I was making the tacit assumption that watchwolf spoke of the U.S. Otherwise, there are places in the world where even today a man beating a wife to death may go unprosecuted. But if he were referring to other countries then his being old enough to remember would be meaningless.
I just read it again three times. I’m not sure what you mean.
I was responding specifically to this: “Now i don’t deny that there are truly patriarchal societies out there. But even so, most are barely strong these days.”
We can read your posts. We can’t read your mind.
I’m 51.
In my lifetime
Until 1969, she had to prove fault if she wanted a divorce (difficult to do if she didn’t have any money to hire someone to prove fault).
Until 1973 there were states that required me to have my husband’s permission before I took a job.
Until 1974 a married woman was not entitled to credit in her own name.
Until 1981, my husband could take out a second mortgage on our house without informing me.
Until 1993, there were states where there was no law criminalizing marital rape.
Now, beating your wife was made illegal in all states by the late 1920s. But honestly was not really enforced terribly well until well into the 1980s (and arguably still isn’t).
So “property” might be a strong work, but with very little economic agency, no access to credit or a job, and no way to get a divorce unless I could prove adultery, having to put out - willingly or not - at my husband’s demand, and domestic violence laws that were not well enforced - in parts of the country you might as well have been “property” during my lifetime.
This is true, and absolutely irrelevant to my comment. I quoted one line:
Not a single thing you wrote has anything to do with beating a wife to death with no consequences. So I assume you have to agree with me that watchwolf’s comment is simply not true when applied to the U.S. in our lifetimes. Yes or no?
It’s funny you mention this, I’m mid-50’s and work for specialty chemical company. In the last four years, we’ve hired three new chemists, entry level-type, two right out of school and one with 1 year experience…all are women…and it’s not like we set out to be enlightened or trying to empower women in the sciences, no, we interviewed probably 10 - 12 people per position, and the overwhelming majority (like 80%) of the applicants were female…we just picked the best and ones we felt would fit in well…they’ve been great…it’s just different from my experience in coming from what was a male-dominated field (certainly in our little corner of the chemical universe)…and even funnier or more striking is the fact we deal with female engineers/chemists in our customer base more and more…
It’s just an limited observation based on my experience…maybe it’s a regional thing as to where we are located, and certainly just a micro-observation given the overall scope of the scientific and industrial community, but we’ve found the degreed millennial women we’ve hired and work with as customers are more focused, more mature, certainly more detail-oriented and better team players than most of the guys we’ve encountered…
And all three are in relationships with guys with little or no college experience…not judging, I don’t care, they are all good guys, it’s just very different from where I came from just 30 some years ago…
I thought you were kidding when you posted that…yikes, a quick Google search and you were NOT…I was about to graduate HS when LA was the last state to overturn those laws and I was not aware they existed in my lifetime until now…
Ok, so “the world” equals “the US” excluding several areas such as those parts where Tokyo Bayer grew up. Really?
betterlife (mind if I call you betterlife?), back in 2001 I answered an ad for two “lab technicians, fourth shift; trade school or higher required”. They had been expected guys with trade school training; they got 14 women with bachelor’s or higher in STEM fields. I’ve been working in consulting since 2004 and those of my clients which have relatively high amounts of female workers are simply those which do not discriminate. If some companies in the field classify any “Mary” in the round fileholder and you don’t, you end up getting a lot of good candidates called Mary.
A search finds no other mention of Tokyo Bayer in this thread. What are you referring to?
A correction to my above post about The Lord of the Rings squeaking past the Bechdel Test: One of the requirements is that both women who talk with each other have to be named. Neither of the women Ioreth spoke with is named. So ::descending slide whistle glissando:: LotR actually just fails the Bechdel. Came so close, too.
Beyonce is also one of the most powerful celebrities of all time, y’all sure still as male-dominated as they come?
I don’t think right away that male dominance is an oxymoron, because men like to assert themeselves.
But on the other hand is also a hyperbole the way is used. The most patriarchal of times were like I pointed the Roman Empire or during Industrial Revolution[technically So to speak]
Meanwhile on the other hand women can get more medical procedures and health options. Because women’s health is seen as a universally promoted thing, but on the other hand men’s health is still viewed helpless.
Anecdote alert!
Many men are stubborn and refuse to go to get “check ups” so maybe its becoming casually accepted as “helpless”
I know many men like this, including myself. Instead of dealing with going to a doctor once, I gave myself some slapdash stitches with some ice cubes and a needle and thread (for clothes), not the best idea, actually one of the worst i’ve ever pursued but it worked and the scar is small. The point is, some of us will do anything to not be in a hospital. It has to be an immediate issue, like when a guy I know drove himself to the hospital while having a minor heart attack. Women on the other hand, as I’ve noticed, will be on time, every time and go to every single doctors appointment, without fail and don’t take excessive risk for the most part.
Women’s health may be promoted more because of this. Like marketing.
I know, right, I keep asking my doctor for a PAP smear and an IUD and he won’t give me either . . . just because I have a penis!!!
CMC fnord!
You don’t think men are discriminated in healthcare though?
I don’t know, you seem to think you do . . . make your case!
CMC fnord!
I’ve read that drug testing used to favor men, and perhaps still does. Pharmaceutical companies would recruit men for their drug trials because have just one gender meant one less variable in their test group that they’d have to account for, and it was assumed that a drug that worked for men would work for women, too. It’s only recently that that assumption has been questioned and found not to be as reliable as they’d hoped.
On the other hand, women live longer than men, so you could argue that they’re getting better outcomes from the health-care system.
I think you can come up with anecdotes on both sides of the question (whatever the question happens to be) and no one is in a position to really weigh them all objectively.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, but I don’t know that that’s the best argument. 16th century England was certainly male dominated, but the most important person in it was Queen Elizabeth.
I am sure as shit the gender ratio was a huge difference so I mean lol.
What was the ratio back then, and why the “lol”?