To the young woman sitting behind me who said feminists were "man-hating Nazis":

The BBQ Pit
141

You didn’t read my post, did you? The surveyors did SPECULATE that the disparity in salaries is due to men working in higher acuity areas–note: not all male nurses work in such–but it’s a disingenous speculation. They work in those areas WITH women–women who make up the majority of staff. There is no explanation for the disparity of salaries within the specialties!
Here it is again, just for shits and giggles:

The “very little difference” comment speaks to the infrequent practice of the BSN differential–it is NOT common, and is given to both genders. The amount given is not the same–but this is where we came in.

And this is not acceptable:

You said earlier that NOTHING would have stopped you getting where you are today. So, let’s have none of this namby-pamby “How far I would have gotten is something I can’t tell you.” stuff. catsix -leader of the free world circa 1860(or 1960). Dream on.

Maybe,150+ years ago, you could have fought your way to Oberlin College–a most progressive institution in it’s heyday. females can go here, but not get degrees

I really don’t care about this study or that one–the fact that anyone can state that women were the weak and didn’t try over the centuries to advance and better themselves is batsit insane. It speaks to an utter dismissal of history and a tunnel vision so narrow it traps light.

142

The causes you cite might be the explanation for a reasonable disparity in distribution between the sexes in upper management, but hell, the disparity is nowhere near reasonable: are you saying that less than the 1997 figures cited in the study, with less than 4 percent of women in top management positions, is strictly because women just aren’t capable of being top managers?

Such a position, advocated without hard evidence to back it up, is the very essence of sexism.

I can imagine that there might be a 60/40 or even a 70/30 ration of male to female managers being the result of historic trends that haven’t yet been worked out by feminism – that is, that female managers just haven’t had time enough to reach the CEO in the last 20 years (though I would find such a contention extremely suspect). But a 96/4 disparity? I think you have to drink a LOT of koolaid to find that a reasonable number.

Your analogy to tennis is extremely poor as well. Men are physically stronger than women, biologically, that’s why sports are generally segregated. Are you saying women are also stupider and less competitive, biologically, wrt the workplace? Good luck with that.

143

>Such a position, advocated without hard evidence to back it up, is the very essence of sexism.

On the contrary - asserting without proof that something in the system is broken and needs to be changed is the epitome of unthinking modern-day feminism.

144

I expressed my reasons for thinking the system ain’t working so well, if you have an objection, raise it, otherwise, don’t do this stupid handwaving. Impresses no one.

145

So because some guy doesn’t find a girl acting promiscuous sexually attractive to him, there’s something wrong? Sounds like you need to think with your big head more, and your little head less.

146

If we accept that childbearing and rearing can, in some cases, cripple a woman’s career advancement- especially in ‘high powered’ career tracks- then it’s no surprise that they would be underrepresented. According to this article from the US census bureau,
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/fertility/001491.html

in 2002, about 18% of all women 40-44 had were childless. So that accounts for an incredibly small pool (compared to males) to compete for these upper tier jobs. Also bear in mind that this article doesn’t cover any physical or mental handicaps that, while they might discourage pregnancy, also remove the women discussed from the employment pool.

As **Malacandra ** mentioned earlier, equality of opportunity doesn’t always mean equality of outcome. If women wish to pursue family over, or alongside, careers, then they should expect to not make it as far as men that are willing to abandon it.

Still thinking of a response to catsix…I tend to agree with her take on the current state of American feminism (especially as it is so western, white, and middle class centered). However, her refusal to acknowledge any efforts and sacrifices by prior generations, attributing her current state to her efforts alone, is mind-boggling to me. No man (or woman) is an island. We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants, and while I don’t think that the agitators of the feminist movement have any place in current society (as most of their ‘hard’ goals have been met), I appreciate their contribution in their time. If nothing else, they made people think of alternatives to the status quo.

