Stealth misogyny: Are women losing ground in their battle for equality

[prolesunited]

At the risk of starting a gender war, I would like to calmly, rationally discuss this issue in hopes of bringing greater understanding of this issue from both a male and female perspective. To be honest, this thread was certainly prompted by some of the comments I have seen made here lately when it comes to such topics as rape, abortion and now child custody.

I thought it might be interesting to examine this issue in the broader context, looking at both social and political fronts. As a starting point, I thought this article provided some interesting perspectives.

Bush's War on Women: Stealth Misogyny
by Richard Goldstein, Village Voice

Advocates for women agree that Bush is acting to reverse the modest gains made under Bill Clinton. But the White House is moving deftly. In the name of budget cutting, it is closing women's offices in federal agencies, defunding programs that monitor discrimination, and appointing people who oppose affirmative action and welfare for single mothers to policy-making posts. "They're not taking legislation to the Hill and putting it up on high profile," says Martha Burk, who chairs the National Council of Women's Organizations. "They're doing it through regs, policy changes, executive orders. All of this is under the radar for most citizens."
<snip>

When Bush talks about leaving no child behind, he doesn't mention the impact on girls of eroding Title IX. When he proclaims Women's Equality Day, he doesn't admit trimming the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's sails. Nor does he discuss his reconsideration of the Family and Medical Leave Act or his refusal to cover the cost of contraceptives for federal workers. Media coverage of these issues pales before the hot-button story of abortion, but Bush's assault on choice is just the most visible part of a broader rollback. He is laying the groundwork for changes that will affect every woman who holds a job or depends on the government—that is to say, most women in America.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0310/goldstein.php


Some questions to consider:
• Are women gaining or losing ground in the battle for equality or has it remained stable in the past decade?

• Why are some women now reluctant to identify themselves as feminists?

• Do you think men have become more accepting of the idea of women as equals or is hostility increasing as they feel threatened in their position of dominance?

• How can we break down the hostility that seems to exist between both camps?

[cally]

1. I think women have lost much ground in the last 10 to 15 years

I am shocked at the misogyny that is accepted on Television. Making fun of women and empowerering them only as sex objects seems to be mainstream. Noone progressive would call a woman a bitch or talk about bitch slapping them fifteen years ago. Women stood up for each other and formed a common bond to promote other women.

Now I hear my outspoken teens say they are not a feminist. (After my hour long rant they will never say that again) But I think younger women take for granted the gains our feminist ancestors made and the sacrifices they made for us. I hear from teens that they want to be attractive and not upset the men :eyes: Feminists are just too intense and threatening to those cute boys in class.

My discussions about the gropinator with teens dismayed me. They honestly thought it was no bid deal and it wouldn't happen to them. Well, they thought that until I got started.

[Clete]

12. I'm glad you are doing that Cally.

Teenagers are so socialized to think that sexist behavior at their expense is okay, so that men, like Arnold get away with it. Those men are allowed to go on their merry way victimizing every woman that crosses their path knowing there are no consequences to their behavior. We have to start taking back the word feminist, like the word liberal and make them something to be proud of and desirable to be.

[Woodstock]

13. explain the term "bitch slapping"

I have only heard it once or twice - does it mean slapping a so-called "bitch" or the so-called "bitch" doing the slapping? or something sexual?

I generally don't like the B word - it's just too easy for it to go from an innocent remark to what looks like a misogynic term (if my fear is confirmed that it's the first meaning.)

I just heard Wolfowitz (sp?) say in realation to terrorist that they are "SOB's" on public radio, and I felt taken aback. This is not an appropriate term for a public figure with influence to use. It's like, well, I can't insult the guy, so I'll insult his mother? And it's very revealing of his mindset (no surprise there.)

[cally]

16. I can only tell you what I think when I hear it

I hear an abusive man hitting a woman and calling her a bitch. He's hitting his "bitch". Every time I see the word used, I get upset even when not used in the context I think. I find it incredibly misogynist and that it makes it more acceptable to joke about "hitting the little woman" to make her conform to the man's desires. I would never use it and object every time I hear it in real life.

[jafap]

35. only that is wrong, and SOB is not really directed at mothers

SOB and bastard are just words that mean "cruel" or "violent" or "a%%holes"

B-slapping, as I understand it, is about a guy slapping another guy. True, the male who is dominated becomes the woman or the B, but I think that is wishful thinking. In the real world male dominance is rare.

Really, my sisters have it much better than my brother or myself. I named my latest dog after Vida Dutton Scudder and I am a big fan of Charlotte Perkins Gilman, but I cannot figure why the ruling sex is seeking "equality". Maybe it was needed before the 1950s, but this is now.

[prolesunited]

36. I'm having a little trouble following your point here

Are you saying that the female is dominant in U.S. society today?

If that's the case, could you please elaborate along with specific examples and facts to back up your claims?

[jafap]

55. Personal experience and research shows me

that claims of "inequality" are weak. It depends on perspective too - what do you want out of life? Some women are trying to get equal access to jobs, and to me that seems like a silly complaint, and naturally what they want is equal access to "good" jobs which most men are also unable to get. I have met hundreds, if not thousands of women who have better jobs than I do. So, to the man on the bottom, they do not look oppressed. In all the places where I have worked I have never seen a woman get unequal pay for equal work except when it was in their favor. I have seen them get equal pay for doing less work. Look at the nastiest, most dangerous work - from combat, to coal mining, to roofing, to foundry work, to meat packing plants, to paint lines - is done primarily by men. I am sure women, and men, are eager to get this work. There is a "tar pit" keeping men in these jobs. Much worse than a "glass ceiling". On the Titanic as they loaded sixty year old women into the lifeboats, one of the men complained when a women wanted to bring her nine year old son. When it comes to "women and children first" a nine year old boy is not considered a child. There is no longer a military draft, but when there was, it was young men who were being drafted. If you rank my family by the value of our houses, or family income - it goes sister, sister, sister, niece, brother, and me. Anecdotal evidence is not universal I suppose, but nobody is paying me to do a study.

[Yupster]

56. Every school district in the country,

the average 45 year old male junior high school teacher makes $ 1,000 or more more than the average 45 year old woman junior high school teacher.

How can this be when they're all paid on the same pay scale?

Yet it is the case.

[jafap]

60. cottleston, cottleston, cottleston pie

Are you arguing on my side?
That statistic seems to support how claims of "unequal pay" can be bogus. All you have equalized is age. Since they are paid on a scale based on education and experience, the easy answer is that the average 45 male junior high school teacher has more. Maybe more of them took time to get master's degrees or more education. The average 45 female jhs teacher has taken time off to have/raise children.

[pmbryant]

67. Unjustified assumptions.

You are reading far more into that statistic than you are justified in doing based on the information presented.

There is no basis to assume that the men are paid more because they have more education. There is no basis to assume that the men are paid more because they have more experience. And these kinds of statistics exist for far more than just this narrow category of 45-yr-old junior high school teachers.

It is this kind of off-hand dismissal of the evidence of discrimination against women that is so infuriating to me. It is a great example of the attitudes that contribute to the continuation of women's difficulties in the workplace.

--Peter

[prolesunited]

69. Thanks, Peter

:yourock:

Thank you for not only "getting it," but also standing up to be heard.

[jafap]

95. on that we are agreed

However, post #89 seems to support me. I had a plausible answer to the riddle, but I did not write it in stone. My training is in statistical analysis, although I rarely get to use it. I do not know if the studies that show unequal pay are making the same comparison. I would hope they are comparing equal education and experience.

There are perhaps better examples of discrimination, but you appear to have jumped on this one because it supports something you believe, and then jumped on me because I doubted it.

BTW - those who have not read the Tao of Pooh may not recognize the poem. "A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly. Ask me a riddle and I reply 'cottleston, cottleston, cottleston pie'"

[prolesunited]

96. I have a novel idea

How about actual FACTS, which clearly show that at equal levels of education, a pay gap continues to exist.

The Wage Gap By Education: 2001

The following are wage figures reflecting the median earnings in 2001
for full-time, year-round workers, 25 years and older:

Total H.S. Grad. Bachelor's Master's
ALL MEN $40,706 $33,037 $53,108 $66,934
White $41,317 $34,792 $55,307 $67,423
Non-Hispanic $43,525 $35,703 $55,845 $67,818
Whites
Black $32,180 $27,422 $42,999 $51,336
Hispanic $26,502 $26,944 $44,778 $60,661

Total H.S. Grad. Bachelor's Master's
ALL WOMEN $30,504 $24,253 $39,865 $48,343
White $30,890 $24,736 $40,192 $48,615
Non-Hispanic $31,659 $25,171 $40,454 $48,757
Whites
Black $27,351 $22,341 $36,253 $43,884
Hispanic $22,192 $21,600 $34,060 $46,169

http://www.feminist.com/fairpay/f_education.htm


And if you're truly interested in this issue, here's an excellent fact sheet.
http://www.feminist.com/fairpay/f_qape.htm

[jafap]

101. no good

you are not comparing job to job, you are just showing that, on average, men have better jobs. As a white male with a master's degree, I am doing my darndest to rectify this as I make $13,000 a year as a part time janitor.

Do me a favor, if you are interested, see if you can get numbers at all levels and all races of white men who are below the median income of the other levels. How many white men with master's degrees are making less than the median income of black women with master's degrees. As I pointed out, there is at least one white man with a master's degree who is making a little over half of the median of a hispanic woman with a HS degree. My guess is that there are quite a few, but it is only a guess.

Maybe I am Tigger, the only one, but a counter-example to Michael Moore, who wrote about white men: "the door will always open for you."

What you have headlined as a "wage gap" is very far from that. It may be evidence that, in general, better paying jobs are going to males, but it is a long way from showing that women are paid less than men for doing the same job with the same education and experience.

[jenm]

106. why do more better paying jobs go to males?

Is it only because women took time off to have children and lost career experience in the process?

How about the situation where a woman feels less than secure in standing up for herself and demanding equal pay, and as a consequence, gets less pay than her male counterpart? Do you think she developed this insecurity while she was at home having the kids?

Or do you think that there's still a lot of social conditioning preventing women from asserting themselves and standing up for their rights?

[Yupster]

117. To answer your question,

there are many reasons why more better paying jobs go to men.

One of the answers is probably discriminiation.

There are other reasons which in my opinion (haven't seen a study one way or the other) have a much greater impact than discrimination.

The main one is family. Many women take time off when babies are born. My wife is a schoolteacher with a master's degree. When our kid was born, she took time off. She still hasn't gone back to work almost seven years later. So she really screws up women's average pay for a person with a master's degree. She is not the norm, but many women take some time off, or move to part-time work for a while.

