"you can NEVER hit a woman" and all this "women are royalty" crap

"Well, why can't I hit a woman" "she's smaller and not as tough, it's not a fair fight son" "yah, but you'd have no issue with me kicking the crap outta a 5'8 man, would you" "nope, he's a man. He can hold himself up" "oh right, so I may be 6'3 210, too big to beat on women around 5'8, but I can beat on males 5'8 and smaller" hahahhahahaah

[Smokey D]

It is their fault if they do nothing about it.

What are you talking about? This thread wouldn't exist if women hadn't done something about it.



It is the same thing when the means to the ends is a good showing of the ol' T&A.

No it's not.

If a woman's got it like that, she's gonna use it to her advantage. The ones who cry loudest are generally the ones who don't. Again, this is merely in my experience, and as much as I dislike making any sweeping generlizations about it, there it is all the same.

It's opinions like that which are the reason sexism persists.

[DBoons Ghost]

It's opinions like that which are the reason sexism persists.

Well, I posted facts. It wasn't my opinion. My opinion on this matter varies greatly from the facts of what I posted given my experience in the workplace. Sexism will exist as long as women are allowed to bang their way through, which they will willingly do. If a woman wasn't willing to use her body to make a living, strip clubs and porn would be dead industries.

You might like to think it's different, but you'd be wrong, and you are.. Wrong.

[I Am a Hat]

why does everyone care so much being equitable

[Reaganista]

strippers and porn are completely irrelevant to the issue of workplace sexism

unless you suggest that the average worker is so stupid that they can't differentiate between one person and another completely unrelated person

[croniun]

like who

Today in my philosophy class the professor tore apart someone in there who was simply in there because there were no other classes open. The kind of person you would see on Laguna Beach. On one hand, you have the intelligent professor and on the other hand, you have the Laguna Beach ditz. Wouldn't you agree that the professor is much more deserving of respect then the airhead?

[Egggo]

yes of course

but i don't really respect professors with huge egos anyway

[Aaron]

There's still a glass ceiling in the workforce, though. Women made up something like 11% of all fortune 500 CEO's.I disagree. To be a CEO you need years of experience within the workforce, and the CEOs and Group Excs we have now are part of a generation who entered the workforce in the 70s/80s when there still was inequality. I think it is just the flow on effect from the past inequality and that now there is nothing there to stop women. When all is said and argued within business, you still need the experience and learned knowledge to make it.

[Smokey D]

Well, I posted facts. It wasn't my opinion. My opinion on this matter varies greatly from the facts of what I posted given my experience in the workplace. Sexism will exist as long as women are allowed to bang their way through, which they will willingly do. If a woman wasn't willing to use her body to make a living, strip clubs and porn would be dead industries.

You're talking as if the same avenues aren't open to men.

And porn and strip clubs mean nothing.

[DBoons Ghost]

That's true enough Smokey... I suppose the thread has taken a different turn though. I missed my mark trying to make my point in regards to the "I deserve because I'm female.." comment TS made. Most women with the proper assests will use them to their advantage and usually, at the expense of men. It could be that I am jaded or biased. Though, I am not sexist. Never have been. I've had women work for me. I am telling you that a majority of women will, regardless of any of our opinions on the matter, always use their gender to get ahead if they can. Always. Making that remark in no way makes me sexist. I am stating a simple fact, that I wish were not true. Now, I'm just plain repeating myself. At some point, most if not all women will use the "But I'm a girl!" when it suits them.

[Egggo]

umm men use their gender to get ahead as well

[Aaron]

umm men use their gender to get head as wellyep

[Reaganista]

hey man saying a bunch of sexist bull**** generalizations and then feeling bad about it still makes you a sexist

[Aaron]

who are you talking to?

[Reaganista]

obviously not you

[DBoons Ghost]

hey man saying a bunch of sexist bull**** generalizations and then feeling bad about it still makes you a sexist


Well, than I suppose in your eyes I'm sexist.

I'm sure to lose sleep over your assesment.

I'm still right, in regards to the women I've employed. So, maybe generalizations, but not too far off the mark.

And yeah, men do it too.

[Damage]

As far as employment opportunites for women because of their gender, think about this:

A woman makes roughly 75 cents to a man's dollar. That means a man's labor is 33% more expensive than a woman's labor. Don't you think that if women were applying for the same jobs as men, and this were simply because of discrimination, businesses would hire ONLY women? It would definitely save a hell of a lot of money. It's simple economics, people. Women generally want different jobs than men do, so therefore the supply of female workers for a given job could be lower, and furthermore, with the low supply of female workers for that job, there's a higher chance that more men will be highly qualified, simply because there are more men applying.

[Reaganista]

Don't you think that if women were applying for the same jobs as men, and this were simply because of discrimination, businesses would hire ONLY women? It would definitely save a hell of a lot of money. It's simple economics,
lol

back when it was widespread for women to do the same task and get less money, the unwillingness of the businesses to hire them was the sole reason for their depressed pay. if they suddenly wanted to start hiring women the price of a woman's labor would've shot way up

[Damage]

lol

back when it was widespread for women to do the same task and get less money, the unwillingness of the businesses to hire them was the sole reason for their depressed pay. if they suddenly wanted to start hiring women the price of a woman's labor would've shot way up

Women also had far less opportunities than they do now. They didn't have a choice, it was either do the same work for less pay, or do no work for no pay. Women are now basically open to apply for any job they choose, so circumstances are different.

