Sexism and other isms

Whoops, I’m sorry. Were you seriously equating a “no gaijin” sign with the persistent global phenomenon of women being paid (at best) 20% less than men, not to mention being ogled, harassed, stalked, threatened, beaten, raped, murdered, and condescended to on message boards by men?

I duly retract my amusement.

Whoops, I’m sorry. Were you seriously equating a “no gaijin” sign with the persistent global phenomenon of women being paid (at best) 20% less than men, not to mention being ogled, harassed, stalked, threatened, beaten, raped, murdered, and condescended to on message boards by men?

I duly retract my amusement.[/quote]

I wonder if you two are talking about the same thing.
I feel like skoster is talking about the concept of discrimination. While Brendon is talking about examples of discrimination.

In general, discrimination on this planet will not end until everyone on this planet is dead.

Whoops, I’m sorry. Were you seriously equating a “no gaijin” sign with the persistent global phenomenon of women being paid (at best) 20% less than men, not to mention being ogled, harassed, stalked, threatened, beaten, raped, murdered, and condescended to on message boards by men?

I duly retract my amusement.[/quote]

I know, right?

What were those black people thinking in the 60s when they were whining about being barred from establishments??

It’s not like they were being condescended to on message boards, after all, right??

Am I seriously having to explain to a grown adult that NO DISCRIMINATION IS OK?

It isn’t a game of this is better or worse, NONE IS OK.

Oh wait, I forgot, this is how we play that game of yours:

:roflmao:

Yup, move it away from the issue that it is NOT OK FOR YOU TO MAKE SEXIST COMMENTS again… Seriously, stop using a valid issue, sexism against women, to create a safe haven for displaying your own chauvinism. It undermines that exact issue, and does more damage to it than every single stupid comment ever made by anyone on F.com which was sexist.

Let me put it to you succinctly:

You, and your sexist comments, are the biggest threat to women’s equality in this entire thread.

That’s a good analogy. Is black people being barred from establishments in the US in the 60’s the same as gaijin being banned from establishments in parts of Japan today?

Yes, yes, I know, they’re both forms of discrimination, and discrimination is NEVER OKAY, but are they equivalent?

Stop doing what? I haven’t read your posts because I thought you had me on ‘Ignore’. Do you want to explain something to me or something? I’m happy that I’ve thought through my position. If you’d like to help women who are oppressed, and I gave the examples of Verokina Weiss, Dr Meriam Ibrahim and Malala Yousafzai as examples of victims of misogyny. You can use your insider status to change male culture so that women face less violence. Women’s protests leave a shallower footprint. You don’t have to, if you aren’t interested or don’t understand. I get that. We all have things that we wan’t to change.

‘Sexism’ against men does not leave them hanging from trees as the two little girls in Uttar Pradesh recently, it leads to some ‘cocky bitch’ like Ermintrude being a bit cheeky. Being disliked and mistrusted by the group that is routinely murdered, raped, trafficked and discriminated against, is not sexism. Of course, a few white women from your home country have more wealth and power than you, but the majority do not and live in fear of both violence and everyday aggressions, and are paid less than you. I don’t know where you’re from but women are paid 7% less than men in Britain, and Brendon’s link shows 20% in the US. And we are the rich, lucky ones. In the world, women who earn more than £23000 pa are in the top 1% of female wage earners. Most women live in absolute poverty, entirely at the whims of fathers, husbands and clerics.

You can do more to change this than I can. You can.

[quote=“Ermintrude”] We all have things that we wan’t to change.

‘Sexism’ against men does not leave them hanging from trees as the two little girls in…

You can do more to change this than I can. You can.[/quote]

For the record I believe in total equality regardless of gender, creed, race, or economic background, and practice this and always have. Everyone should be judged by their actions and performance. I have gladly promoted women when they were the best candidates and worked for several (direct bosses) . Firmly believe in equal pay, equal opportunity, everywhere, no exceptions.

So where do some of my negative comments come from on this topic? From real life experiences and several cases of “unequal treatment” discriminating against men favoring women.

  1. Reverse Discrimination against Men to meet quotas - My company presently practices reverse discrimination because it accepts US Gov contracts. The present US Admin requires a diversity program and mandates metrics showing increased numbers of women in management jobs (but strangely at no lower level). The fact that 95% of those working are male does not enter the equation (not to be offensive but the % of women with technical degrees is significantly smaller than men at least in the US). There are several cases where the promotions have been made solely because the name is Sue and not Steve, otherwise no promotion. There were several promotions that were deserved and I applaud them, further I have promoted several. There were several that were not. There are multiple cases where they where not qualified, rejected by the hiring person, and told to give them the job by upper management. In one case I had a female engr working in one of my groups (the only one) and had no interest in the project spent most of her day doing other things (yes many of the guys do to and they also received poor rating). We racked and stack the group and gave her a below average rating. We were them informed to up her rating preferable by two levels. We actually protested to management and were told. “what is it about upping her rating you did not understand” and did so.

