I don’t agree. Men suffer just as much but in different ways. The notion that one class of people suffers more than another is a sort of unwholesome elitism of victimhood.
That’s kind of the point. Oppression (in this context) is not a male vs female thing, it’s a complex of culture bound behaviors that are reinforced and exercerabated by poverty and ignorance.
The world is a big place, so I’ll stay stick to my hood and around here women – on average – live longer than men, are less ill, less likely to be the victim of a violent crime, less likely to the victim of a serious accident, are better educated, less likely to be found in the marginalized parts of society (like drug addicts, homeless, etc.), not send off to foreign lands to fight, soon to be the best earning segment of society, have larger social network, less affected by stress related sicknesses, … and on top of all that, they’ve got all the tits.
And women are the predominant pimps of the international sex slave trade. (nothing new in that btw.) I suppose then, that being a sex slave is just something women do to women. No big deal.
What? It’s just looking at reality. Stuff like this would never happen to a man. Ever. And, if it did, it’d be sensationalized to the point of absurdity [last link should not be viewed from your work computer].
- Honesty
How do you define “stuff like this?” James Byrd, Jr. was beaten, and, while still alive, he was dragged behind a pickup truck for a few miles and was decapitated. It happened a while back but you probably remember hearing about it in the news.
Odesio
Really? Daniel Pearl’s widow might disagree with you.
Daniel Pearl’s head wasn’t chopped by his wife or a woman, it was chopped off by another man.
I see, it’s not the horrific nature of the crime in and of ilself it’s that *a man *did it. Women beat, kick, shoot, stab, poison, run over, and murder their male SO’s in this country and around the world every single day of the year. Is the fact that in this case the man was extra insane and chopped her head off an oppression issue or just a crazy issue?
And yet, amazingly enough, he was probably just as dead afterward.
So in other words… you don’t really have a valid comparison to point to when you claim to be paid less.
Again, you have no factual basis for this claim. Sounds like you’re just bitter about what you do earn, and are looking for a scapegoat (e.g. “men”).
It is neither.
It is both accurate and pertinent to the OP. Calling it “unjust” or an “excuse” or “tired” doesn’t change its validity.
(emphasis mine) Yes, you make a valid point. Dangerous jobs do tend to pay more. Men overwhelming perform the most dangerous (i.e. life-endangering) jobs in the world. Men are killed *by their jobs *far more frequently than women are killed by their jobs. This is one reason men, overall, tend to earn more – they’re doing the more dangerous jobs.
(1) Neither are they reserved for men.
(2) The number of CEOs in the world is fantastically, overwhelmingly miniscule compared to the number of actual workers. It’s like comparing “professional NBA player” to “eveyone who has ever played basketball”. It’s like comparing “professional supermodel” to “every woman in the world”. In reality, most of us, the vast, stunning, overwhelming majority of us, will never be a pro b-ball player, a supermodel, or a CEO. My point is… including them in the mix is an irrelevant comparison.
As has already been pointed out, some women do encourage their children to go to war (currently, in certain societies, some mothers encourage their children to become “martyrs” for their cause).
DO. NOT. GO. THERE.
If women *weren’t *allowed to join the military, women like you would be crying discrimination. But now that women have the choice (remember… joining the U.S. military is still voluntary), the *choice *to join up, and do join up, and, as expected, get deployed, you use that as an example of discrimination against women???
I don’t like the idea of oppression Olympics (and as others have noted, John Lennon’s quote wasn’t meant to pit black people against women – as if they are mutually exclusive – but to frame oppression in a way Americans could understand. Even now I wonder whether people who’d hate to be accused of racism would mind as much about being called sexist), but this is the simplest example I can think of:
Take adult American twins, a man and a woman, whatever ethnic background you want. Have them visit every single country in the world and walk down a main street, in local attire, without talking to anyone. The guy may blend in in some places, catch some dirty looks or racist remarks in others, even get hassled by the police. On top of those problems, by doing exactly the same thing in certain countries, the woman will draw ire and even be breaking the law by virtue of nothing other than being born with a vagina.
