Quite the opposite. You gave a scenario as to why a school would openly admit discrimination rather than admit the real reason for not hiring someone. Now, ignore for a moment what the real reason is, whether the story ever happened, or whether Jack of Words is a real person or a 'bot. The mere fact that you offered this as a plausible scenario still says something about how we expect men and women to be treated in the world.
First, you’re presuming that I wouldn’t have offered it as a scenario in the alternative scenario, which is awfully presumptuous of you. But that aside, so what?
Would you have?
I think the scenario becomes less plausible[sup]*[/sup], or at least the reactions to it would be different, if the genders are reversed. A company that openly admitted to discriminating against a woman would face a backlash[sup]+[/sup] (legal and/or popular), or, at the very least, would recognize the possibility of such a thing and would want to guard against it. Indeed, aren’t most tales of workplace discrimination quite the reverse of what we’re discussing; firing a woman (or minority, or…) because she’s a woman and then concocting a bogus explanation to avoid admitting the truth?
- I question how likely this is even for a man. I suppose anything is possible, but I can’t see why an employer would admit discrimination, especially when it’s not even true.
- To be clear, I’m not criticizing the backlash, just positing that it could exist, or at least be a possibility.
Um, “we?” So far, the only people in this thread who think that’s a plausible scenario are *Evil Economist and Jack. I don’t think two people holding an opinion quite extends to a social trend.
I haven’t seen Jack of Words comment on it, so it’s just EE so far. On the other hand, nobody stepped up to call it implausible, either, and truly off-the-wall ideas usually get shot down pretty quickly around here.
Well, it was his story, so I’m assuming he finds the idea that he was refused a job just for being a man to be plausible.
Your on page eleven of a thread that went terminally stupid on page one. Anyone with sense is staying out of it by this point.
Not quite. I’m not talking about Jack’s original story of being openly discriminated against, but rather Evil Econ’s scenario that he offered later in critique of Jack; to wit, that the school might have lied about the discrimination to avoid giving the real reason.
And yet, here we both are.
I guess I think there are still some interesting points on this subject that might be uncovered; complicated, subtle, and we’ll probably never balance the scales completely, but still interesting.
I don’t even know wtf we’re talking about at this point. If your point is that societal gynocentrism means not having people tell you to your face the real reason they won’t hire you, then I guess that just demonstrates the power of societal gynocentrism. If your point is that women and men are treated differently then let’s just take that as a given.
I think you’re kind of straining for a distinction, there.
Yes, that was the joke.
We haven’t found one in eleven pages, but I admire your optimism.
Well, personally, I stumbled across the term “societal gynocentrism,” which **Jack **apparently used unironically, and which is now my favorite phrase.
11 pages just in this thread. There have been others…
I’ve never used the words “societal gynocentrism”, so please don’t read into my words things that aren’t there.
I don’t think I’m straining for a distinction. A part of feminism, it seems to me, is that words and actions contain clues to our habits and assumptions about men and women. And pointing out those clues can bring the assumptions to light, help us question them, and hopefully overcome them. My point (part of it, anyway) is that that cuts both ways. There are subtle clues about how men are treated, too, and it should be fair, even expected, to point them out.
Yes. Let me try another analogy: suppose you were for equality for whites. You looked at NBA players making $1 million or more, and discovered they were 80% black - despite blacks being 12% of the population. If you were for equality for whites, you’d point at that as a prime example of black privilege, and demand the NBA do something about it.
Meanwhile, you’d awkwardly ignore every every other area where whites are more privileged than blacks.
Being for equality for one group doesn’t mean you’re for equality for everyone.
There’s a desperate need for more men in elementary education. Boys are falling behind in every conceivable category. They’re graded worse, they’re drugged more often, they’re labelled problem children, they’re disciplined more often and they drop out of school more often. But feminists don’t care. Not only do they not care about men; they don’t even care about boys.
Any number of feminists have told personal stories that have been accepted unconditionally.
It’s called confirmation bias: people accept what fits their preconceptions, and reject what doesn’t.
Yeah, I’m familiar with confirmation bias. The hard part is trying to identify it in ourselves and not just in everyone else.
I think plenty of posters here and in other threads (not even those started by you, but other threads in general) have commented and lamented this lack of men in elementary education. Most of them also identify as feminists.
You wish to ignore what does not fit into your narrative. Then you should not be surprised when people ignore your comments, for they are tired of pointing out the misconceptions.
Me too! It’s remarkable how often the phrase can be worked into any and all conversations.
“Is my tie on straight?”
“You wouldn’t have to wear that tie if there were more societal gynocentrism.”
And this was caused by feminism how?
Right now, little girls are dying of AIDS in africa. Anti-feminists don’t care. Not only do they not care about women, they don’t care about girls.
It gets mentioned, certainly, but does it get as much attention as those areas in which women lag behind, like STEM? Have we taken any steps to make education better for boys, and have they shown any results yet?
Did LinusK claim that it was?