International Women's Day!

[BruceVC]

 

Here's the thing, are male nurses payed more than female nurses?

 

The way that feminists word their argument would make it seem so, they seem to willfully obscure the fact that the so called gender gap is across different fields.

 

Anyways, happy women's day and whatnot.

There's still some issues (I don't know about nursing, specifically) in some situations.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

 

 

Synopsis. 

 

 

127 scientists looked at an undergraduate applicant's paperwork.  63 were told the applicant was a man named John.  64 were told the applicant was a woman named Jennifer.

 

Scientists were asked to rate the applicant based on competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring scales (out of 5).  The scientists were made up of both men and women, and the results of these evaluations were based on a split based on student gender, and further split on faculty gender.  (That is, they look at how male/female students scored split by male/female faculty).

 

In all cases the effect of student gender was significant (significance meaning the difference in values were not due to random chance, as opposed to "large" or "important"), while the effect of faculty gender was NOT significant.  In other words, female faculty members were also harder on female applicants than male applicants.  The suggesting here being that there may be assumptions that people make about someone's capability based on their sex, and that it affects all people and not just men.

 

Here's a breakdown of the scores

 

Competence:

 

Male Faculty

Male applicant (M/M): 4.01

Female applicant (M/F): 3.33

 

Female Faculty

Male (F/M): 4.1

Female (F/M): 3.32

 

Hireability:

 

M/M: 3.74

M/F: 2.96

F/M: 3.92

F/F: 2.84

 

Willingness to mentor:

 

M/M: 4.74

M/F: 4.00

F/M: 4.73

F/F: 3.91

 

Salary offered:

 

M/M: $30,500

M/F: $27,100  (88.9% of Male)

F/M: $29,300

F/F: %25,000 (85.3% of Male)

 

 

The study discusses the following point:

 

 

It is noteworthy that female faculty members were just as likely as their male colleagues to favor the male student. The fact that faculty members’ bias was independent of their gender, scientific discipline, age, and tenure status suggests that it is likely unintentional, generated from widespread cultural stereotypes rather than a conscious intention to harm women

 

I think it's important to point out that stuff like this is possibly (I'd say probably) not intentional.  That is, no one is consciously suggesting that the woman is less qualified simply because she's a woman.

 

 

Thats an interesting study. In my mind there is no doubt that certain women can also be unintentionally biased. But that doesn't mean there isn't a perception problem that needs to be rectified.

 

You raise another good point that I see in South Africa, people have certain prejudices but they aren't founded on true bigotry. Sometimes a person is unaware of it for cultural reasons.

 

For example there was this white model who won a local beauty pageant in a predominantly black town. In the local newspaper there was a photo of her, a black guy phoned in on one of our radio talk shows and basically said " how can you put a white women in a black newspaper highlighting the fact she won this competition. Its wrong"

 

What he didn't realize he was saying is " A Black person somehow can't vote or find a white women attractive in a pageant dominated by black women". It was basically a racist comment  but thats not how he saw it because in his culture you don't cross racial lines.

 

We know that beauty is irrelevant to the race and is really about how a person looks and carries themselves when we talk about it in the context of modeling competitions

Edited March 9, 2014 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

 

Didn't we already have a thread proving that that statistic was bogus?

 

Also what's the verdict on Insidious, real person or just another elaborate troll?

 

I assume real ? Surly you don't expect some kind of subterfuge

 

  Bruce, don't you know there is only like 10 people who post here. We're all just one of their alts!

[Orogun01]

 

Here's the thing, are male nurses payed more than female nurses?

 

The way that feminists word their argument would make it seem so, they seem to willfully obscure the fact that the so called gender gap is across different fields.

 

Anyways, happy women's day and whatnot.

There's still some issues (I don't know about nursing, specifically) in some situations.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

 

Nice read, still I would had liked if they had gotten to the bottom of what their bias was specifically. Hopefully an increase in professional women on the workforce will overturn some of these opinions.

 

Although I have a problem with studies like that, not with the study itself but with the fact that it may end up being used as proof of something delusional as a Patriarchy.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Didn't we already have a thread proving that that statistic was bogus?

 

Also what's the verdict on Insidious, real person or just another elaborate troll?

 

I assume real ? Surly you don't expect some kind of subterfuge

 

  Bruce, don't you know there is only like 10 people who post here. We're all just one of their alts!