147

Actually I think the objection wasn’t about not finding that behavior attractive. Afterall, we all have our own tastes. The objection was, I believe, to the assumption that she was a slut, unintelligent, etc. At least, that’s what I’m assuming was meant by “slut’s brain.”

148

Aren’t as capable, aren’t as committed, aren’t as hard-assed about seeing to it that they get the job, or haven’t been at it as long, in any combination. It’s at least plausible, compared to the alternative hypothesis; that the people who appoint senior managers are willing to appoint the objectively second-best person for the job, if only it means keeping a woman out of the job.

Rubbish.

Or to answer more fully, you need to show some hard evidence that there really is an anti-woman conspiracy to keep women out of the top jobs, before you cry “sexism” not only on the phenomenon itself but any counter-argument that it is not sexism that is to blame. :rolleyes:

Sorry, they don’t sell Kool-aid over here; I believe I am none the poorer. You can show me how your figures above aren’t just ex ano if you like, or I might just have to settle for thinking that you made them up as an example of how you think the world ought to work.

No, my analogy is just fine, but you are having trouble reading for comprehension. What I was saying about tennis had to do with adjusting the playing conditions until the results show that the contest is “fair”, which is what you appear to be arguing for in the world of work though anyone would consider it laughable in the world of sport.
However, while we’re about it: it’s perfectly possible for women to be at least as capable as men in the workplace on average, and possibly even somewhat superior, and for it still to be the case that men exhibit more variance in ability, such that when you get up to the top 0.01% - the head of a ten-thousand strong company - the necessary level of aptitude and dedication is found disproportionately often in men. And it would be worth taking that into consideration rather than flat-out presuming an institutionalised anti-woman bias. Unless, of course, you have taken it as axiomatic that half the top jobs ought to be women’s, in which case your ears will be deaf to any excuses until it is so. But this would be a good time for me to stop beginning sentences with conjunctions.

149

False. Women make up a larger proportion of poor people than men, everywhere in the world. I googled women and poverty and got these cites from the very first page:

USA (emphasis mine):

United Kingdom:

Canada:

Globally:

How can we explore why this pattern recurs everywhere, without being “feminist”?

Or is it not a problem worth studying?

150

I’d say that if you approach the problem as a whole- the dissolution (or at least easing) of poverty, you’ll likely discover that root causes are different for men and women due to several factors. Formulating plans for each gender that are different in nature, scope, and approach, isn’t feminist. Unless you think that the issue of male poverty isn’t worth studying?

Also, I’d be willing to wager that the poverty rates are closely tied to childbirth (especially teen pregnancy) rates. And I favor birth control and reproductive health education and government backed financing as a health intuitive for all people, regardless of gender, class, etc.

As Seren mentioned earlier, so much of old school feminism matches modern sensibilities that it’s no wonder that goddess-worshiping, man hating lesbians have been able to hijack the term. It’s also no mystery why modern empowered young women avoid feminism like the plague.

151

I’d call it feminist, and I would include the issue of male poverty in it. As far as I’m concerned anything that looks at how something affects men and women differently, is feminist.

I am a modern empowered young woman, and I am a feminist.

I think a lot of disagreement about this comes down to definitions of femimsim.

For instance, some things that I have heard friend catsix say are pretty much word-for-word what I’ve heard Camille Paglia (widely acknowledged as a feminist) say.

152

The thing that was wrong was all this “she must think that and believe this about herself therfore she must have such values and be this sort of person” crapola that went with it. A simple “I don’t dig drunk chicks who strip” would have been enough, though it IS grounds for being asked to hand in your “dude” card.

153

Just to follow up on this, I did a bit of googling:

from here

From here (re: a situation where a girl at Harvard was date-raped and successfully demanded that her ‘attacker’ be expelled)

Please note she calls herself a “feminist.” I hope everyone here (ahemDer Trihs*ahem) will think of this next time you attibute something to “the feminists” - is it clear now that one feminist does not and cannot speak for all?