If they suddenly started hiring women, prices for a woman's labor would not shoot way up, it would only increase until it was equal to a man's pay. The only incentive at the time for businesses to hire only women would be because the cost of their labor was chaper, but once that changes, they would continue to hire both men and women. This is all assuming that the labor force for a given job is relatively equally men and women, which isn's true. Like I said, some women just typically don't want certain jobs, which may be high paying jobs, thus lowering the average female pay.

[Reaganista]

an ambition gap is just as much, if not more problematic than a skill gap.
especially considering that the majority of college graduates are now women

If they suddenly started hiring women, prices for a woman's labor would not shoot way up, it would only increase until it was equal to a man's pay
not if there was greater demand for female labor

[Damage]

an ambition gap is just as much, if not more problematic than a skill gap.
especially considering that the majority of college graduates are now women


not if there was greater demand for female labor

Well, then that's women's problem. If they don't want certain jobs that happen to be high paying, it's not the man's fault.

You have to think of the reason the demand is high. In this case, it's because of low cost. When the cost goes up, the demand goes down, thus giving a business no incentive to continue hiring exclusively women.

[Reaganista]

Well, then that's women's problem.
no it's not it's everybody's problem it's ridiculously ****ing stupid for us to condition girls to seek educations and then have no desire to do anything with them

You have to think of the reason the demand is high. In this case, it's because of low cost. When the cost goes up, the demand goes down, thus giving a business no incentive to continue hiring exclusively women.
the low demand was the reason cost was low you jackass not the other way around

[HipHopDontStop]

I think some people are misunderstanding the "women earn 75 cents to the man's dollar" statistic. This won't ever lead to companies hiring more women to save labour dollars, it means that companies tend to pay men more for doing the same jobs as women, because the people who offer the salaries to prospective employees (or pay rises to current ones) are men, who beleive that women don't warrant as much pay as men, or whatever.

The reason for the "glass ceiling" women face when breaking into the top-paid jobs is due to the lack of women at the highest levels to hire women, as male CEO's etc will choose males for the top roles. This is where there is still widespread institutional sexism, which seems hard to see an end to.

Of course, referring back to the original TS's point, a change in this could lead to positive discrimination towards women as opposed to discrimination against them in time.

[Damage]

no it's not it's everybody's problem it's ridiculously ****ing stupid for us to condition girls to seek educations and then have no desire to do anything with them


the low demand was the reason cost was low you jackass not the other way around

A.) If a majority of women don't want a job, they don't want it. Plain and simple. No one is forcing women to go to college if they don't want to do anything with their education.

B.) Assuming both the men and women were qualified, there is no incentive for a business to hire exclusively women unless their labor costs less. Yes, the price of labor would go up as this happens, and eventually it would cost the same to hire men and women. What don't you understand about this?

C.) It's not per job that women make less, it's overall, that's the point. Women don't necessarily want the same jobs, so therefore, overall, women may be getting paid less. If you can show me evidence that equally qualified women and men make different pay for the same job, and the only factor is gender, then I'll eat my words.

[Reaganista]

A.) If a majority of women don't want a job, they don't want it. Plain and simple. No one is forcing women to go to college if they don't want to do anything with their education.

I never said anyone was forcing them
I said it was ridiculously ****ing stupid


B.) Assuming both the men and women were qualified, there is no incentive for a business to hire exclusively women unless their labor costs less. Yes, the price of labor would go up as this happens, and eventually it would cost the same to hire men and women. What don't you understand about this?

the reason women cost less was because employers didn't want to hire them
what don't you understand about this


C.) It's not per job that women make less, it's overall, that's the point. Women don't necessarily want the same jobs, so therefore, overall, women may be getting paid less. If you can show me evidence that equally qualified women and men make different pay for the same job, and the only factor is gender, then I'll eat my words.
there's several lawsuits a year where women sue for being paid less than men, which is now illegal, but that's not the point
the fact that women have less desire to work and desire for advancement is a product of gender roles
and an especially stupid one now that women seek education more often

[Damage]

I never said anyone was forcing them
I said it was ridiculously ****ing stupid



the reason women cost less was because employers didn't want to hire them
what don't you understand about this


there's several lawsuits a year where women sue for being paid less than men, which is now illegal, but that's not the point
the fact that women have less desire to work and desire for advancement is a product of gender roles
and an especially stupid one now that women seek education more often

Okay, that's fair. I mean, I can see that gender roles definitely play into this, but each woman has a right to decide for herself if she wants to enter a certain field.

[HipHopDontStop]

The fact is that there is plenty of sociological evidence accumulated through loads of different studies which shows that not only do men almost completely monopolise the highest-earning jobs, but also in other, less well-paid jobs, men tend to get paid more than women for doing the same jobs as them, with the same qualifications etc, proving that gender is often the decisive factor.