ladama wrote:I'm just curious, what's your source for that statistic?
Here you go:http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Seems my numbers were off slightly (although, by now, they may be accurate), my apologies! Still seems pretty applicable!
Shem wrote:I wasn't going to get involved but I just wanted to say that I think a single girl deciding to go and become a mechanic does FAR more to break down gender stereotypes and further equality than every single feminist theory textbook ever written.
Continuing to frame the debate in terms of "us and them", using gendered language like "mansplain" hasn't helped and WON'T help. Nor will trying to use statistical difference between groups as somehow meaningful. It doesn't MATTER if 90% of women choose to be stay-at-home mums and men earn more than women so long as women have the CHOICE to forge their own life path and the CHANCE to succeed. The problem, IMO, isn't discrimination (which is recognising differences) rather it's PREJUDICE and presuming that a member of a certain group will act in accordance to the stereotypes and not giving an individual the chance to prove themselves as an individual.
Well-said, Shem! How appallingly foolish to attempt to define a gender's "success" in terms of financial wealth or perceived "power" in a corporation! Yet, this is the sort of thing that gender stereotyping ultimately leads to... applying gender stereotypes to "success" itself.
mcfly wrote:So women certainly do not hold NEARLY as much power as men in companies.
When I posted earlier, I was in a hurry, on my way to town to do a bit of shopping with MG. I don't feel like I gave your post the full response it deserved. Also, I spent a bit of time discussing the matter with MG, and she always has a way of making things clearer for me...
I am curious... Is this how you measure women's equality in society?
Consider Microsoft. One of the largest, richest, most powerful corporations in the world. Former CEO and current chairman: known MALE Bill Gates. And yet, consider his relationship with his wife, Melinda. She left the professional world to focus on raising their children. She is well-educated, capable, and intelligent. She could, in every conceivable way, hold her own in the corporate world. Should she not be considered a "success" because she has chosen to live such a life? Should her husband be considered a misogynist because he holds a corporate position of power while she focuses on her family?
If you take the two of them at their words, then it would seem that they view themselves very much as a team:
Bill Gates wrote:In my parents I saw a model where they were really always communicating, doing things together. They were really kind of a team. I wanted some of that magic myself.
Melinda Gates wrote:We set out what's going to be our work time versus our foundation time versus family time, and we'll reassess that ... sometimes every week ... We talk a lot in our home together about where we're going, what I'm doing. I think this is very much a collaborative effort. We come at it from slightly different angles, but that's why it's a natural for us to do it together.
I think this is the best sort of attitude for any couple to possess. I'd like to think (and do) that MG and I posses and maintain such a working relationship. It is a partnership between two human beings, and it is awesome.
I am forced to wonder, mcfly, how many of those corporate CEOs you're offering as statistics "proving there is a patriarchy" are actually in committed, caring, collaborative partnerships with another human being (odds are, a woman). I wonder how many of their partners love their position in life and wouldn't trade with their partners for anything....
mcfly wrote:Women are told how to act and dress and to be beautiful and flawless and everything that you also agreed is a problem, but they have almost NO control over those standards being shoved on them.
As I said before, I didn't agree that this was a problem, and I actually don't agree with a single part of that statement. Consumers have ALL the control over the media they consume. They could always turn off the TV, you know. Or they could watch something else. My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
, for example, is an excellent, empowering, and extremely entertaining show. And the cast members all look a lot like horses. I highly recommend it!
mcfly wrote:All I did was clarify what mansplaining means and say that it's a word that exists only in the context of privileged classes in a gender-biased society.
This is another example of you revealing your sexist bias. You view men as part of a "privileged class," which I find quite disturbing. I simply do not believe it's true. I believe that sometimes men receive preferential treatment... and that sometimes women receive preferential treatment. I think it's important to choose your battles. Finding great evil where, in truth, increasingly little actually exists is something you seem to be pretty good at.
Consider this: women live, on average, 5-10 years longer than men (amongst developed/industrialized nations). There are various reasons for this, but it seems fairly safe to assume that, were men actually "privileged" as much as you claim, this statistic might be a *bit* different....
mcfly wrote:...but also EVERYONE makes a concentrated effort not to perpetuate harmful stereotypes? That's what I support...