154

I was at a meeting at my church on Wednesday at which I was the youngest person present. Two women who described experiences they had which seem relevant to this thread.

One had just graduated from Vassar and was looking for a job in New York City in the early 1960’s, before the Women’s Lib movement. Everywhere she went, they were interested in only one qualification: how fast she could type. They didn’t ask about her degree or other qualifications; only her typing speed. Finally, when she was being interviewed at Cosmopolitan, she got fed up and asked, “Why does everyone want to know if I type? Doesn’t anyone want to know if I can think?” An editor called out from down the hall, “Whoever that person is, hire her!” They did, and, while her boss could always out type her, she was a good reporter, which is what she’d trained to be.

The other woman worked for a head hunter in the early 1970’s. At the time, they had three categories of job: technical, administrative, and female. She asked her boss what would have happened if a woman applied for a technical or administrative job. She was told the woman wouldn’t have been considered for one, regardless of her qualifications.

I once worked with a woman who came to my company with the promise that, when she did, she’d be hired as the manager of the Quality Control department. When she joined us, she wasn’t given that title, and the company made it quite clear they had no intention of doing so because women weren’t managers. This was the 1990’s, and she did sue because she was sexually discriminated against. The suit resulted in a settlement and the company’s no longer in business, although the latter is for unrelated reasons. This is also one of two companyies I’ve worked for who ordered me to take a turn answering the phones, even though I was in an IT job, simply because I was a woman. This company didn’t believe men should do a receptionist’s duties; the other one never did explain why it was me they pulled off a paying job to man the reception desk.

I just thought I’d contribute a few data points.
CJ

155

I disagree with your first statement, but wholeheartedly agree with your second. On the first, calling a study on both genders feminism, on the face of it, sounds silly. Men and women are different- most forward thinking people I know believe this. How is it feminist? I don’t know that men were ever the ‘default’ setting on studies like this.

On the second, it’s just a question of whether a) you feel that early feminists have largely achieved their tangible goals, and b)whether you feel the term has now been hijacked by the far left. I answer, with small qualification, yes and yes.

156

JESUS CHRIST, woman, you certainly think highly of yourself. It’s a wonder you don’t have a nosebleed from that high pedestal you’ve put yourself on.

So catsix would have won the right to vote, to attend college, to be able to control her own reproductive freedom, the right to control her own finances, all by her little ol’ self, because she is obviously SO awesome and so smart and accomplished, that hundreds of years of institutional sexism would have fallen to dust before her very presence.

Is that right?

157

For me (and for many), feminism is precisely the study of how and why things affect men and women differently.

Also, in most studies throughout history, men were indeed the ‘default’ setting. For example, many argue that this is precisely the reason for a lot of female poverty in the third world: because women were simply invisible to international development projects and goals. You build a big dam, this brings prosperity to the area - but now, you’ve messed up the water table and a lot of women have to spend a lot more of their time finding and fetching water. For another example, some diseases and some drugs have quite different effects on women than on men, but this has not been apparent until quite recently because the default study subjects were, in fact, men.

We would have to agree on who “early feminists” are - does that include the Chipko movement and feminists like Vanada Shiva? If so, no they haven’t achieved their tangible goals.

If by “feminists” you mean western liberal feminists, then yes, they largely have, but their goals never accurately represented mine either. (Remember: not all feminists have the same goals.)

Also problematic, because we may not agree on either “hijacked” or “the far left.” On the face of it I completely disagree, but that is likely because of my experience learning about feminism the way I did. I can how some might come to that conclusion, but no, I do not agree that the term has been hijacked by the far left.

158

Damn straight. And I type this on this machine I call a “computer.” I invented it. Last week.

The first quote by Camille Paglia reminds me of a story.

When I left a certain job a few years back, the company seemed to me to be about 50/50 men and women, give or take. And management was far more feminine. All the VPs were women. But it wasn’t always that way.