 

 

GD please don't tell me you are actually Hurlshot and Alan !!!

[Meshugger]

insidious89 looks quite cute actually. This discussion is very intruiging, but i think that it would be more interesting to convey it in person. Care for a date and discuss the intracacies on labor?

[alanschu]

Nice read, still I would had liked if they had gotten to the bottom of what their bias was specifically. Hopefully an increase in professional women on the workforce will overturn some of these opinions.

I think that this is a very difficult question to answer. Though to even attempt to answer it, I think, it needs to be presented as a possible problem (which is what I feel the study does). You'll get people that run with it one way or another.

 

As for the validation of the "patriarchy," it's just one of those terms that also gets used in a variety of ways. The wiki definition of the term is pretty simple: "a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children."

 

Looked at in a historical context, I don't find it too much of a stretch to see that that was the reality in a lot of places. Titles tended to be passed down to men, men were the only ones that could vote/own property, and so forth. I think it's gotten a lot better and much less explicit. Studies like this one examine "are there still latent influences that come from that that in general can compromise women?" Figuring out specifically what those are, is pretty hard.

 

But then you'll get some that I think go way too far, such as that one person linked not too long ago that considered any sort of vaginal sex to be rape and to be a way that men subjugate women, but that I feel is too extreme and undermines a lot of other feminist perspectives (specifically, sex positive feminism).

 

 

I probably identify as a feminist now, although the irony of it is that I do so more because the extreme "MRA" types pushed me away from their perspective more than feminists drew me in (it all started with the Anita kickstarter for me, actually. Before that I didn't really give it much thought at all).

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Didn't we already have a thread proving that that statistic was bogus?

 

Also what's the verdict on Insidious, real person or just another elaborate troll?

 

I assume real ? Surly you don't expect some kind of subterfuge

 

  Bruce, don't you know there is only like 10 people who post here. We're all just one of their alts!

 

 

GD please don't tell me you are actually Hurlshot and Alan !!!

 

Nope, I'm not smart enough to be Alan or good looking enough to be Hurlshot. I'm one of Volos alts. So is Valsuelm & Gifted1!

 

Can't you tell? I'm sidetracking this thread right now!

Edited March 9, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Orogun01]

 

Nice read, still I would had liked if they had gotten to the bottom of what their bias was specifically. Hopefully an increase in professional women on the workforce will overturn some of these opinions.

I think that this is a very difficult question to answer. Though to even attempt to answer it, I think, it needs to be presented as a possible problem (which is what I feel the study does). You'll get people that run with it one way or another.

 

As for the validation of the "patriarchy," it's just one of those terms that also gets used in a variety of ways. The wiki definition of the term is pretty simple: "a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children."

 

Looked at in a historical context, I don't find it too much of a stretch to see that that was the reality in a lot of places. Titles tended to be passed down to men, men were the only ones that could vote/own property, and so forth. I think it's gotten a lot better and much less explicit. Studies like this one examine "are there still latent influences that come from that that in general can compromise women?" Figuring out specifically what those are, is pretty hard.

 

But then you'll get some that I think go way too far, such as that one person linked not too long ago that considered any sort of vaginal sex to be rape and to be a way that men subjugate women, but that I feel is too extreme and undermines a lot of other feminist perspectives (specifically, sex positive feminism).

 

 

I probably identify as a feminist now, although the irony of it is that I do so more because the extreme "MRA" types pushed me away from their perspective more than feminists drew me in (it all started with the Anita kickstarter for me, actually. Before that I didn't really give it much thought at all).

 

I never really became interested in the MRA platform but I was too keenly aware of the fringe elements of feminism, maybe I would be more receptive if they cleaned house and stopped selling academic concepts as current facts.

[Malcador]

It is funny how often both of them like fancy academic labels for people. Likewise for some arguments, such as one cannot be a feminist and a male, only an 'ally' with weird servile tones to it.

 

Though I mainly read the subreddit so some skew there.

[Walsingham]

I'm still boggling at someone who isn't a woman demanding we read about women's issues.

 

Or is that womens' issues?

 

On a more practical note I find it pathetic when ANYONE says that someone who isn't X can't understand issues surrounding X. Even if it's true what possible ****ing good would it do you to say so? It's just saying "I'm a victim and I intend to spend the rest of my days continuing to be a victim. And no-one can ever do anything about it, beyond me getting all angsty."

[Malcador]

Well, it makes for good tumblr material.

[alanschu]

I never really became interested in the MRA platform but I was too keenly aware of the fringe elements of feminism, maybe I would be more receptive if they cleaned house and stopped selling academic concepts as current facts.

Fringe elements are unfortunate because I find they tend to be overrepresented due to the nature of their extreme views. This goes for both sides (and for a lot more topics than just feminism). The extreme nature tends to have the effect of pushing me away from various perspectives, which probably isn't fair to the discussion as a whole.

 

 

It is funny how often both of them like fancy academic labels for people. Likewise for some arguments, such as one cannot be a feminist and a male, only an 'ally' with weird servile tones to it.

I have seen this too. The idea that unless you're a part of the group that is oppressed, you can never truly understand the challenges that that group faces. I'm not sure I agree with it, even if I concede that I'm likely ignorant to the challenges that a lot of groups may have by virtue of not being a part of said group. Saying that those are only "allies" I think is mostly a semantics thing. To me they're still pushing for similar goals.

 

Most of my experience with people that identify as "feminists," however, are people that feel that there are, in general, unnecessary gender roles that compromise both men and women. Meaning that while they feel women, in general, are disadvantaged, they point out that there are circumstances where men get the shaft too. Some of it being places like jobs that are traditionally for women (i.e. nursing, clerical), as well as bigger issues such as the deference to the mother for child custody based on assumptions that the mother is innately better at child rearing.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Didn't we already have a thread proving that that statistic was bogus?

 

Also what's the verdict on Insidious, real person or just another elaborate troll?

 

Take it up with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

How on earth i did miss this, i do not know. But allow me to retort: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65248-we-became-equal-already-two-years-ago/

[Rostere]

someone who isn't X can't understand issues surrounding X. Even if it's true what possible ****ing good would it do you to say so? It's just saying "I'm a victim and I intend to spend the rest of my days continuing to be a victim. And no-one can ever do anything about it, beyond me getting all angsty."

 

This is very typical of very engaged people in several areas of debate who become more addicted to the struggle itself rather than standing firm regarding actual political objectives, the one example I see most often is probably in Swedish anti-racism discussions. Now Sweden is generally a very anti-racist country (although quite possibly very difficult to come to as a refugee) to begin with, so while there are some nasty racist types the public opinion is generally very sympathetic to all forms of organized anti-racism, here I'm comparing to the other Nordic nations.

 

Now very recently there was a demonstration in central Stockholm followed by a ridiculous debate on who could really hold legitimate opinions on racism. Everybody wants to be a unique snowflake and all, but when you reach the point where so-called anti-racists want to exclude people from demonstrations based on the colour of their skin... To a lot of these people, the struggle is a very large part of their identity. This creates a need among them to take ridiculous contrarian positions in order to be able to continue their struggle in every environment they're in, no matter what the reality looks like.

 

Let's just face the obvious facts: men might never understand just how women feel on a personal level, but any human being is just as capable of understanding harmful institutionalized gender discrimination on a systemic level, and that's what really matters.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Rostere

[Orogun01]

Hey Rostere, is its still legal to pee standing up over there?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hey Rostere, is its still legal to pee standing up over there?

It was legal at one time?

[HoonDing]

Everything is legal in Sweden.

[BruceVC]

Everything is legal in Sweden.

 

You really make me laugh, you must be one of the funniest people on these forums. But your posting motives are an enigma to me. What country do you live in if you don't mind me asking?

[Rostere]

It's not illegal to pee in a public place if the police recognizes you did your best to prevent it, if you didn't destroy of deface any property, if you hid yourself and so on. This is really a technicality: the crime of public urination falls under the category of disorderly conduct (which does not in a legal sense mean the same thing in Sweden as in the US). Now if the only reason you were spotted is that the police actively made an effort to find you out, that does not count as disorderly conduct since you weren't offending anyone. The actual crime is not peeing in a public place, but the offensive act of peeing in front of somebody.

 

There are probably a lot more of bureaucratic legal stuff in Sweden than in other countries, but I think that as far as crimes go the law tends to be very lenient if you haven't really hurt anybody.

[Gorgon]

I'm baffled by the fact that it's illegal to cross the street except on the crossings when there is a green light in the US. How do you ever get anywhere in time. 

 

In Copenhagen they seem to have solved the problem of illegal peeing by removing suitable bushes and trees. So now all the drunks piss in our doorways. 

[Gorgon]

in japan its illegal to dance in public places after ten pm.

[Malcador]

I'm baffled by the fact that it's illegal to cross the street except on the crossings when there is a green light in the US. How do you ever get anywhere in time. 

 

 

Well, you just break the law.  Jaywalking is pretty common here, occasionally the cops do a crackdown because too many pedestrians get killed by cars but for the most part they ignore it (like everything else, heh).

[HoonDing]

Except when you're AKB48.

[Orogun01]

 

I'm baffled by the fact that it's illegal to cross the street except on the crossings when there is a green light in the US. How do you ever get anywhere in time. 

 

 

Well, you just break the law.  Jaywalking is pretty common here, occasionally the cops do a crackdown because too many pedestrians get killed by cars but for the most part they ignore it (like everything else, heh).

 

Or because you're black.

[jillabender]

 

I never really became interested in the MRA platform but I was too keenly aware of the fringe elements of feminism, maybe I would be more receptive if they cleaned house and stopped selling academic concepts as current facts.

Fringe elements are unfortunate because I find they tend to be overrepresented due to the nature of their extreme views. This goes for both sides (and for a lot more topics than just feminism). The extreme nature tends to have the effect of pushing me away from various perspectives, which probably isn't fair to the discussion as a whole.

 

 

It is funny how often both of them like fancy academic labels for people. Likewise for some arguments, such as one cannot be a feminist and a male, only an 'ally' with weird servile tones to it.

I have seen this too. The idea that unless you're a part of the group that is oppressed, you can never truly understand the challenges that that group faces. I'm not sure I agree with it, even if I concede that I'm likely ignorant to the challenges that a lot of groups may have by virtue of not being a part of said group. Saying that those are only "allies" I think is mostly a semantics thing. To me they're still pushing for similar goals.

 

Most of my experience with people that identify as "feminists," however, are people that feel that there are, in general, unnecessary gender roles that compromise both men and women. Meaning that while they feel women, in general, are disadvantaged, they point out that there are circumstances where men get the shaft too. Some of it being places like jobs that are traditionally for women (i.e. nursing, clerical), as well as bigger issues such as the deference to the mother for child custody based on assumptions that the mother is innately better at child rearing.

 

 

I agree that the idea that "someone who is not part of an oppressed group can never truly understand the challenges faced by that group" can be taken too far – I think it does a disservice to everyone involved to take the cynical position that all someone who is not part of a disadvantaged group can do is try to minimize the harm caused by their privilege. I believe that people are capable of putting themselves in the shoes of another person and feeling genuine compassion for people who have experienced kinds of unfair treatment that they haven't. We may never have first-hand knowledge of what it's like to experience certain things, and that's an important distinction, but that doesn't mean that understanding and compassion aren't possible.

 

I think it's also important to keep in mind that being a member of a disadvantaged group doesn't automatically mean that a person has an in-depth understanding of systemic injustice, or will automatically empathize with the experiences of other disadvantaged people – even people who belong to the same group don't necessarily have the same experiences. I can only speak for myself, but as a woman, it's not as though I go around thinking "Boy, I'm sure glad that being a woman gives me a get-out-of-privilege-free card! I've been saved!"

 

I don't think of privilege as some kind of guilty taint that someone is born with and then needs to spend their life atoning for – I think it's more productive to think of it as simply living within a system that gives you advantages while disadvantaging other people: a system that you can't necessarily avoid benefiting from no matter how much you may hate the system. Being a woman doesn't mean that I don't benefit from being middle-class and white, for example – and it doesn't mean that I don't need to work at understanding how patriarchy and other oppressive systems work on a societal level and how they affect people who are disadvantaged in ways that I'm not (I most definitely don't always succeed at that).

 

Finally, I think it really needs to be emphasized that, as Allan has pointed out, feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs – it encompasses a whole variety of often competing movements, philosophies, and viewpoints (The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy gives a well-done and interesting overview here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/). It's frankly unproductive to generalize about "what feminists believe" as if feminists were a hive-mind, or to point to extreme fringe groups as representing "what feminism is about" – it's far more productive to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of specific feminist viewpoints.

Edited April 17, 2014 by jillabender