  2. Divorce Court (at least in the US) - In the US it is by state, however most, including mine, state 50% split in assets unless the judge determines it is “Fair and Just” to do otherwise. Sounds really equal, except is really isn’t. If it is not settled before trial then at the trial all the women has to do is show up and she gets a minimum of 50%. The man on the other hand must fight for for his 50% and often does not get it. In my case the fact I had earned/contributed 85% of the combined wealth had no bearing. The fact that I was successful in my career (rather than fight with the boss and get fired like she did, my ex was a CFO) had no bearing. The fact that I made a lot of money, and she did not, was sited as a major factor and a significant additional percentage was awarded to her (by the way, the rotten bastard accusations did not stick). God I wish there was true equality there, it cost me a small fortune. So you might say, what if it were the other way around, she was successful and you were fired, maybe you would have gotten more than 50%? Maybe, but I doubt it, judge would likely just think “what a loser living off the wife”, he came across as old school.

Have some other issues but out of time. There presently is not gender equality but there are efforts to do so, we should keep trying, really believe in it. Personal I would like to see it everywhere, no exceptions, no double standards.

For the record my native language is English and I hold multiple undergraduate and graduate degrees in technical fields.

Would you concede that male American concerns such as employment quotas and division of property in divorces are not analogous with the violence, aggression and economic weakness that women cope with around the world? And that these concerns do not negate the need for educated, powerful men like yourself to be willing to stand up to people like Elliot Rodger and to create a culture of safety? Do you think that feminism should be put on hold until you have exactly 50% of everything in every situation? Stepping aside from your own identity for a second, do you actually think the socio-economic well-being of the dominant group in one of the richest countries of the world is as important as the basic safety of the non-dominant group?

You can argue until the cows come home that some women are dominant. Sure. 0.001% of women are more educated and wealthier than you and will wipe the floor with you because they have more resources than you. That doesn’t mean that misogyny is not a way of life for the remaining percentage of women in the world. Your feeling of persecution over your divorce is not proof that sexual violence and unequal pay do not exist. Do you think most divorced women in the world come out on top? Genuinely?

I know you are speaking as an American, and apologies but I have next to no knowledge of your cultures or values. I’m not American and I’ll never really get where you’re coming from. I understand your disappointment at losing your privilege and that combative urge.

You’re a native speaker? Well, I’m sometimes wrong. No need to be insulted. EFL writers who write like you are incredibly accomplished people. Your mistakes aren’t numerous and I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

skoster, too belligerent. Dial it down and you get my ear, unless you are communicating with the other men with the aggressive display?

Good job, you figured out my point! Congrats on finally getting to it, though it took a hell of an effort. Now, how about you tell Ermintrude that, since she’s apparently having more difficulty than you in parsing the simple statement that no discrimination (including sexist statements) are ok regardless of who they are aimed at or by whom they are hurled.[/quote]
You didn’t answer my question. Is your racial oppression at the hands of the Japanese the same as pre-civil-rights-act oppression of blacks in the US, or not? All discrimination is the same, right?

Good job, you figured out my point! Congrats on finally getting to it, though it took a hell of an effort. Now, how about you tell Ermintrude that, since she’s apparently having more difficulty than you in parsing the simple statement that no discrimination (including sexist statements) are ok regardless of who they are aimed at or by whom they are hurled.[/quote]
You didn’t answer my question. Is your racial oppression at the hands of the Japanese the same as pre-civil-rights-act oppression of blacks in the US, or not? All discrimination is the same, right?[/quote]

Hi Mr

You said:

I provided two examples if how it has.

Don’t move the goalposts now to relative damage, just accept that your statement was wrong and move on.

I don’t have to argue some other point that you wish I made.

Seriously, you created a thread called ‘sexism’ and put it in DNR? What is wrong with you?

Just delete it: you can do that if you’re going for that one thread, one thought vibe.

I’ll move the discussion to Temp, mkay?

Sexism rarely leads to murdering children in modern, developed nations. The extreme example you’ve cited from some place nobody’s heard of has nothing to do with the context of this discussion. It’s a red herring, meant to stir emotions and distract attention from your own incendiary statements.

No, but making hateful, bigoted statements against billions of people, solely on the basis of gender, is sexism. That’s what you’re doing. And I seriously doubt that the “group” you’re referring to, that being the world’s 3.5 billion strong population of women and girls, broadly dislikes and mistrusts men. In my experience, the type of hateful invective you’ve displayed here is extremely rare. Misandry isn’t any more excusable than misogyny. They’re both sides of the same rotten coin.