This is not the only family related issue that distorts the comparison though.

Many women like being teachers because it allows them to get home when their kids get home. Therefore women are less likely to try to move into administrative jobs.

The same is true in the giant corporation I work for. In my corporation, I own a franchise, so I deal with management quite a bit. Our CEO is an African-American man. We are a very progressive company. We have many, many woman managers in our division offices, however there's a ceiling there. The regional managers are almost all (all?) men. When there have been openings, I've talked to women managers and asked them if they were going to get the next job. The answer has always been (only 2 examples) that they don't want it.

The reason is a good one. The regional managers spend their lives flying between the division and district offices, and visiting the field (showing the flag one guy called it) They spend their time sleeping in hotels, inspecting offices, holding meetings, having dinner with the franchise owners, and then back on the plane to the next place. Most women don't want to be away from their families for 3 days every week. Most men don't either, but they're more willing to do it for the advancement in the company.

It's the same in many other different professions.

There's no doubt that women with equal education make less than men. Heck, my wife and I each have master's degrees and she makes $0 and I make lots, but discrimination(IMO) pretty clearly is not the main reason for the disparity. Family and other self-chosen reasons are a much greater reason for the gap.

[prolesunited]

120. I understand what you are saying

But here are some other points to consider.

ARE WAGE INEQUALITIES THE RESULT OF WOMEN'S CHOICES?
Again, part of the wage gap is attributed to differences in education, experiences and time in the work force. However, the overwhelming evidence that wage discrimination persists in America can be found in numerous court cases and legal settlements, Department of Labor investigations, surveys of men and women on the job, and salary surveys that control for age, experience and time in the workforce. While women sometimes take time out of the workforce to raise children, it should be noted that when couples are deciding who should stay home with children, the fact that the wife is earning a lower salary impacts that decision. In addition, some of the other explainable factors can sometimes be attributed to discrimination. For example, if women and men have different jobs in a company, women may not be choosing the lower paying jobs. They may have trouble advancing in a company due to bias about women's abilities or levels of commitment.
http://www.feminist.com/fairpay/f_qape.htm

"I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career."
— Gloria Steinem


Could the fact that women turn down promotions to take care of the families be a result of stereotypical gender roles that still persist in society? I have no issue with women who prefer that role, but is it REALLY their choice? Perhaps for some, but I doubt for all. Why is it with increasing numbers of women in the workforce, that household burdens continue to predominantly rest on their shoulders?

Perhaps the workforce is more open to women, but they don't have the necessary support system at home to allow them to pursue those opportunities.

Women's work is never done, and surveys prove it
In her groundbreaking 1989 book, "The Second Shift" (Penguin, $15), sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild documented how employed wives worked 15 hours a week more than their husbands. She also found that among dual-earner couples, only 20 percent of husbands shared housework equally.

Susan Maushart, a writer who specializes in gender issues, says not much has changed.

"The second shift is still very much alive and well," she says via e-mail from her home in western Australia.

"A 70-30 gender split in the division of unpaid labor — regardless of paid work status — is still the rule in most marriages."

Hochschild, in a new introduction to the May reissue of her book, notes that 73 percent of American mothers with children younger than 18 worked for pay in 2000, compared with 47 percent in 1975.

http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2003/10/27/2003102717644.htm

[jafap]

118. we have not established that they do

Even if I concede that they do, it is not evidence of a wage gap.

Anecdotally, I will say that all five of the women in my family, my mom, my three sisters, and my sister-in-law have given up their careers either in order to take care of their kids or because the advancement of their husband's career required a move. He moves to take a promotion, she moves to stay with the family and is required to start over.

Not that Charlotte (Gilman) would do that, but they are making their own choices and compromises, and it is not some vast male conspiracy where employers say "I get to pay women 2nd class wages". Still, I have never believed in a "career ueber alles" philosophy, nor the "money ueber alles" philosophy it seems to be based on.

[prolesunited]

122. I have presented you with FACTS

and you persist with your anecdotal evidence. How many studies do I need to produce before you will accept the fact that a wage gap does indeed exist? I have this feeling that no matter what I produce, you will find fault with it.

I'm not doubting that this is YOUR experience but that does NOT make it the universal truth. Since when do feelings and beliefs trump actual statistics?

Oh, and if all else fails, throw out the conspiracy canard.

I'm sorry about your employment situation, but you seem to be implying that it is because women are taking those good jobs? Is that what you believe?

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. A scenario

When women leave the workforce as a result of pregnancy they don't then just pick up where they left off. They fall behind big time.

A scenario:

* Two MBA grads both 25, both start working at the same company. They get identical raises till they hit 28. Now the woman gets pregnant and leaves work to raise her child till it is 2. Suddenly, she is 31 (counting time for pregnancy). She has missed over 2 years of work. She has missed over 2 years of raises. And, she has not even stayed where she was in the workforce. A new MBA, hired just after she left, has more recent and current experience. So, while the man has continued to advance, the woman's salary and career fell off a cliff.

Sure, there are undoubtedly cases of discrimination, but to ignore the impact that pregnancy and the assumption of most of the child-rearing is to ignore reality.

[Yupster]

127. Hey muddle !

Not to change the subject from your point, but did you see the recent study that came out saying an MBA was probably to the detriment of the earner?

It used the same logic your post used.

While the guy was spending two years in college getting his MBA, a guy without an MBA joined the company and had seniority and experience over the MBA guy who came on two years later.

The study surprisingly showed that the MBA was not worth the two years of extra experience. The MBA guy never caught up.

I would think it would be the same for the woman leaving the workforce just as you said, but she wouldn't even have the extra degree when she came back to try to help her catch up.

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. Actually, I did

But I doubt long term they are right unless you get one at a little-known university. What an MBA does (I strongly considered one) is gives you professional contacts and credentials you as much as anything.

The status of the university has a big impact IMHO.

[Darth_Kitten]

140. So women have to be worth LESS because they

work actually raising the family? Less pay over time for doing more work. That's just ducky.

Last time I checked, men supplied sperm to the egg. Can he help raise said being that results from the donation? :( (majorly pissed off at those who take raising kids for granted)

[Yupster]

155. Well Kitten

give a school district some advice.

Currently they have a salary scale which pays based on education and experience.

So if a certain woman is 41 and has 14 years experience, and a certain man is 41 and has 19 years experience, the difference being that the woman took five years off to stay with her two kids when they were very young, the current pay scale might have the man making $ 6,000 more than the woman.

How would you suggest they change their scale?, or would you consider the current scale fair?

[Muddleoftheroad]

186. Not WORTH less, EARN less

That's a pretty big distinction. And those who CHOOSE to raise kids are making a choice that they know will set them back. Frankly, it should. If I go on sabbatical for a couple years and then come back, I shouldn't come back at the same job, level or salary.

As for who raises the children and how that is divided, it's up to each couple to decide.

[noiretextatique]

204. i don't have kids: explain why i make less

than a man with comparable education and experience...please.

[Muddleoftheroad]

252. Not enough data

Impossible to do as you ask. Lots of reasons both good and bad. Maybe your boss doesn't think you do a good job. Maybe he/she doesn't like you. Who the heck knows.

[prolesunited]

261. Whatever the answer is

it's obvious that you actually DESERVE to be paid less. :puke:

Are you refusing to concede that gender discrimination exists in the workplace, Muddleoftheroad?

[Muddleoftheroad]

269. No

I've said it does in this thread. But that is NOT the only reason for a pay disparity between men and women.

Since your personal attack is so ridiculous, I'll choose to ignore rather than alert the mods to your rude and inappropriate behavior.

[prolesunited]

273. Go ahead and alert the mods

I didn't personally attack you. I simply took your statement to its logical conclusion and expressed my feeling about it.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. :hi:

[Muddleoftheroad]

274. Reading Comprehension

As you can see I did indeed answer your question. Yes, gender discrimination exists in, and out, of the workforce.

And, as an aside, there was no logic in your comment, only paranoia.

[spooky3]

219. According to human resource surveys, 80% of orgs. use MERIT

systems, not primarily seniority based systems, to pay their employees in the US.

Taking time off for kids should affect pay only slightly (e.g., if there is some re-learning of skills, or updating of skills, necessary after a break), if at all, in a MERIT system.

So the teacher system is an exception to the general rule.

[prolesunited]

231. Thank you for pointing that out

You can't take the specifics of one field and say it applies to all. Also, if I'm not mistaken, while the field is predominantly comprised of women, men that enter the field are more likely to end up in the highest positions, such as superintendents and principals. The same thing is true in the library profession.

[jafap]

247. why is an anecdote not a fact?

Actual statistics are no better than the way they are arranged.

I mis-stated in my previous post. It is clear that a wage gap does exist. Your statistics demonstrate that. However, your conclusion is that it is based on sexism or is unfair in some other way.

Yet my anecdotes can explain how my 39 year old sister and her 39 year old husband have vastly different incomes. Also is it really fair to call the difference between a bank VP's salary and a teacher's salary some kind of sexism? You only have a fair comparison if they are both in the same career.

Again, are you going to think I am a sexist pig if I feel a little bit put out when a 19 year old girl who started as a temp two days before I did gets hired and 36 year old me does not (and yes I would call a 19 year old male a boy). I owned a bookstore for seven years and have applied for many library jobs which have always gone to women. The same women who would probably read a NOW study and think it is totally unfair that I make more money than they do for cleaning toilets and mopping floors. They need a man like a fish needs a bicycle and wonder why if we can send a man to the moon we can't send them all there.

[jenm]

134. bias

There's a difference between choosing to be home with the family and having it taken for granted that this will happen. A woman who chooses not to be home with family is still swimming upstream in this society, and unless we factor in that bias how can we possibly measure the "equal work" part of "equal pay for equal work?"

I don't believe that the women at Home Depot who were awarded $100 million for being passed over for promotions were motivated to sue by career ueber alles philosophy. But I'm sure they were focused on the money. And why shouldn't they be?

[Darth_Kitten]

138. So, men wouldn't get cushy promotions.....

and be able to neglect their parental responsibilities if women weren't doing all the house work, eh? :eyes:

Hmmm, why aren't men doing their fair share in the home? (still) Sorry, but it's true. :(

[Yupster]

126. The wage gap chart

Some groups put up charts like that as a contention that it shows evidence of discrimination?

I think you would probably agree that the statistically average man with a degree works more hours, and has more experience than the statistically average woman with a degree, so why would you not expect to see a wage gap? Just seems like common sense to me.

I don't deny that there's discrimination somewhere, so I would say that not all of the apparent $ 7,000 gap is due to experience and family issues.