When I started there, there were but two women. One was a new hire, the other was just quitting because she wanted to be with her kids. The new hire was young, just out of college. Being that the office was mostly male, there was some male-style banter, but nothing terribly offensive. But this chick would get offended at everything. I once asked a guy “So did you ever go on a second date with Betsy?” The girl responded with “I think that that sort of sexist talk is inappropriate for the office.” We pretty much had to stop all conversation because we were afraid this babe would slap a harassment suit on us. And she made it pretty clear that she would. She also made it clear that she knew all about this stuff because she recently took a course in woman’s studies.

And yet, at the office holiday party, she was all flirty (in front of her significant oppressor) with me, and at one point stood so close to me that I could feel her nipples burning holes into my back.

All talk, no walk. I sure hope she’s mellowed out a bit.

159

I agree. I liken it to those who equate all Christians with Fred Phelps or similiar. It doesn’t parse that way at all.
I don’t like the rationalization that since females are the ones with child bearing capabilities, they won’t and dont’ succeed financially as men will and do. I think that’s a cop out. IMO, the system needs to change to accomodate the requirements of being human. The message to women is that she loses value to the company because she gave birth. Is she dumber than before she was pregnant? Is she now somehow incapable?

This effects both genders–not many men take off for child care/paternity leave or even family leave. If they did so, I would have more faith in the theory that people who don’t make their career number one will fall by the wayside, in terms of CEO. So far, it’s women who are faced with that choice. The number of Mr Moms is increasing, and I call that a good thing–but until either parent can absent themself from the workforce and not suffer a dramatic drop in SES, this is a feminist issue. It’s really a humanist issue, but the two are intertwined.

160

Uhh, your reponse has nothing to do with what I wrote. Where did I say there were MORE obstacles for women than for men? There are certain obstacles for everyone to become literate, go to college, and have a professional career. Right now, in the US, they’re pretty much within epsilon of being equivalent for men and for women. If anything, men seem to be going to college LESS than women, for whatever reason.

Again, I didn’t say anything about your gender. And it certainly had something to do with luck. You were lucky to be born in the USA as opposed to North Korea. You were lucky to be born to parents who instilled in you the values you have (unless everything you’ve done has been despite your parents, which is possible). You were certainly lucky not to, I dunno, get hit by a car and die. You were lucky NOT to have randomly been rejected from all your colleges by insane admissions officers with vendettas against everyone with your first name.

Pretty much every good thing that has ever been accomplished by any human being in history has been due, at least in some part, to some amount of luck. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t also 99% perspiration… but once again, you’re taking offense at a slight that wasn’t there.

I know that as we go further and further back in time, the chance of a woman going to college and having a career drops and drops and drops until it tails out and eventually reaches zero, back around the time when, I dunno, there WERE no colleges.
Furthermore, the original claim that was made was that you should be GRATEFUL to the feminists who came before you. Even if you assert that you could have accomplished the nearly superhuman feat of being born in the year 1650, as a girl, and somehow coming up with the idea to become literate and go to college (despite the fact that that idea would have seemed like preposterous nonsense to everyone around you), and actually somehow made it happen… even if you claim you COULD HAVE DONE THAT, aren’t you grateful that you didn’t HAVE to do that? If I come to a mountain that someone has built a funicular railroad up, I’m grateful that the railroad is there, but being grateful in that fashion does not mean conceding that I couldn’t have gotten over the mountain any other way.
Honestly, I have no idea why you’re so huffy about this issue. If you read every post I’ve written in this thread, none of them have been even remotely insulting to you (aside from the part where I disagree with you strongly about this issue). How is it insulting, demeaning, belittling, victimizing, patronizing, or anything else at all bad, to point out that (a) it’s much much much easier for women to be literate college educated professionals now than it was 20 or 40 or 60 or 80 or 100 years ago, (b) you’re a woman, therefore (c) your life is easier now than it would have been then?