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Gender-norming is predicated on the idea that minimum physical requirements will be met. I studied this issue in business school. I’m certainly no expert, but I’ve read several peer-reviewed articles, and they changed my mind. I used to think the same way you did. The reality is that no fire department or police force or military is going to allow someone into a job they’re not qualified for. Not on purpose, and not as policy. Gender-norming has been enormously successful with improving military recruitment among females, not just in the US but in many other countries. I’m not familiar with the numbers on fire fighting and police work, but I can’t imagine the results have been different. Gender-norming is a critical aspect of expanding and maintaining gender equality.

Another poster scoffed at the idea that the government should encourage girls to study Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in school and then have careers in those fields. This poster based his dismissal on the fact that girls do equal or better to boys on standardized math tests. That is precisely why all civilized nations should encourage girls with mathematical aptitude to enter STEM fields. STEM jobs tend to be stable, pay well, and have lots of room for career advancement. In the United States, a federal government study determined that women in STEM jobs make 33% more than women in non-STEM jobs, and experience a much smaller pay gap with men. Encouraging girls to choose STEM academic and careers paths is great for the economy and great for the equality movement. I can’t imagine why anyone would be opposed.

Sexism rarely leads to murdering children in modern, developed nations. The extreme example you’ve cited from some place nobody’s heard of has nothing to do with the context of this discussion. It’s a red herring, meant to stir emotions and distract attention from your own incendiary statements.

No, but making hateful, bigoted statements against billions of people, solely on the basis of gender, is sexism. That’s what you’re doing. And I seriously doubt that the “group” you’re referring to, that being the world’s 3.5 billion strong population of women and girls, broadly dislikes and mistrusts men. In my experience, the type of hateful invective you’ve displayed here is extremely rare. Misandry isn’t any more excusable than misogyny. They’re both sides of the same rotten coin.[/quote]

A lot of us have heard of Uttar Pradesh, this was a sickening high profile story and sadly one in a long list of horrible violent crimes against girls and women in India. I read an article recently about how women in rural India, who have no toilet at home, walk into the fields under cover of darkness out of fear of being raped by the local men. I can imagine that these women fear and even despise men in general, and who can blame them ? But when I read stories like this the last thing I think of is the word “sexism”. Brutally backward societies, yes, but sexism, nothing to do with it. These rapists are brutal, sick men who do what they do because it gratifies them and because they can, because they can get away with it. Sexism is a fallacious “intellectual” viewpoint that women are inferior to men, that only has relevance in liberal societies such as ours where women are not defacto second class citizens. So yes, it’s completely irrelevant to bring Uttar Pradesh into this argument.

Sexism - prejudice or discrimination based on sex; behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (adjective or noun).

Before I get controversial I want to state my beliefs on this because there are several readers who often do not take the time to read what you say and look for a quick “sound bite” then get out the branding irons. I believe in COMPLETE GENDER EQUALITY to a very extreme level and have for my entire life. How extreme? Everywhere, no exceptions!

Military Combat – If they can shoot, put them on the front line.
Firefighters (previously mentioned) – If they can do the job (including carrying someone from a burning building), give it to them.
Sports (professional or otherwise) - If they can compete, let them play.
Jobs (any and all) – If they can do the job, let them do it, and pay them equally.

As previous stated (another post) if they can perform the function, let them do it. So far we are all in agreement, no differences yet. So what was I talking about with my previous comment that started the storm? When it comes to execution of this noble cause it gets complicated. My present observations, my present irritations with this subject is the picking and choosing of issues instead of an across the board sweep of true equality.

So I ask;

Why is there no public outcry against reverse discrimination in the workplace which is presently dictated by the US government to companies they give contracts to? Some say, that is “Affirmative Action” it is not gender discrimination. No, reverse discrimination is equally offensive as discrimination. (A good answer here, most do not know about it, it is hidden under a “Diversity” initiative, and yes or course we are all for that)

Why is there no public outcry against gender in-equality in divorce court? For a guy (at least in the US), the cards are all stacked against you and any lawyer will fully explain that to you?

Why was there no public outcry when the US changed the policy on women in combat after a few high profile captures during the Iraq war? An interesting side note, there is an initiative to allow women back into the US Infantry in 2016 but only for selected MOSs, at this time a goal, not yet firm.

Why does this forum have a Women’s (only) Forum? Do I really want to go there or really care? Really don’t? Do I think it is sexism and discriminates in a public forum? Yes I do. If this is a public forum, why should women get their own forum and not allow men?

My answer, everyone talks about gender equality if in abstract terms but when it comes to execution of true gender equality, many just want to pick and choose (both genders). Is it acceptable to pick and choose? In my opinion, NO it is not. Can I speak for everyone, no only myself, but these are my observations.