You don't deny that experience and family issues are important reasons for the gap, so you would say (tell me if you disagree) that the $ 7,000 gap is not all due to discrimination.

I guess the difference between us is how much of the gap is due to each. I might say $ 6,500 of it is due to choices and you might say only $ 4,000 is due to choices, but I don't think we're too far apart.

I haven't looked at your link www.feminist.com, because groups like that will often show a gap chart like you did and dishonestly use it as evidence of bias, completely ignoring the choices part of the numbers which we'd probably both agree is the main reason for the gap.

Sorry if I spoke for you and said stuff you disagree with. From reading your posts, I don't think we're that far apart.

[jenm]

145. if there were no discrimination

there would be no gap in pay scales. Your post implies that given the choice, more women choose to stay home and raise children than to pursue a calling outside the home and this demonstrates lack of discrimination. Should not then, women who have foregone this choice be valued more highly than men in the same positions, because there are so many fewer of them? It should even out. If it doesn't, there's discrimination, and this is how it's measured.

[Yupster]

156. So you're arguing that

women teachers should in fact make more than men teachers, because the women teachers are more rare? Sorry - you lost me. I think you were joking anyway.

[prolesunited]

146. OK, try any of these

Or, is the Census and Dept. of Labor providing biased information as well. BTW, you still did not address the "second shift" phenomenon. Why are women forced to chose between career and family and men aren't?

Also, I would like some documentation that a man with a degree works more hours than a woman. And if that's the case, would you concede that it goes back to the fact that women unfairly carry the burden for maintaining a household?

Gender & The Wage Gap:  Internet Data Sites & Information Sources
Documenting the pervasiveness of the wage gap

US Census Bureau's Definitions and Explanations of Median income, Earnings, Race & Ethnic orgin,
URL: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html 

A Wage Gap "Favoring" Women Working Part-time, 50-52 Weeks per Year,
 URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p41.html

Over a Half-Century of Wage Gaps Favoring Men for Full and Partime Workers, 1947-1999,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p53.html

Wage Gap Favoring Men for Full-time, Year-round Workers, '60-'99,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p38a.html

Wage Gaps Reflect Race, Ethnicity & Gender when Compared with White Male Earnings,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p38a.html

Gender Wage Gaps Persist within Women & Men of the Same Race-Ethnicity,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p40.html

Higher Educational Attainment Improves Women's Wages compared to Other Women,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p24.html

Wage Gaps Persist within Similar Educational Attainments,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p24.html

Wage Gaps Unaffected by Education for Women & Men of Similary Educational Attainment,
URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p24.html
    
Is the wage gap due to occupational choices?

Wage Gaps Persist where Working Women Form Strong Majorities,
URL(Bureau of Labor): http://www.bls.gov/  Pdf Document: cpsaat39.pdf

Wage Gaps Persist Across Professional-Managerial Occupations,
URL: http://www.bls.gov/  Pdf Document: cpsaat39.pdf

[Yupster]

154. The census charts clearly show

that men on average make more than women. Has anyone ever argued that this was not so?

The question is why?

My argument was that discrimination represented a relatively small cause of that gap, and that much more of the gap could be attributed to factors such as women being more likely to leave the job market for a time and therefore come back in with less experience. That only seems like common sense to me. We all know that many women take time off to be with their kids, and we all know much fewer men do this. Obviously that would influence the wages, especially for jobs like teachers where everyone is paid on a salary scale by their years of experience.

I thought we were fairly close together, but now, I guess I was assuming too much? Are you in fact arguing that the wage gap's major cause is discrimination? If that is the case, then I really don't have any answer other than to shrug my shoulders.

My wife will eventually go back to teaching. Maybe when our kid reaches age 10 or so (she says never). At that point, she should expect the same pay as the men teachers her age, even though she took 10 years off? And if she doesn't get the same, that will be evidence of discrimination? I guess people could argue anything.

I haven't addressed the work at home issue, because it's an entirely different argument in my opinion. I think it would just change the subject and muddle (no offense Muddle) this one, which I thought was pretty agreed, but now see it's muddled enough.

Your last two links I wasn't able to tell where to look. The other ones said women and men don't get paid the same, which seems like common sense to me. My family is the perfect evidence of that.

[cally]

256. Your assumption that women work less over a lifetime is

not true. Women do take off more time for child rearing. But men tend to get severe illnesses and take disability. The last time I saw the analysis, men took more time off because of sick leave.

[Muddleoftheroad]

257. Periodic absences

And long-term absences don't equate. Plus, did you stats show you at what age these absences occurred? I would think it likely that for men they happened later in life. But pregnancy is a prime career growth time.

[cally]

264. Except that child rearing absences are planned

and disability is unexpected. Employer's prefer the planned ones. Obviously the disability absences are more common later in life.

I've read many studies on why a wage gap still occurs. Some can be explained by different jobs. Women often end up in lower paying careers. But the glass ceiling explains most of it. Men get promoted to higher levels often because men at a higher level mentor them and not women. Same reason that minorites do not get promoted to higher levels. In the interviews I've read, higher level managers explain that the mentored person remind them of themself. They played sports together, they went to the sports game, or something like that. Women were at a disadvantage there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

270. Planned?

Not exactly. You get forewarning (sometimes I'd like to add), but that doesn't mean it is planned or works for the company.

You are right that the mentor deal helps some people. That also takes time to change. If mentors choose people they can relate to, then it will take a while before women and minorities can work into the highest levels of power enough to build such relationships.

[SharonAnn]

236. As a single woman, I have statistically worked far more hours

than married men. Always!

So why I am I paid less? Because of some mythical "statistically average man"?

Paychecks are personal, they should reflect personal skills and productivity, not some mythical "statistical average".

[pmbryant]

233. This is more than just 'something I believe'

This is reality. As has been discussed in many other posts in this thread since I last posted, the 'wage gap' is real, across numerous professions, even when factoring out age and experience.

Just as they are in action throughout this thread, the unjustified assumptions used to rationalize this away into irrelevence are no doubt in action in wage/salary decisions all across this country, perpetuating the very discrimination that they seek to shrug off.

I have anecdotal evidence myself of these assumptions in practice. And other unjustified assumptions as well: for example, a woman's salary is frequently viewed by the employer as "paycheck #2" for her family, so employers rationalize offering less money than to a man "who has to support his family".

And the "wage gap" is just the most concrete evidence of discrimination against women in the workplace. There are other, more subtle, forms of discrimination as well, regarding how women are treated, general workplace climate, etc. (EDIT: I removed my story for personal privacy reasons.)

Yes, this is just anecdotal evidence. But there is no reason for me to believe that this particular workplace is terribly unusual, especially given the cold, hard statistics that demonstrate the reality of the 'wage gap' and the 'glass ceiling'.

--Peter

[jafap]

278. everyone has their own reality

Reality for office workers at the top is not the same as reality for factory workers at the bottom. Anecdotes of my jobs.
Paper route - female carriers make as much as male carriers
city band - female musicians make as much as male musicians
government - a GS-7 makes the same amout whether male or female
graduate assistant - we never compared checks, but there is no way we would have tolerated a wage gap. Somewhere in our group, if a difference existed, it would have come out, and the male graduate students would have raised hell too.
factory work - there is no individual "wage decision". The plant has a starting wage that is the same for grunts of either sex.
working for the city - my starting wage is the same as the woman who had the job before me.
minimum wage - a million adults work at this wage which is the same for either sex.

If you are at the level where someone is making an individual wage/salary decision then you have left the reality of about 80% of working people. I see a lack of discrimination in dozens of employers and millions of jobs. How does that fact reconcile with the statistics? Can you explain it with some justified assumptions?

As to the statistics so far I have see two examples which did not factor out differences in experience and occupation. If better studies exist, why lead with the spurious ones?

[pmbryant]

280. Faulty logic

Lack of discrimination in some jobs does not mean that discrimination isn't widespread and pervasive in many others. Not that your examples of non-discrimination are terribly illustrative or even accurate. I'll concentrate on the ones that actually apply to more than a trivial number of people:

government - a GS-7 makes the same amout whether male or female

It is my understanding that government workers have a lot more protections than virtually anyone else in the workplace and so the situation for them is probably better than for employees in the vast majority of private organizations. But to pretend that there still isn't room for discrimination is hiding from reality. For example, there is subjectivity in every decision as to what level an employee should be paid at.

factory work - there is no individual "wage decision". The plant has a starting wage that is the same for grunts of either sex.
working for the city - my starting wage is the same as the woman who had the job before me.

How many people actually make this starting wage and no more? No one ever gets raises? This doesn't appear to demonstrate very much.

working for the city - my starting wage is the same as the woman who had the job before me.

Again, it is my understanding that government workers enjoy protections most don't. And also again, no doubt a relatively small percentage of employees at a given time actually get paid the starting wage.

minimum wage - a million adults work at this wage which is the same for either sex.

Aha, here a legal mandate prevents discrimination! This cannot be extrapolated to anyone else, however.

If you are at the level where someone is making an individual wage/salary decision then you have left the reality of about 80% of working people.

I would guess that this number is just plain wrong. Way wrong. But it's just a guess. Remember that even if "starting wages/salary" is set in stone, what happens with pay after that is the result of individual decisions by employers or their subordinates.

As to the statistics so far I have see two examples which did not factor out differences in experience and occupation. If better studies exist, why lead with the spurious ones?

So why do you discount these two studies that you've seen? I haven't posted any studies here myself, and haven't yet looked at any of the studies posted here, so I can't comment on them, but I've looked at ones in the past that applied to occupations of relevance to my life, and the evidence in them was quite stark, especially when experience was controlled for.

You are quite quick to discount evidence for discrimination based on your personal experience, but why then do you not pay more attention to the personal experience of so many others who have contributed to this discussion? Are their realities less real than yours, even though they have direct, first-hand knowledge, and your knowledge is more inferred?

--Peter

[Yupster]

89. I was pointing out that

the fact that male teachers make more is not evidence of discrimination. They are all on the same salary scale.

So why does the average 45 year old man teacher make more?

For one thing 100 45 year old male teachers worked more years than 100 45 year old female teachers. Some of the 100 female teachers took years off to stay with small kids. That alone would account for the $ 1,000 difference, but there are other reasons too. Male teachers are more likely to teach summer school for instance.

The same is of course true of many other professions.

[noiretextatique]

202. you're talking outta your ass

the age is the same...why is the pay different?

[Woodstock]

72. jafap, you are too far gone

to reason with

bringing up a story from the Titanic was quite simply absurd

"Son of a Bitch" - whether referring to canines or humans, it appears someone's mother is being called into question instead of the person themselves

and then the nonsense about women getting equal pay based on your experience (which judging by all your other comments, is essentially focused on what you want to believe)

let's see, are there any cliches that you have left out?

[jenm]

87. jafap is thoughtful

Jafap recongizes that women have achieved equality on many levels. But to pretend that there are not whole unused stashes of mysogynistic sentiment lurking to break free would be premature. The fifties were not that long ago, and we're talking a long long history of patriarchal conditioning.

[jafap]

98. this aint about you, this aint about me

But when you cannot refute an argument you do not like, do you always insult the person making the argument?

SOB is technically referring to a mother, but in general usage it has nothing to do with mothers any more than motherf***er (which would be what - a father?).

What makes the story about the Titanic absurd? "Women and children first" does not discriminate against men, even when it defines a nine year old boy as a man?

Which of my comments shows that I believe what I want to believe? You cannot give me the benefit of the doubt that I am believing what I see even if I do not see the whole picture? You cannot give me evidence that should convince me? My experience at the factories, schools and offices I have worked at are meaningless?

People like Charlotte Gilman, Vida Scudder, Emily Balch, and Emma Goldman are heroines to me as is my dad's mom (U of Wi class of 1926), but that does not mean I need to believe something that I have no evidence for. Name calling and labelling are not very strong evidence.

[prolesunited]

99. No, it isn't about you

and although your personal experience resonates for you, it has no actual bearing on what the facts are.

Facts about Pay Equity
The wage gap between men and women stubbornly remains despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act nearly 40 years ago. Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for comparable work. This disparity not only affects women's spending power; it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in social security and pensions.
The General Accounting Office compiled data from the Current Population Survey regarding the ten industries that employ 71 percent of U.S. women workers and 73 percent of U.S. women managers. The pay gap between full-time working women and men managers widened between 1995 and 2000, in seven of the ten industries examined.

A full-time working woman currently receives only 73 cents to every dollar received by a man.

African-American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by white men while Hispanic women are paid only 53 cents to the dollar.

If women received the same as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education, union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these women's annual family income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.

Pay equity in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) would increase wages for women by approximately 18 percent.

Fifty-five percent of all women work in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) whereas only 8.5 percent of all men work in these occupations. However, these men still receive about 20 percent more than women who work in female-dominated jobs.

Women are paid less in every occupational classification for which sufficient information is available, according to the data analysis in over 300 job classifications provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.

In 1963, the year of the Equal Pay Act's passage, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average to the dollar received by men, while in 2000 women were paid 73 cents for every dollar received by men. In other words, for the last 37 years, the wage gap has only narrowed by slightly more than one third of a penny per year.

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html

[jafap]

105. it is ground level evidence

Again, comparing an occupational category means nothing. I find that to be more misleading than it is evidence. Take an occupational category that I have some experience with (please) - general factory work. When I started at the satellite dish factory I made $4.75 an hour (or a piece rate, whichever was more). After a year I went to $5.10, and after two years to $5.40. Then I went part time, and was laid off on my birthday. A couple months later I got a temp job at another factory (which by the way had air-conditioning and you could wear shorts) for $6.50 an hour.
Yet this study is going to lump all those wages, years of service, and different factories into one job classification and say that there is a "gap". This implies that there is a different starting wage at factory A based on sex which is just not true. There are numerous reasons for wages to differ among people in the same occupational category. A true analysis would factor out these reasons and show how much of the difference is due only to sex. Wage = ASchooling + Bexperience + Xsex discrimination. Economists do that kind of regression analysis all the time (ad nauseum)(an my MA was long ago, and I did not care for econometrics, so I am not claiming this is exactly how it is done), so where is a study that takes those things into account?

"If women received the same as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education, union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country ..."

Since the above quote only refers to age, it ignores experience. So you think a 41 year old man with 20 years experience should get the same pay as a 41 year old woman with 10 years experience? You think a non-union guy with a master's degree who works part-time as a janitor should get as much as a non-union guy who works part-time as a computer specialist? That quote seems to be crossing occupational lines.

I suppose it seems like I am splitting hairs, or kicking up dust, but I cannot buy a 73 cents on the dollar which compares apples to baseballs. Instead I am going to buy an autographed copy of David Corn's book.

[noiretextatique]

203. why do you assume a 41 year old woman would only have

half the experience of the man? i don't have any children, btw, so i have worked consistently for twenty years since college. and so have my two sisters, who have children. they took time off for maternity leave...very limited...and went back to work. in my case, how would you explain the fact that i earn less than a man with comparable education and the same amount of work experience?

[spooky3]

220. I suggest that you spend time reading empirical studies

in such journals as Industrial Relations, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, The Journal of Human Resources, etc. These studies control every variable you can imagine, and they treat variables that are likely influenced by sexism (e.g., job access) as if they are free from bias, yet they STILL find a pay gap. The studies exist but many people don't want to go to the trouble of reading them, then continue to hold onto inaccurate views of reality.

And as Noiretblu asked, why do you assume that women have half as much experience as men? Since you seem to prefer anecdotes over controlled evidence, I'll add my anecdote to hers: I graduated from college at age 20 and continued working at professional jobs while getting graduate degrees (and I worked during high school and college as well at non-professional jobs). You can't have any more experience than I have at my age.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. That term makes me cringe, too

When I was in grad school, I dated one of the many other grad students who lived in the city's red light district for cheap rent and personal safety (the word was that the pimps kept the other street criminals away).

Many times our sleep was interrupted by an altercation between a pimp and one of his "bitches." In the summer, with the windows open, we could hear the slaps.

Not one of my more pleasant memories of grad schools.

[Guaranteed]

97. "Bitch" has evolved into a term meaning

"underling." It has very little to do with women nowadays. It implies ownership or power over another.
If one was to get "bitch-slapped" it would be because the one is power is disappointed with the behavior of the underling, and has decided to resort to corporal punishment. In fact, most of the time when I hear the term, I hear it in reference to men getting "bitch-slapped."
It's supposed to be funny.

[salin]

141. It is supposed to be funny, but I think for different reasons

it often has the connotation of getting severe retibutive revenge I have heard it more often used in the opposite direction - where the underling - says/gets one over the hierarchical superior. The "funny" part is the image of the sharp/dead-on hit or point scored. The image - comes from either domestic abuse or pimp-prostitue abuse... Where the guy lifts the woman up (off of her feet?) and delivers a slap so hard that it throws her to the ground/across the room/or against the wall - to end up a heap on the ground. Hence the image of the underling delivering that kind of punch (thus the retributive aspect) is to be "cheered", or is "funny". Sad thing is that it all stems from an image of violence against women, and in doing so in a mundane way ennures us culturally to how common this level of violence, remains.

[Woodstock]

166. nobody denies what it is used for, but to deny the origin of the expressio

is to deny a lot, that's why I think we are objecting to the expression

any number of expressions could have been thought up besides this one to connote the same thing

the question is - and must be - why this one?

I agree with your take, by the way, I am just commenting on the issue along with you

[Arianrhod]

123. I think you're right.

It's an ongoing struggle. I teach my own daughter about how much sacrifice and effort went into producing our current equality laws, and tell her that only continued vigilance and struggle will ensure that the laws stay on the books. This administration in particular is engaged in an all-out battle against women. Four more years of this, and we'll be back in the Middle Ages.

[jenm]

153. the current administration

is very manipulative and skilled in the ways of propaganda, and they've got the numbers of many women out there, knowing that they complacently believe that their rights are assured. They will be pursuing a strategy of appealing to women's sense of fairness while the other hand drums up the case that women's rights activists are a bunch of feminazis.

[janekat]

130. The past few months have really blown my mind....

Didn't know things were so bad. Partial Birth, the Gropenator, how they're treating "potential" rape victims.

[sangh0]

2. IMO, stealth misogyny is an excellent title

because that's exactly what's going on on DU

[Clete]

9. I second that idea.

Gender issues are not allowed that much fresh air on DU. Men don't really even know when they are being sexist because subconsciously they still think they are superior and more entitled. Unfortunately it's the bimbo women they surround themselves with that reinforce this idea.

[FireHeart]

108. Oh hell yes.

You see examples of this all the time. But I don't agree with your "they don't really even know". They do. I was and still am stunned by the levels of misogny on the DU. It's amazing. Objectification of women will find it's posters nearly every single day--in one form or another.

[salin]

144. what is more surprising to me

is the defensive posture taken when called on this behavior. Almost a combination of entitlement (the new popular "reverse PC - couched by hiding behind contemptive words .. and when called - claiming censorship by the PC police... as if only the offensive have freedom of speech, but those who would react should have NO freedom of speech), and patronizing attitude (ala... you little women... don't let your panties get in a wad... grow up and get over it... it doesn't mean anything an all... stop worrying your pretty little heads... you are over reacting - are you on the rag?)

[jenm]

148. agreed

I certainly think that a lot of it would go away if we did a little bit more consciousness raising about it. It's when the attitudes go on by that they become more prevalent. Great thread!

[salin]

150. I agree completely.

Raising awareness is very important. And I agree that this is a great thread. Kudos Proles!

[prolesunited]

151. Thanks!

That was my goal. Unfortunately, we haven't heard too much from men who agree with us or support our causes. I'm sure they are out there. I wish they would speak up as well.

[jenm]

157. my sons don't post on du

but if asked to judge the "truth" in a situation involving sexism, I feel confident that they would make the right choice! There should be a lot of those types of men on this board. :thumbsup:

[Kanary]

248. This is where I came in...

Great thread, and terrific title... glad to see it still continuuing!

Although... it's certainly discouraging.... this really *is* where I came in. I was in Berkeley during the anti-war protests (Vietnam, of course), and the same things were being said then. Women were doing the scut work, and patronized and left out of any of the "important" work. That was how that wave of feminism began. All these years later, here we are again. Very, very frustrating!

And, yes... where *are* the men who know what's happening...? There was *lots* of support from men when the feminists groups started in Berkeley. Where are they...?

Kanary, muttering to herself...

[FireHeart]

160. I'm a man...but...

conciousness raising? Many men do NOT want their conciousness raised. They like what they are and want to make sure everyone else does, too. I've spend decades trying to fight this mindset, but lose far more often than I win. From locker room denigration of women (if you've never been there, you have NO idea how sickening it can get) to the so-called "male bonding" that occurs in strip clubs, sports bars, etc. It's all the same. They LIKE it. They will do anything to continue it. You see it on the DU, on BartCop, just about everywhere. Conservative, Liberal...it's all the same.

Women, don't fool yourselves. Most men (note the *most*) aren't going to change if they have anything to say about it. But there are many who do and have. Look for those and ignore the rest of the assholes.

It's the only way to go.

[prolesunited]

214. Thank you for your continued support

Where can we find more like you. :-)

To what do you attribute your enlightened attitude? Was it your parents? Education? Specific experiences? I think it would be interesting to know why some men "get it" and others are still hanging onto such outmoded ideas.

[FireHeart]

226. A combination of all three examples.

My dad was a firm believer in respecting everyone for their merits--not race, creed, gender or religion. My educative years taught me just how bad girls had it in our school system. Forcing them to behave in patterns society pre-defined for them, etc. Specific experiences? Too many to number. There's just too many.

But one does stand out in a way. It combines the latter two. When I was a wrestling manager in my high school, the locker room talk sickened me. These asshholes were destroying the reputations of girls they didn't even know...just to build up their baby-like egos. The coaches approved, because it gave the boys their ego building, and that's all they really cared about.

Just look at how coaches, etc, will try to "shame" boys by calling them 'ladies', 'girls', 'pussies', etc. As if being a woman is something to be ashamed about. Schools support it--if they didn't, they'd put a complete stop to it. But they don't.

All you need to stop hanging on from these idiotic ideas is a modicum of intelligence and reasoning. But you won't get it from American society. Not now, not ever. Because, sadly, far too many mothers support this exact same ideal. :(

[Muddleoftheroad]

228. Real world

I think you hope for an ideal world. Yes, locker room talk is horrible. Quick question, have you heard a group of teenaged girls talk about boys recently? It's quite similar.

Yes, coaches shame boys by saying they are not manly. At that age (or maybe any age) men are generally stronger than women and more physically aggressive. (Note, I said "generally." Women/girls who play field hockey, for example, are downright insanely violent in my experience.)

In the real world, there ARE substantive differences between genders. Those impact us every day.

[FireHeart]

229. I have a daughter...

And she would vehemently disagree with you. While there is some mild sexual chatter, it's usually of a humorous or mild variety. Not the utter savagery of male assaults on the women or girls they attack.

Insanely violent? My daughter is also an Army veteran. While she has experience in violence far higher than 'field hockey', she is neither insanely violent or extremely aggressive. Nor are most of her squadmates I've met. They handle it. Deal with it--and discard it when it's not required. Your point in this makes no sense. So what if men are "generally" stronger or "generally" more physically agressive? What does that have to do with denigrating the opposite sex in order to sate the ridiculous egos of a bunch of male children?

You could, with debatable results, howl about their being "weaklings" or the myriad of other terms that could be used. Why single out women? Care to explain and if you would, could you kindly explain why it is so important to do so?

Your "substantive" differences are programmed. Not all, no. The "upper body strength" advantage does play a minor part in the system. But one strength can be combatted with another. It's all how you want to view things as opposed to how things CAN (truthfully) be viewed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

230. Your daughter might be very nice

But she does not resemble the groups of teens I volunteer with.

Field hockey as a sport from the times I have seen it rivals rugby for sheet nuttiness and violence. No pads, just sticks.

My point is that men are both "generally" stronger and "generally" more physically agressive. So to push men to perform better, then are compared to people who are generally less so. Why does this surprise you?

As for what is programmed, as the saying goes, "size matters." Yes a small athletic person can defeat a big person, but size is also an advantage. Again, the genders ARE different.

[FireHeart]

242. Well.

So, you are a woman who showers, dresses and engages in intimate talk with the teen-aged women you volunteer with. Why didn't you mention this earlier?

The same calls you made about female hockey players can be made about male hockey players--field or otherwise.

Your third statement does not answer any questions. All it does is ask the same question, only couched in different terms. By your lights, it's quite okay to denigrate one gender over another in order to...make one "perform" better. Oh my.

Size is indeed an advantage. But speed, clarity of thought, the ability to understand how to defeat a larger opponent can all be excellent counters. No doubt the genders are different. Who is going to contest that? But making the difference so great that it actually defines society and all it encumbers...is ludicrous.

But we do see it here all the time. On TV, in movies, advertisements in magazines--come on, do you really think those 5 inch heels, corsets and starvation diets are COMFORTABLE for women?

The male controlled elements that encompass so many facets of women's lives, the women aren't even aware of them.

This is what it's all about.

[Muddleoftheroad]

253. Very funny

I volunteer with high school kids. I see AND hear them a lot -- together and separated.

I know there are male field hockey players, but at least in this area, field hockey is a girl sport. And male hockey players wear pads. FIELD hockey players do not.

All my third statement said is it happens and it doesn't surprise me. Coaches look for easy comparisons to drive home a point.

The gender difference does serve to define society. The issues of sex and pregnancy alone set us far apart in many ways.

I think ALL heels are probably damn uncomfortable. Women strive to look attractive to men. Men strive to be appealing to women. Anyone who goes overboard is making their own life hell, but it's their choice.

[prolesunited]

232. Maybe his point is

that since they are stronger and more aggressive, they have every right to dominate. :shrug:

I also don't like the description of women in certain sports as "insanely violent." Why is it when women either exhibit some aggression or assertiveness they are described negatively. I highly doubt that you would characterize male football players as "insanely violent." Generally speaking, when a man is highly assertive, he is admire for his leadership strength. When a woman behaves the same way, she is dismissed as a bitch.

I'm usually as sweet as can be, but I do not hesitate to firmly and politely stand up for myself. I've been called a bitch plenty of times. :-)

Why do many men persist in believing when women say they want to be treated equally that we are trying to say that men and women are the same?

I agree that there are definite physical differences. The extent to which psychological differences are a result of different patterns in brain functioning and programmed societal conditioning is debatable. For example, when both people in a relationship work, why does the burden for household tasks still fall primarily on women. There is nothing about being a woman that makes us inherently better at scrubbing a toilet or vacuuming than a man. :D

Thanks again for your input on this thread, FireHeart.

[FireHeart]

241. All excellent points.

From what I have seen, and in my 54 years of life I've seen a lot, every single time a woman shows *any* signs of assertiveness, she's described just as you said. Ewww..long sentence. Anyway, certain individuals just do not want women placed on a level playing field. If they (the women) can, and often do, beat them, they feel "emasculated", as silly as this mindset can be. They urgently need their egos stroked constantly, else they immediately lose their cherished masculinity and cannot tolerate life any further.

There was a thread not long ago about just such ridiculousness. Unfortunately, it closed down right after I posted my first reply. :)

My spouse is a 22 year Navy retiree. She's strong, capable and very good at things I flounder at. Electronics, finances and stocking our library. Which is quite extensive. :) I'm good at appliance repair, cooking and auto repair. We all have our unique strengths and weaknessess. Instead of focusing on what is different and try to make it into some big deal, how about focusing on what each individual has to complement each other?

Ideal world? Maybe. But why not?

[spooky3]

221. wish there were a million more like you, FireHeart

My exhubby (still a good friend) said the same thing. He said women should NEVER let men tell them they are wrong when they honestly see sexism, because "if you think how they behave in front of you is bad, you should see what they think of you when no women are present."

[FireHeart]

227. Indeed.

This is very true. Most women have NO idea. They cling to to the "ooohhh...I like men" without circumstance or regard on how men really feel about them. You can see examples of it every single day, but most women just turn a blind eye to it. They simply do not want to see the truth. Or...perhaps...they cannot. They are raised so differently than males, from birth. Look at the facts. If you raise a child to be subservient, without indentity, without the ability to defend herself...what do you get?

Hell, it's obvious.

[Selwynn]

66. AMEN!

:mad:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

107. EXACTLY

I was thinking the exact same thing. Lots of people here pretending to be "asking questions," when they're actually pushing (whether deliberately or subconsciously) a sexist agenda.

DTH

[spooky3]

143. totally agree with you. It's appalling, especially on a "liberal" board.

[pmbryant]

3. Some quick thoughts

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, though I plan to do so shortly. Meanwhile, here are some quick thoughts on the issues you raised.

• Are women gaining or losing ground in the battle for equality or has it remained stable in the past decade?

From my perspective, I think the battle has stagnated over the last 10-20 years. Residual momentum has helped, as more women enter the professional scene. But the 'glass ceiling' and the pay differential remain and I don't see those problems going away, or even improving much, anytime soon, without some big shake ups.

• Why are some women now reluctant to identify themselves as feminists?

As a male, I'm not sure I can answer this. But my guess would be the right-wing media campaign to put negative connotation on the word has taken hold with a lot of people.

• Do you think men have become more accepting of the idea of women as equals or is hostility increasing as they feel threatened in their position of dominance?

This is a very complicated issue, I think. My observations indicate that men consciously try to be more accepting of the idea of women as equals, but that there is a lot of subconscious baggage implanted (and continually reinforced) by society that counters this positive trend. The result is very little, if any, progress.

• How can we break down the hostility that seems to exist between both camps?

I wish I knew. :-(

--Peter

[ijk]

6. Re: "Some quick thoughts"

I agree with a lot of what Peter said. I think feminism, as an overt cause, has lost a great deal of ground in the last twenty years; I'm constantly (and sadly) astonished at how many women won't self-identify as feminists, and I often feel like the only male feminist for a hundred miles around. This has enormous effects; feminist critiques in both the political and cutural spheres are basically DOA. See, to pick a random example, the rise of 'Maxim' and its cousins.

On the other hand, I think some kinds of progress continue. A basic, if uncritical, belief in the equality of women continues to slowly spread to the many places that never took to it in the 1970's; the most basic forms of discrimination are still on the decline in middle america, and in many parts of the world. The most diehard antifeminists at the top of industry and academia are dying off. The pool of tremendously talented women at the tops of their professions is still growing, even if equality in the workplace in general isn't, and they are a positive influence. Some feminist institutions, like women's pro sports, are doing fairly well.

So, unsurprisingly, it's a mixed bag. The feminist movement has suffered from basically the same malaises that other progressive movements have, in the last few decades - increasingly strong attacks from the right, infighting, academic paralysis, and so on; we can hope it revives in the ways the left as a whole has been in the last few years...

[prolesunited]

7. Thank you for your reasoned response

Welcome to DU, ijk. :hi: Glad you could join the dialogue.

[MissB]

4. Good questions

1. For the first question, I'd say that the battle for equality has remained roughly stable for the past decade. I see the great potential for losing ground, especially with the threats to abortion rights.

2. I think women are reluctant to identify themselves as feminists because the religious right and people such as Limbaugh have done such an effective job in turning it into a bad word. They've done the same thing with the label "liberal".

3. Overall, I think men have become more accepting of women as equals. I have an engineering degree. I started my college education at 18, right out of high school. I was one of three women in my freshman engineering courses. Only two of us survived the first year. I left soon after to pursue other interests for a few years. Despite my high-achieving nature, I ran up against a great deal of discrimination by some of the older and foreign professors. At 19, I wasn't capable of defending against that.

Flash forward five years later. I returned to the same college and took up engineering studies again. This time, 15-20% of the class were women. I was readily accepted by the professors and encouraged to take leadership positions. It was a far cry from the attitudes that I'd encountered just 5 years before.

After graduation from college, I took a job with the state as an inspector. Typically, the people running the places that I inspected were middle aged white guys. I still ran into those who couldn't believe that a woman could do my job, but for the most part I found acceptance. Amongst my co-workers, I was readily accepted. I no longer felt like a pioneer.


4. I just don't know. Culturally, we need to continue to let our children (boys and girls) know that they can do anything they set their minds to doing. There are still segments of our society that believe that a woman's place is in the home. I don't think we'll ever change their minds. Much of their mindset is due to religion.

[Woodstock]

15. I can relate to your experiences , the profs made it tough for women

If I wasn't so stubborn, I would have given up. I would get the highest grades on tests in Math and Computer Science classes, yet felt like an outsider. Was it me? No, I don't think so at all. They chummed up with the guys, and would have running dialogs with them during class. They treated me like they could not wait until I gave up and went away. I didn't, I got my degree with honors. Only to face the same thing in the workplace. Finally, I found a place where this doesn't happen, but it took 10 years to find it.

[pmbryant]

17. You found a place where this doesn't happen?

That is fabulous! I hope you don't mind if I ask some more questions about this place, such as: How big a place is it? And, how did this place solve these problems?

It is comforting to know that there really are such places out there somewhere.

:-)

--Peter

[Woodstock]

19. I think it's down to the guy who hired everyone

he hired me, and he hired the people who are hiring others

if you consistently hire people who aren't egotistical and who are enlightened about equality, pretty soon you get a bunch of people like that (like hires like)

so I have to give this guy credit - I don't know how he did it, because he didn't ask any questions along those lines - I think maybe he was just good at picking up vibes?

now if only he made sure they were all Democrats! but there are enough of those and Independents that I don't feel surrounded :)

[pmbryant]

46. I was afraid of that

It is hard to export that model of success without a complete overhaul of those in the "hiring class".

That will take an awful long time, at best. :-(

--Peter

[diamond14]

5. yes, women are loosing ground....yes, young women will be

really shocked when the shrub's pogram hits them individually....

I went to college at the University of Michigan in 1968....the ONLY reason that young women can work anywhere besides as clerks and secretaries is the long hard struggles of the 60-70's.....it saddens me greatly to watch young women allowing all the struggles for equality to be thrown away, and gleefully so....seemed like a lot of young women thought that schwarzneggers groping and raping women was 'cute' (bimbo-ettes, uneducated TV addicts)...and those same women will be horrified when they are raped because it's so 'cute' and arnold does it...and also find out that bush* has limited their access to abortion, and limited their access to the courts, where they will be raped again verbally, as was common in the 60-70's....

much of this has already been completed...the system of equality has been totally disassembled....shrub and his team truly believe that the world should simply be run by a few OLD rich white men and to hell with anyone else....disassembling women's rights is part of the bigger disassembling rights for EVERYBODY but a selected few..... the poor, the people with disabilities, the people with health problems, the seniors, all minorities, the jobless, the homeless, the Veterans...everybody is OUT, and a few OLD rich white men are IN.....it's time to take OUR government back....

[MooPie]

8. Good questions

I believe women are definitely losing ground and it's been going on for a while. Look at Susan Faludi's book Backlash which came out over five years ago where she noted the undercurrent of anti-feminism. There has been a concerted effort by mostly conservative right-wing and religious organizations to put women back to second class status. The anti-abortionists have spent years waging a successful battle via excellent propaganda while the pro-choice movement struggled to find supporters due to complacency. Today's young women are essentially unaware of the sexual discrimination of twenty years ago and therefore do not feel threatened by the loss of rights as they have always had them. In fact, many of them don't even know the term "botched abortion."

The label feminist has, like the word liberal (which is a wonderful thing to be), been turned into a dirty word, and that is why you hear young woman say "I'm not a feminist, but..." You can thank the likes of Rush Limbaugh (Feminazi) and Pat Robertson et al for the pejorative connotation that exists today. When I explain that feminism is essentially synonymous with equality, and does not mean "Man-hating" I am almost always met with amazement.

I think men might be threatened on a sub-conscious level by women, but not being a man, I don't know. My guess is the manner in which women are portrayed these days is very conflicting. You've got all these remarkably strong women, yet they're frequently over sexualized beings as well. And the double standard is alive, well and kicking. Women are displayed as sexual objects, but are sluts only if they are sexually active. So what kind of message does that send?

And finally, hostility towards women is learned behavior that needs to be addressed at the earliest level in the home. Parents need to teach their children to respect everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation etc. The media is a powerful force that must be battled at every turn, and in my opinion, it starts with the parents.

[NewJeffCT]

11. True, but...

I agree, I think the right, especially the religious right, has gone a great job at labeling the feminist movement women as "feminazis", and the major women's organizations do seem to shoot themselves in the foot publicity-wise at times (did one of them really need to endorse Carol Moseley Braun, as the NY Times editorial said?)

That said, I think plenty of men are not threatened by a woman making more than them. I tell my wife all the time that I'd be disappointed if she wasn't making more than me in a few years (she makes about 75% of what I make now, but I think she has more potential than me because she has two masters' degrees and is later arriving into the workforce than me...) - my mother has also made more than my father for years and both of them are near retirement. So, maybe it's been ingrained in me that it is okay... And, we do have a few friends where the wife makes more than the husband, and I'm pretty sure the husbands do not feel threatened or embarrassed or anything. My logic is that if my job holds steady, and she makes more than me, we'll have a really good life.

[dreissig]

76. Co-Optation

Latter-day feminism is about strong women, but this category has been co-opted. Today's "strong women" implement and endorse patriarchal social structures. This is not what was supposed to happen.

There's no social progress when the leaders decide the "movement" is about them.

[Arianrhod]

206. "Women are displayed as sexual objects"

I'm a huge independent film buff, and I have a large library of movies of all stripes, from the indies to major productions. I watch only a little TV, but I do catch some of the more popular shows when I can. Lately, something about them has been nagging at the back of my head, and only reading this thread has made it crystallize for me. In almost every single case that I can think of, whenever a man and woman get together on a modern show/film, they invariably have sex. It may not happen immediately, but it ALWAYS happens. And it strikes me that sexual love is now the only kind of love being portrayed on screen. There is no romantic love, or chivalrous love, or friendship love, or even rival love (the kinds of relationships Bogie and Bacall/Hepburn used to portray). There's only sex. It seems to me that the message being sent here is that the only reason for a man and woman to be together is to have sex. And if sex is the sole object of a relationship, then it makes sense to present oneself as a sexual object. Otherwise, one may never get to have a relationship at all.

Sexual objectification of men takes place, too, but it's of a different sort. "Real" men are portrayed as sexual predators, hungry and on the hunt, always thinking about who they're going to wile into bed next. Any man who is not constantly on such a mission is seen as weak or even perverse.

IMO, the only way to stop the objectification of women is to stop making sex the only reason for a relationship.

[Clete]

10. Young women especially are not aware of

the fact that things weren't always so open and free for them. nothingshocksmeanymore asked me to repost an essay I wrote in GD back when I first came here about how women were treated even as recently as thirty years ago. I had a crash and lost a lot of my files and I don't know if it's still on old DU. If anyone can retrieve it I think a repost will remind women about what gains they stand to lose if they aren't vigilant.

[smirkymonkey]

14. I have noticed increased hostility

both covert and overt. It manifests itself not only in policy changes, but the seemingly incresing objectification and denigration of women by the media. Also, men (of the macho variety) seem to be emboldened by these changes and act on their women-hating impulses with growing frequency.

From the "Man Show" to the Schwartzengroper phenomenon to the overwhelming focus of the media on women as sex objects, etc. etc. The prevalence of internet porn has also had an effect on selling the fantasy of the physically perfect, always sexually available woman. (Article in New York Magazine a few weeks ago exploring the sad relationship between porn consumers and real women)

Could it be that as our insecurity grows (economically, sexually, our role in society, et al.) we become more inclined to give our power away to forces beyond our control?? The message is that we should all be competing with each other for scarce resources - men, good,well-paying jobs, recognition, etc. - which turns us against each other. Remember, strength is found in numbers and the intent here seems to be divide and conquer.

I think the message we are getting from the media and from the government are all part of the neo-con propaganda perpetrated on formerly marginalized groups who have in recent years been "getting too big for their britches". As our actual power in the world increases, there is more backlash from the dominant societal forces.

As our self esteem increases, we are more able to resist these messages and even fight back. Personally, any man who would be turned off by a woman who believes in equality and the elevation of a womans role in society is not worth my time. He has crossed himself off MY LIST! :toast: Cheers Sisters!

[prolesunited]

18. Nice to see your voice

on this thread! :hi: You make some very good points, especially about the divide and conquer strategy. It's very similar to what is done to keep whites and blacks apart on issues where they have common ground and would be an overwhelming force should they remain united.

I grew up in a VERY traditional household with strict gender-defined roles. My mom used to pack my dad's lunches and extra set of clothes for work every day and fret if everything wasn't just so for him. The one time she did get a job, to help give me a little extra spending money for college since I was paying my own way, my dad had fits. She was the happiest I had ever seen her, and she practically drove herself to exhaustion to keep up with ALL of the household duties, but my dad was still angry and resentful. It was the closest they had ever come to a divorce and the tension ended only when she quit her job.

I always viewed her as so very trapped that I've spent my entire life running in the opposite direction, perhaps even too far. Some of the men around here, though, have given me hope that it is possible to find a companion rather than a jailer.

I guess it all boils down to choices and having the freedom to define and pursue what is best for your life, without having it defined by society or men or even other women for that matter.

[smirkymonkey]

26. Good point :hi: and thanks for

the original post - very thought provoking and a subject that should not be swept under the rug anymore.

You make a good point about observing your mother's situation and becoming determined about not repeating it - my mother was the original superwoman - did it all, had it all - and that option horrifies me as well.

Ultimately, we individually have to be responsible for our choices, but sometimes making the best, most life-affirming decisions is difficult the hostile arena of sexism. Most women just want to be free to live their lives as they see fit. It seems as though most conservatives see any woman who is self-determined as a "feminazi". Very sad.

I tell them that I would rather be called a "feminazi" than a neo-nazi. ;)

[NewJeffCT]

20. I'm all for equal women

How do you feel about shows that are called "empowering" for women - starting with the big Xena, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Alias, and a few others?

[smirkymonkey]

27. Well, the word empowering is debatable

while is shows strong women - which is good to see - it is mostly in fantasy type shows that these characters occur. I think showing a self-possessed, triumphant woman in a real life situation would really be empowering.

I don't really watch tv, but when I do - I am amazed at how much it degrades almost everyone.

[FireHeart]

109. Ummm...

I liked them all, but they are, naturally, cancelled shows. Sure they are in syndication, but...that's it.

Alias, however, focused far too much on the "sexy" aspects of a woman hero. Wasted a lot of time there. Now...in Miami CSI, you have Emily Paterson playing a (seemingly) bimbo who has a mind like a steel trap and is capable of ignoring her personal life in favor of "the job".

One favorite line of hers was when a co-worker (male) lamented his fate of missing the "big party" scene because of the job. She replied..."Yeah..but we get to pack heat". Hilarious--and a great way to divorce herself from the stereotyped roles.

[spooky3]

21. why younger women may react as some do...

Here's my hypothesis on why some women and girls under age 22 don't seem to "get it" (in addition to the comments already posted here):

Although they are not perfect, I'm sure, I think schools do a much better job than most employers do in treating the sexes similarly (for students that is; as for how women faculty (and staff, probably) are treated in universities, there is evidence that the problems are just as bad as with other types of organizations, e.g., see the MIT report). For students, there is a clear meritocracy and teachers/professors and administrators work hard to treat students fairly; with many women in power in schools (relative to government and business) there may be more role models of equality and competence and more fear of being corrected if one behaves unfairly toward girls/young women. In many, if not most workplaces, there is far more discrimination, overt and subtle. But these women and girls have not yet faced it. So, they are understandably puzzled, since they have nothing to go on but their experiences to date, and it is hard to imagine that things would not be just the same as they continue on to working. They may conclude that working women who tell them how badly some people behave are just misperceiving it.

Also, I really appreciate the chance to read thoughtful, reflective posts in this thread, especially those from newcomers.

[Clete]

22. I don't blame the schools.

Girls are getting this from their peers, their churches and often their homes.

[spooky3]

37. ??? I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing.

I said that the schools were doing a GOOD job in treated both genders fairly, and consequently, it is hard for girls/young women to believe that they will face workplace discrimination--because they expect they will be treated as well as they were in school.

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. you forgot TV and movies and music and MTV

modern culture is shoving the bimbo down their throats.

kids in HS...wanting boob jobs

that doesn't come from the church.

signed your friendly AGNOSTIC bear

[spooky3]

40. I'm not ruling any of those out.

Also, note that I said the lack of workplace experience was a factor in ADDITION to factors mentioned in other posts, and others have mentioned TV etc. images. So I agree with you, but am adding to the list.

[NoBorders]

23. The more conservative our culture is

the greater the resistance to women's empowerment and equality, in my view. A year or two ago, I recall hearing about a female state (I think) congresswoman in Oklahoma calling for the repeal of a woman's right to vote. Generally, I think, conservatism places women in the traditional role of a dependent homemaker; conservative policy makers will make policy accordingly, sadly.

On the other hand, as a man, I don't particularly like the cultural 'template' we are putting up as the 'acceptable' male, in places like TV sitcoms and so forth. You know, the clueless dufuss who can't tie his shoes without his wife around to help him. Watches sports and eats pizza 24/7. His wife runs mental circles around him while he can't formulate a complete sentence. This is cast as some sort of re-affirmation of the male persona, but I think that it in fact denigrates men. Yes, there are plenty of men like that, but it is a stereotype no better than the blonde bimbo stereotype for women.

Nor do I think the alternative has to be some sort of 'whimpy' touchy-feely guy.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack this thread. I guess I just don't think our culture provides much room for either gender to be fully realized in all our glory.

Back to the questions:
1) I think there has been a social shift against 'feminism' but in some ways, perhaps there have been positive changes for women. I'm thinking mostly anecdotally, but there are for example far more women in business and law school (at or above 50% female I think) than there was in the past. And my own experience is that I've seen more women in higher positions at work.
2) See above - I think there's been a conservative social shift.
3) I think perhaps the more conservative the man, the more he may feel threatened. I think this may be more true for working-class men, who might resent women in positions of greater authority. Personally, I have never seen myself in a position of dominance, and don't really feel any sense of 'losing it'. My boss is a woman. My wife, when she had a job, made more money than me. I think all-male executive management is actually a bad thing.
4) Both camps? You mean men and women?

[prolesunited]

24. No, you're not hijacking this thread

It's nice to see another male voice on this thread and welcome to DU. :hi:

I don't like either gender to be relegated to stereotypes because, as you noted, it doesn't leave room for either gender to be self-actualized.

I've heard complaints about the clueless male before. Where do you think this stereotype emerged from? Since much of the advertising and marketing industry is male-dominated, particularly in the upper echelons, why would they perpetuate such a stereotype?

Although I agree that women have made strides, do you think the movement has gone far enough? If you had a chance to read the article, you'll see that the Bush administration is making political end runs around women. How do you feel about some of those policies and trends?

And, yes, I really do mean both camps. That's why I stated it as such. There is plenty of hostility to go around. It's particularly refreshing to see this thread rise above that, however, with both men and women exchanging ideas.

[NoBorders]

32. Thanks, and good question

Actually, I changed my user name recently (hence the low post count), altough I've only been around for a couple of months anyway.

Regarding the 'clueless male' stereotype, glad to hear it isn't just me. As to why it is perpetuated by the media, good question. Obviously, the media-makers believe they are appealing to something in our society. This gets a bit off the bush policies subject of this thread, but...

I think that gender relations today are a bit more complicated than they used to be, for both sexes, frankly. That is, the expectations in relationships between men and women have become muddier or even conflicting. Women are expected to be smart and successful, yet nurturing and able to whip-up a nice soufle when needed. Men are supposed to be strong and 'manly', yet sensitive and communicative, etc... So, perhaps the advertising/media just appeals to a yearning for a simplification of the rules.

Also, I would say there's a difference between TV programs and advertising. Advertising shoots for a pretty narrow demographic, whereas a typical TV show aims for a wider audience, and hence a more generic message. A TV ad during a football game for example will show a lot of young men drinking beer and oggling 'the twins', whereas TV shows generally will try to appeal to: Older adults, families, young adults, etc... So, a prime-time sitcom may try to make humor out of an issue that appeals to men and women both. All that to say that Madison ave and Hollywood have somewhat different agendas.

Back to Bush's efforts against policies aimed at supporting women, I do think that is the case, and I think it is a problem. But perhaps it is more of a problem for those lower/working-class women who aren't going to business and law school, per my previous example. And in an adminstration with people like John Ashcroft, who covered up the naked breast of Lady Justice, I have to say it is not that surprising that this is happening.

And I just wasn't sure what you meant by 'both camps' obvious as it may seem! :-) I appreciate the invitation to thoughtful debate on this subject!

[minto grubb]

279. My take on it is...

That Germain Greer gave upper class women the chance of a career.
She did little for lower class women who have always had jobs. Low paid jobs, that is.
Lower class men also have had the priveledge of having lowpaid, poor quality jobs before GG came by, and have still got 'em.
The fact also remains that, around the world, women are still the poorest of the worlds poor. In many countries, they do not have the vote, or access to education.
GG has not changed this at all. She has simply helped a cultured elite. I seriously think that women have a bad deal. But the answer is not about getting rich men's daughters into the jobs their daddies used to do. Its about opening those jobs up to everyone. Its about looking at issues as 'our' issues, not 'womens' issues. A lot of feminists are understandably bitter about thier own personal experiences of men. My mum married a drunk. This was a problem She seems to have bought into the idea that ' all men are after exploiting all women'.
It is packing people into the movements let by ultra extremists, but it is not solving anything.
Frankly, I have more time for people like Joan Holmes and Elaine Morgan, who seem to be saying that men can, and should play a part in life beyond being 'the enemy'.

[smirkymonkey]

28. Welcome to DU!

and I appreciate your well thought out post. It's true that the more conservative society gets, the more gender roles seem to get polarized. It really does both sexes a disservice.

I consider myself to first be a human being, and I think that the traits we assign to either gender are largely socially constructed. We all possess qualities along the male-female continuum, and it seems that the individuals who are the most comfortable with embracing a range of qualities are the most well adjusted. Just an observation, but I believe there are stats somewhere to back it up.

In the areas of gender, race and orientation, we have more human qualities in common than our labels would lead us to believe. :)

[OKNancy]

33. Let's be accurate here. No Oklahoma congresswoman

called for the repeal of women's sufferage. It could have been some nutcase person but when one states a case, one must be accurate.

[NoBorders]

39. I wish I could remember exactly and I'll research it

But I'm 90% sure that is correct. It's possible I got the state wrong, but I know I heard about a female politician claiming that the right to vote preceded the 'current ills of society' by taking women out of their traditional roles. I'll research it.

[OKNancy]

41. Hey, I'm on your side

and I agree with you first post. I wouldn't doubt that some religious whacko would propose such a thing. It's just that we Okies get enough grief as it is :-)

In fact I remember Anne Coulter saying something along those lines.

[NoBorders]

44. I understand

I didn't mean to dish out any more grief to Oakies! :-) It's just that I was pretty sure that that's what I'd hear. Didn't mean to jump on ya!

[SharonAnn]

285. Thought that I remembered she was from Oklahoma, too.

Don't know her position, though.

[kodi]

25. gaining and losing ground

but where they are gaining is at the highest levels of society, in corporations, in government, but where they are losing ground is in lower class economic situations.

one could argue that discrimination of a female lawyer in a law firm is not as important as a poor woman being discriminated on the job because the difference hurts the poor woman more.

both positively suck, but i would work on the problem of the poorer woman first, she needs it more. yet the facts are that both problems are related and the more wealthy woman's concerns will get more notice because the female lawyer can present her case better than the poor/uneducated woman.

so, even in the march towards full equality for women, class matters.

[MrPrax]

29. Is there any evidence that any of this legislation

actually produces 'social justice'?

There always seemded to me two womens' movements...liberal lobbying and feminism. Not all agree on feminism or even the 'battle' lines.