While it would be nice for everyone to think about women’s rights in terms of human rights, they are not always afforded the attention they deserve (rape was only declared a war crime by the UN last year), sometimes because they conflict with other rights or priorities e.g. the right to practice certain religious customs, a peacekeeping effort or military effort.
Incorrect. Women (the majority of women) are in no hurry to take jobs like this. That’s why they’re underrepresented in these professions.
It’s conveniently forgotten by the Feminist movement that women are a massive contributor to the oppression of women. 40 years after the Sexual Revolution it’s women clucking in their sewing circles about the revealing clothes worn by that skank across the road. I’m sure no women voted for Proposition 8, I’m sure no women picket abortion clinics.
I hardly think I need a cite to state that women are the more socially predisposed of the two genders. If that’s true why don’t they at least deserve some of the blame for the way they are treated socially.
Got no time for gray area, it’s so much easier if penis =oppressor.
Cite for women’s personal job preferences being the main reason why they’re underrepresented in more dangerous/higher-paid professions? Because I’ve got plenty of cites on the other side, showing that male workers in such professions actively attempt to exclude women.
For example, in the case of women working in non-traditional trades like construction (more dangerous, higher-paid than typical “women’s work”), even union groups acknowledge
Similar pervading trends of discrimination and exclusion are experienced by women seeking to work as firefighters.
And in the case of perhaps the most dangerous job in the world, namely, direct military combat, the exclusion of women is of course legally mandated and insisted upon by the overwhelmingly-male military leadership. This situation persists even though polls show that most Americans favor expanding combat roles for women troops. Even allowing women to serve in direct ground combat is favored by a very small majority (52%).
You are probably right that most women don’t want to work in very dangerous jobs; after all, most men don’t, either. However, even the small number of women who currently do seek such jobs are often actively excluded or discriminated against by men who cling to the conviction that these jobs are “men’s work”.
When this discrimination is removed, then you can make a case for the claim that women’s low participation in dangerous high-paid jobs is due primarily to women’s lack of interest in them. But not till then.
I don’t understand how saying that because women participate in some practices which oppress women it some how makes such practices ok, or means we should not address abuses to women or work to end the oppression of women generally. It is rather like saying well, there are black people teaching in a substandard segregated school so that must mean it is ok. Or there were at least some free blacks with slaves, and some slaves who wanted to own others, then slavery was ok.
It think the phrasing in the OP is odious, but in support of that premise is how rape has been used in Kenya and other places to punish women. Is there any corresponding attacks of groups of women on men and boys?
It has been argued that rape of women of the enemy in context of war is the equivalent of attacking the men of the enemy. Even if this were true, it doesn’t explain rape of women on one’s own side, as we are seeing in the US military now.
To address another point about dangerous jobs, when the semiconductor industry blossomed, there were new jobs which required a high degree of skill but were dangerous due to exposure to chemicals. Women flocked to the jobs and excelled in them. Their small hands were an advantage. It wasn’t long before steps were taken to exclude women from those jobs. The exclusion had nothing to do with ability or willingness to do the job.
OK…
No, discrimination is not the primary reason women are under-represented in dangerous jobs.
If 90 men and 10 women apply for a dangerous job and all are hired, even without discrimination the women would be significantly under-represented, 90% men to 10% women. The *primary *reason for their underrepresentation is simply that far fewer applied for the job. Even if 90% of the women who applied are denied employment simply due to discrimination, then there would be 90 men and 1 woman, or about 99% men and 1% women. Still, the *primary *reason for their under-representation is the fact that fewer applied for the job in the first place.
kimstu, now I will ask you for a cite. You linked to an article about women firefighters. Please pick several representative fire departments, and cite the total number of femail applicants to the training programs. Not the overall number of female firefighters, but female applicants to the training programs. Then pick another dangerous job of your choosing – oil well drilling, NYCity taxi cab driver, badger tagging – and cite the number of female applicats for available positions in those fields.
I acknowledge that discrimination does exist. However… the *primary *reason women are under-represented in dangerous jobs is that simply fewer of them apply to work there. Because women (in the U.S. and most other developed nations) have the *choice *to work wherever they want, the *choices *they do make (i.e. to apply or not to dangerous jobs) will of course have an impact on their representation in those industries.
Cite?