I invite your answers.

[quote=“Micahel”]
So I ask;

Why is there no public outcry against reverse discrimination in the workplace which is presently dictated by the US government to companies they give contracts to? Some say, that is “Affirmative Action” it is not gender discrimination. No, reverse discrimination is equally offensive as discrimination. (A good answer here, most do not know about it, it is hidden under a “Diversity” initiative, and yes or course we are all for that)[/quote]
I don’t agree with affirmative action either- at the very most I think they might make resumes/hiring qualifications gender/race neutral throughout the hiring process, if such a thing were possible. (do interviews over text perhaps?) to mitigate the hirer’s bias- whether that bias leans toward women or men.

[quote]
Why is there no public outcry against gender in-equality in divorce court? For a guy (at least in the US), the cards are all stacked against you and any lawyer will fully explain that to you?[/quote]
I mentioned this myself in an earlier post as something that I thought the men’s movement (yes, there is such a thing) has right.

[quote]
Why was there no public outcry when the US changed the policy on women in combat after a few high profile captures during the Iraq war? An interesting side note, there is an initiative to allow women back into the US Infantry in 2016 but only for selected MOSs, at this time a goal, not yet firm. [/quote]
Can’t comment, don’t know anything about it. I imagine that the military tries to alleviate any sort of POW/hostage suffering that might befall soldiers, and perhaps they think that what a woman would suffer would be worse, adding sexual abuse on top of torture/forced labor etc. If you had two soldiers, and one was more vulnerable to certain types of suffering, you’d likely try to keep the vulnerable soldier away from that specific type of suffering. They may just have an argument there but I don’t know enough about it to comment. I’d never join the military myself (though I do think men and women should be conscripted equally if conscripted at all)

[quote]
Why does this forum have a Women’s (only) Forum? Do I really want to go there or really care? Really don’t? Do I think it is sexism and discriminates in a public forum? Yes I do. If this is a public forum, why should women get their own forum and not allow men?[/quote]
I always thought that was weird too. I wouldn’t complain if there were a men’s only forum as well. We do have different anatomies and therefore sometimes different (embarrassing) problems to talk about.

[quote]My answer, everyone talks about gender equality it abstract terms but when it comes to execution of true gender equality, many just want to pick and choose (both genders). Is it acceptable to pick and choose? In my opinion, NO it is not. Can I speak for everyone, no only myself, but these are my observations.

I invite your answers.[/quote]
Sure, “many” want to pick and choose, but not all. I’m a woman and I believe that gender is, for the most part, a societal construct that we uphold to the detriment of the individual (sex, of course, isn’t just a societal construct and is a little easier to determine just by looking). I think we make a big mistake by polarizing the two so much when it’s more a spectrum thing. “Feminine” men and “masculine” women are too often made to feel that they are somehow wrong- and the ensuing insecurity and self-censorship and pretending to be something different from what they are- that drains a lot of energy and a lot of goodness from the world, in my estimation. I think we’d gain a lot if we just took people as they came and let people do the jobs they have the talent, desire and ability for, whether in the home or outside the home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Gender-norming is predicated on the idea that minimum physical requirements will be met. I studied this issue in business school. I’m certainly no expert, but I’ve read several peer-reviewed articles, and they changed my mind. I used to think the same way you did. The reality is that no fire department or police force or military is going to allow someone into a job they’re not qualified for. Not on purpose, and not as policy. Gender-norming has been enormously successful with improving military recruitment among females, not just in the US but in many other countries. I’m not familiar with the numbers on fire fighting and police work, but I can’t imagine the results have been different. Gender-norming is a critical aspect of expanding and maintaining gender equality.

Another poster scoffed at the idea that the government should encourage girls to study Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in school and then have careers in those fields. This poster based his dismissal on the fact that girls do equal or better to boys on standardized math tests. That is precisely why all civilized nations should encourage girls with mathematical aptitude to enter STEM fields. STEM jobs tend to be stable, pay well, and have lots of room for career advancement. In the United States, a federal government study determined that women in STEM jobs make 33% more than women in non-STEM jobs, and experience a much smaller pay gap with men. Encouraging girls to choose STEM academic and careers paths is great for the economy and great for the equality movement. I can’t imagine why anyone would be opposed.[/quote]

You’re making my point exactly. If the gender normed standards are adequate to do the job, just apply them to men as well and be done with it. That way the job is done and there is no preferential treatment.

Let me put it this way: Is it fair to expect more than what is necessary to do the job from either gender?

Seriously? Lol. You don’t have other problems? How many percent of men are brought up to be a xiaoxie?

99, sweetcheeks, 99.

Haters gonna hate. I feel sorry for your empty life.

Like that sick one:

You’re right! How could I not see it before? :laughing: