The main thrust of the article seems to be an updated version of the saying that a bachelor is a man who cheated some woman out of a divorce and that “founders hounders” is a self-serving, misogynistic myth.
Again, feminism is about a level playing field, fair opportunities. What you call “male sexuality” I call patriarchy. If a woman has to “entertain” guests to advance her career, that is a problem. If people object to her “entertaining” guests or taking them out for entertainment - I am thinking special KTV sessions here in Taiwan for example- then that is a problem because it is something that does not apply in the same terms as her male colleagues. There are personal safety issues and yes, if people saw it the same, why are women still stigmitized for “having fun”? So, if a woman cannot attend these parties unless she is willing to lie with anybody to “advance her career”, that is a problem. It is the Hollywood couch audition style. What you guys find enjoyable, say an orgy, may “trigger” people who get catcalled at work and on the street, who get inappropiate comments in the working environment. Again, mixing work and “pleasure” is a recipe for disaster.
If a woman could attend an office sponsored orgy without consequences, and I mean bad ones, to her career, then we would have a level playing field. If she was not punished for not attending and held back, then we wouldn’t be complaining. It is not as much puritanism as again, being held back because of gender, not ability.
For example, if a loan is granted to a startup because the bank or the investors partied with the guys at certain “male places”, then we have issues. How would you feel if you were segregated of loans because you are waishengren or benturen? Same thing.
“Patriarchy” is the new catchall term for penis envy.
I think the early feminists had a much better handle on this: sometimes, the only way to win the game is not to play. Vote with your feet. If there are girls turning up at these parties because they think it will advance their career, they are part of the problem.
But it sounds like that’s not what’s happening - as far as I can tell from the article, the girls are ‘nerd groupies’. I had no idea there was such a thing. But, again, if they think it’s going to be degrading, they need to ask themselves “why am I doing this?”. Coercion ultimately requires somebody to acquiesce.
My experience in the tech industry generally is that women and men are valued for what they bring to the game. It’s an intensely competitive business and there is no space for people demanding their ‘rights’. Talent is respected and rewarded regardless of gender or any other irrelevant characteristic.
While I read just a few paragraphs of the article, I didn’t realize it was posted as a factual news. If it was posted as a news, I agree with you that it needs sources.
If we had the same shot at jobs and could walk safely down the streets without much care, then we wouldn’t envy anything.
A coworker went to this remote island. He spent his time walking about, exploring caves and deserted buildings. Another female coworker commented how nice that trip was and how sad it is that a woman cannot do the same. There is not only the risk of danger but moreover, the certainty of being blamed for putting oneself in danger.
I’m too buzzed to be super eloquent, but like even though there aren’t specific rules barring women from certain pro teams - just like racial biology where you’re simply gonna have more african americans in the NBA and NFL, (or dominicans/hispanics in the MLB) because more of them are naturally built to excel in those fields, statistically speaking there are just more women who don’t grow as big or tall as their male counterparts. Then beyond all that, female athletes (of whatever race) still have traditional gender norm/social conventions to push through.
Yeah, numbers indicate there are hundreds of thousands of women in America over 6’2" (just below 2 mil. over 6’ - roughly 1% of our population), but did we ultimately raise young girls to view athletics as just an appealing and respectable career for them as, say, a veterinarian?
Same goes for boys. There aren’t rules against letting boys pursue a pharmaceutical sales career, but male pharma sales rep numbers are overshadowed by their female counterparts. That’s because we’ve conditioned young boys away, towards more “manlier” vocations.
None of this is right. Our children, boy/girl, should be able to pursue whatever career they desire, without shame or judgment or doubt from the outside.
Traditional gender stereotypes hurt all of our kids, not just some of them.
When I lived in the US I was told I had to register for the draft at age 18 because I’m male. Otherwise I would be denied financial aid, would be subject to fines and imprisonment and permanently denied state and federal emplyment. Later, after being discharged from the military I answered an ad for utility lineman apprentice but when I showed up I was told they were only accepting applications from women and minorities. I then saw a manager trainee sign at a Sherwin Willaims store but when I tried to apply I was again told applications were only being accepted feom women and minorities. Later when i graduated with a degree in engineering the few women in my class received multiple job offers at higher starting salaries than the males did. When I applied for graduate school the majority of femllowships wereonly available to women and minorities. Then when working, layoffs disproportionately affected white and Asian males. That endless institutional discrimination was one if the reasons I left the US and started my own business in Taiwan.
Maybe you should reflect your privilege while you’re busy applying for jobs after college graduation and your male classmates have to slave away in the military under unsafe and inhumane conditions (and yes, young conscripts in Taiwan do die during their service). All happening under a female president mind you. And what are you talking about anyways? Unsafe streets? In Taiwan?
Redpill : sexism = white nationalism : racism
I see some of us have decided to double-down on the stupid.
If you are saying war is a male conceit, it is not. Nor it is a privilege to not have battle skills to defend yourself in case of need, which we need every day of our lives, not just for a year or two. If you want to frame it that way, women live in a war situation every day, all the time. Must watch out our own behavior and others as anything may trigger deadly retaliation.
And at least in war, guys get mercifully shot. What happens to women in combat areas is much worse.
Taiwan is much better in terms of safety, but it does not mean we are safe from lunatics or simply have our kids taken away because we are women. You do not have guys taking pictures of your underwear in the MRT, and confrontation with such guys does not end in your possible death or injury. Workplace sexual harrasment is still rife in Taiwan.
Saying Taiwan is totally safe for women is like saying it is not racist just because cops do not shoot black people - well, brown skinned SEAs do get shot and/or beaten. It is better, it is not Neverland.
Oh and reflecting on privilege for not investing in military preparation: while women in Taiwan are more educated and have more work experience, they still get paid 20% less than their male counterparts. So let’s call it even as you get more money for less experience/degrees. Furthermore, the glass ceiling is solid: top female executives are still 5% compared to males. So you take teh risjk and get rewarded, we get set back. Send us to boot camp and give us same salary for same experince/capacity/degrees and we will all get along fine.
No Taiwanese conscript will go to war or dies in war-like circumstances. Taiwanese young men die or suffer injuries because of the unsafe conditions in the military. Young men born before 1994 are forced to spend a year in the army. Young men born after 1993 are forced to go through basic training and spend 4 months in the army. All this is gender stereotyping and it happens under a female president!
Yet you are only bringing straw-man arguments about what could happen to female soldiers during war.
You said nothing about female college graduates who can enter the workforce without wasting a year of their life in the army.
All the wrongs you mentioned are i l l e g al and there are mechanisms to deal with it, such as gender equity committees in all counties and municipalities and all levels of schools in Taiwan. And please remind me, when was the last time that a woman who had photos of her panties taken on the MRT was killed by said pervert.
Straw man arguments again and again!
She does have sources, but she does what any good journalist does and protects the ones who were only willing to talk on the condition of anonymity.
Really? I thought the main thrust of the article was the double standard (as Icon mentioned). “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
Just to be clear, are you saying Madam English is a bad president because she hasn’t abolished conscription or because she hasn’t made conscription gender neutral?
Yet you are only bringing straw-man arguments about what could happen to female soldiers during war.
I thought she was referring to what happens to women in general during war (like when soldiers enter a residential area), not female soldiers specifically.
I think why the conscription is just for young men in many countries is the national strategy to keep its ability to reproduce next generation after wars. If nationals think they don’t need conscription, there is a way to change the law, and isn’t taiwan moving to abolish it?
As @politbureau posted, there still exist discrimination by genders, racies, etc. The fellowships may be the results of earlier/ongoing discrimination.
Hell hath no fury like an Uncle Tom feminist.
Yes I did.
Statistics show female workers make 20% less than male coworkers with same or above experience/education. Check teh data.
Don’t worry, I’m no SJW, I’m just virtue-signalling.
In which field?
No good journalists publishes something as factual news with Jane doe as a source. They may have anonymous sources they protect but they actually dig and do some leg work and find evidence. The only reason this isn’t libel is because it doesn’t name anyone in particular and it’s just too broad to target a person. And I find that to be the downfall. I would love to hear a journalist infiltrated a sex party, and report what she or he saw. That isn’t what happened.