Do you? Do you really? Quite honestly, it seems that pretty much everything you've said has done nothing but reinforce harmful stereotypes--painting women as victims of an oppressive, patriarchal society, painting men as universally sexist, misogynistic buttholes, and painting people who have turned their backs on such stereotypes as "ignorant." I am appalled by your behavior, but after a few discussions with MG, I find myself empathizing more with you. That is one of the greatest additions that MG brings to my life. She is a far more compassionate person than I, and I shall be forever grateful to her for such a gift.
mcfly wrote:I think discussions like this are important, because they make EVERYONE think critically about where they stand on these issues and how they want to change to make a society that they think is best.
MG pointed out that you're probably unaware of what you're doing; that your view of men has been so warped by your life experiences that you may be incapable of seeing them in anything other than a negative light. It may be that any comment made by a man is, in your mind, to be considered only in a sexist, negative, stereotypical context. If that's so, then I should feel sympathy for you, not anger. I am especially irritated by what I perceive to be willful ignorance, which is what I felt you've displayed in this thread. MG's reminder that I can view things in a compassionate light helps to tame my irritation. It may be that there are reasons behind your ignorance, and it may be that it is psychologically quite difficult for you to realize what you are doing (Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps?).
I like your statement, though. We all should be thinking critically about these issues. I regularly make every effort to do so. Had a very long discussion with MG about it. I can and do occasionally change my opinions based on what is posted here and on ITIL. People's intelligent comments make me think about things. Sometimes, I decide that I was wrong. Sometimes, I decide I was right in the first place. In this case, I stand by everything I've said.
mcfly wrote:And bringing up that it's a problem isn't reinforcing the problem, it's recognizing negative patterns in our lives and society.
I believe quite the opposite. Finding evil where there is none IS a negative pattern, and it's the worst of the many patterns that I believe you are perpetuating here. I want
to be compassionate, though. In the awareness of the benefits of such an emotion, all I can feel for you is pity. I wish you could see the world as MG and I do. It's a wonderful, wonderful place.
mcfly wrote:But it's all on a spectrum of normalized stereotyping, so when does it become okay to bring up discrimination? Only when it becomes physical? Or never, because there is no patriarchy and all women's problems are directly comparable to if the same thing happened to a man?
This is an area where, again, you're projecting your own prejudices on others around you. What if those others around you didn't
view the world through the cynical filter of "normalized stereotyping" that you're describing? What if we just saw human beings for what they were: competent, capable, well-meaning, intelligent individual beings seeking to make their way in the world as best they can? You are a relic, McFly. Find Doc Brown and go back to 1985! We future folks are capable of identifying prejudice when we see it, and we are quite capable of dealing with it in an appropriate manner.
mcfly wrote:It's about real problems that continue to exist even outside of social justice forums and political rallies.
Of course there are still real problems plaguing our world. There always will be. Ultimately, they will be dealt with by individuals behaving an a collectively positive, beneficial manner. I'm an optimist, I guess. You are a pessimist. Such is life, I suppose.
mcfly wrote:You actually seem to believe that there isn't really a problem, and you deserve to know that there IS a problem...
Again, I do acknowledge there is a problem. Once, it was a severe problem. It is improving every day. It remains a problem because of sexually prejudiced individuals. You are one of these individuals, I believe, and it pains me that you don't see it.
mcfly wrote:I would be happy if you would be willing to at least look it over.
You put a lot of effort into that post, and I sincerely appreciate it. I will endeavor to always respond with a similar effort to anyone who offers me a sincere and worthwhile argument, even if I firmly believe it is completely wrong.
mcfly wrote:Because people see this stuff, especially from someone who does normally give really great and solid advice about all sorts of stuff about JET, and they assume that "hey, I guess there really isn't so much of a problem, let's just give it ten years."
I believe that most JETs and applicants got to where they are in life because they are proactive, positive, forward-thinking young adults, and that they seek to be a part of the solution/evolution, rather than mere bystanders. I suppose your opinion of the readers of this forum is significantly lower than mine. I am so sorry you feel this way.
All in all, I believe your heart is in the right place, mcfly. You're no chicken. You're a fellow whale biologist, and I admire this about you. I hope you can have the courage and critical thinking ability to consider what I've said here, and to consider what you've really
said here. Who is really perpetuating negative stereotypes? Who is really
a part of the problem, and who is really
working toward bringing about real, meaningful social change.
I am only an individual, a small, insignificant man, but every day, I do everything I can to be a positive, if tiny, force in this world. I surely have the best, most satisfying job in the world, I think. I love being a teacher.
I stand by my previous statement that you are being ignorant. I don't toss around that term lightly. To me, to be "ignorant" means to be willfully unaware. I think you are being willfully unaware of just how negative you are being, and how, even inadvertently, you are perpetuating the very stereotypes you claim to resent so much.