Besides who elected NOW to speak on behalf of women?
Their 'schtick' for years has simply been 'accommodation' to a social economic structure--as if obtaining 'gender parity' in the boardrooms is going to make one bit of difference to the exploited women (or men) under them...or the environment...or housing...or poverty.
Since capitalism is incapable of producing 'social justice', there has been a radical shift under the economy to move away from this type of hair-brained 'duct-tape' approach.

It could be that simply NOW is wrong, like so many liberal lobbyists!

[prolesunited]

45. Some of your points puzzle me here

Could you elaborate more on you two separate women's movements, describing the characteristics and citing examples of what you mean so I could better understand what you are saying?

As we've seen repeatedly throughout history, legislation alone doesn't change hearts and minds, but it certainly protects classes of people in the meantime. For example, did civil rights legislation eliminate racism? Clearly not, but I hope you will not argue that it was a bad idea.

I see no difference here in legislation that gives women equal treatment under the law. Do you?

Who interjected NOW into this discussion and who here said they speak on behalf of all women? I don't understand where this point came from nor you obvious hostility toward this organization.

Also, what specific things are NOW and so-called liberal lobbyists doing or attempting to pass that represent "a hair-brained 'duct-tape' approach." Are there specific pieces of legislation or stances on specific issues that you oppose?

[MrPrax]

92. Sure...

two separate women's movements?
Sure there has always been a women movement (widely popular and celebrated by everyone--the so-called womens' lib) and in the 70s or so, women quite rightly point out many deficiencies in the LAW that were patently discriminatory. We struggled mightily for reporductive rights and an acknowledgement of womens' work/homework. In MOST countries, maternity leave was created and recognized as a right.
Mission Accomplished under the constraints of a Liberal Democracy based on Equality. Ergo my point about 'accommodation'--accommodate 'equal footing'. Unless you are starting a revolution, that is all you are going to get under the provisions of the Constitution.
To take MLK's speech--hardly a plea for radicalism--but simply asking to be part of the American Dream.
Now where we might disagree is that the American Dream is a lie to begin with...BUT most people would disagree.
The civil rights phase of the womens' movement ended in the 80s, and largely the residue is highly intellilectualized 'feminism' in all it's glorious colors...
Some cynically might claim this phase is the last stages of any popular movement that inevitably crumble into factionalism and trying to find an issue. In lieu of an issue, there is always 'careerism'. In many cases, what has become of the 'womens' movement is simply 'lobbying' for a select interest.
I simply am saying is that what they are 'lobbying' for is not particularly germane or important to many many women or men--esp the ones of lower classes.

If anything the New movement is class divided and resembles more of the priggish Victorianism of the 19th century in which middle class women demanded the vote because MEN and the lower classes couldn't be trusted with the protection of the 'home and hearth'.
In fact most of the symbols of the womens' movement have either been appropraited to serve 'class' interests or simply made 'mandatory' womens' proletarianization .
Now where we might have agreement is that there are certain drawbacks to this 'proletarization'...childcare for instance.
BUT (big but) women have actually been an integral part of the Left, it's political institutions, it's labor unions, it's coalitions, it's business, it's educational structures for a few decades...and these problems still seem no better solved.
SO I submit to you that simply 'equality' and 'gender parity' no more produces 'social' justice for Womyn.
I personally think under a capitalist system that social justice is not possible.

[bobbieinok]

30. young women today

2 or so years ago, a young woman said before class started,

...'Everything is so hard today and there are so many choices and nobody seems to know what it means to be a woman or a man. I often wish I were living in the 50s. At least everything was clear then.'

[spooky3]

42. quick--give her a copy of The Feminine Mystique!!!

[dreissig]

81. Not Since 1963

The Feminine Mystique was a breakthrough in 1963, but feminists haven't done much since. Yeah, scholars continue to chip away, and every now and then one professor or another says something important.

Mostly they shoot themselves in the foot. Phyllis Chesler is a good example of somebody who started out saying good things. At the end, she was just running her mouth. I remember reading one of her books, thinking Who needs this shit?

Then there were feminists like dingbat Susan Estrich that ran the Dukakis campaign into the ground. Wanna know what happened to feminism? She's one of the reasons.

[spooky3]

135. my point was that Friedan's book debunked the myth

of the "happier, simpler times" of the 50s. They were filled with misery for women who felt constrained by the 50s roles for women. This is in direct response to the poster who encountered the young woman who longed for the not-so-good old days; it is not a general commentary on feminist books. I'll leave it to others to comment on "feminists haven't done much since." Personally, I don't see writing books as the only thing feminists can or should "do."

[dreissig]

171. Writing Books

What I'm saying is that feminists haven't stayed current. Their best stuff was written forty years ago. You can't sustain momentum after you run out of ideas.

Women complained about the 50's but it's not the 50's anymore.

[Woodstock]

167. yes: housewife, secretary, or nurse

ah, how easy it was then!

[Booberdawg]

31. I know what you mean and I am getting

so tired of this. I’ve been involved in the abortion/child support/male’s can’t be expected to fuck responsibly or pay for babies if they can’t force women to get abortions/men gotta have it women are sluts and whores, etc. threads over the past couple weeks, a couple Kobe threads further back, and even longer ago a couple rape threads. It’s the same shit different day. Same guys showing up with regularity with an occasional new face and the same male victimization routines. No matter how much fact and supporting evidence you spoon feed them they cover the same ground as if it has never been addressed and debunked piece by piece.

The fact is it IS the same ones over and over and they are NOT going to be bothered with the facts or what is fair or responsible. It’s much easier to stay buried in that comfortable little world of playing the poor defenseless and helpless male victim to this vast conspiracy of malevolent women that plot to take advantage of men and cast spells over men’s penis’s to make these conscious-less appendages that have no independent brains of their own to do things that the men themselves can’t possibly be held responsible for under any normal standard for personal responsibility.

It’s just fucking, afterall, and that doesn’t count – especially if there are consequences involved. Women are responsible for the consequences of their fucking; women are also responsible for the consequences of men fucking. That’s just the way it is as far as they are concerned no matter how they weasel word it to camouflage or sugar coat it to appear otherwise.

The only consolation I take is that it IS just a few men and it’s always the same ones over and over again, and they DON’T represent the majority of men, nor do they represent the majority of DU men. No amount of discussion, debate, argument, hand holding or spoon feeding them the facts one by one is going to change anything because they do not want to be changed. That is not a reflection on any of us or of women in general, it is a reflection of them and their lack of character and refusal to acknowledge their own personal issues. Karma has a way of catching up to those who refuse to see blatant character flaws in themselves. I’ve seen it and known of it to happen hundreds of times – it requires no interference, timetable, or even that we know when it happens. But it does happen.

I’m tired. That’s not to say I will give up and pick up my marbles and quit the battle; it just means I’m tired. I don’t quit. While I think it is appropriate and even essential to stand up to obvious misogyny, I’m convinced it is a waste of time trying to reason with those who have repeatedly revealed themselves as unwilling to consider reason, and who instead chose the never-ending circular head fuck that purposely prevents any entrance or exit to growth or challenge. That’s a complete waste of time in my opinion.

I haven’t even read the article you posted. I’ll check it out and respond to that later.

[OKNancy]

34. I see sexism and misogyny every day here on DU

It's subtle, but go to the lounge and spend some time. Women aren't taken seriously. When I think of two years ago when I chose my screenname, I wish I had picked something gender neutral.

I can see it, and I bet other women on DU can see it. We don't make a fuss because we want to be good girls.

Some day I'll write a short story about how I got a little twerp fired from my bank for treating me like a second-class citizen because of my gender. It still makes me too mad right now to spend the time writing it down.

[Skittles]

47. don't be a "good girl"

they'll want you to don a schoolgirl outfit and then get excited. :puke:

[prolesunited]

49. I specifically picked my screen name

to be gender neutral and put undeclared in my profile in hopes that my gender wouldn't be taken into account when people read my posts. For the longest time, only people I PMed knew I was a woman.

It wasn't until more recently that I've felt that I've earned enough respect and credibility to "come out" as a woman. That in itself is a sad commentary.

I have found, though, as I have gotten older and more sure of myself, that I have absolutely NO interest in keeping my mouth shut and being a good girl.

[OKNancy]

50. In retrospect I wish I had done the same

I see it and I know it when it happens. It doesn't matter if you are on a liberal website or not.

Shit, I even got put down for being from Oklahoma. Oh well. DU is my internet home, and I would hope that we women can speak up and maybe make a few changes, or open a few eyes.

[Zorra]

65. I thought about doing that......

but decided I wanted to see if posters here would take me seriously if they knew I was a woman. I guess that's a sad commentary also. Never have been the "good girl" type, and would not have been able to survive in my former profession if I had been.

[Woodstock]

168. You rock, prolesunited!

your thread and all your comments have done DU a lot of good, I think (though it might not look like we made much headway with some people, at least we rattled the tree of their complacency a bit, and there are others who are lurking or thinking about it)

I picked Woodstock because I like Peanuts and think Woodstock is cute (silly reason to pick a user name on a political forum, I guess!)

I was actually called a he for a little while, but "came out" on some particularly grueling anti-choice threads

the really nicest thing for me here has been thinking someone is a woman, because they get in the trenches and fight with us on these issues, and then finding out they are a man! there are some really cool men here

but we do put up with too much from anti-choice/anti-feminist ones for a progressive board

[salin]

147. Didn't think about it when I chose a nick... and for the longest time

I was assumed by many to be male. Seems that 'analytical style' and concerns with policy are assumed to be male attributes. Funny huh. When I noticed this, I asked once in a lounge thread about how people 'construct' the gender identities of other DUers when it was not obvious. It was a rather interesting threads. Lots of folks 'looking for gender clues', but others hadn't really thought much about it (nor had I) - how do we 'decide' in our head what gender a DUer is - and why? Some contend that they don't even assign gender to posters (while I try not to, overtime I think I subtly do). I think you raise an even bigger point, that I didn't at the time. When we construct genders for others (that is we decide, in our own mind, that prolesunited is male) - how does it impact the conversations we have with that DUer - and does getting a gender correction change that tone? I haven't found a shift when people realize that I am female - but I haven't really been looking for one, so am apt not to notice it even were it to be there.

corrected title.

[NoBorders]

43. my wife was fired for being pregnant

Her boss, an egotistical asshole (I met him), said they needed a different set of skills, then hired a man into her same position a couple of days later, same skills.

She sued. They fought hard--lots of big-buck lawyers versus our little contingency lawyer (justice *is* for the wealthy, I have learned). Found out today that unless we dropped our case, they were going to stick us with the $30k bill of their legal fees. Our lawyer confirmed that the judge in the case is corporate-friendly and we may not prevail. So, in tears, my wife decides to give-up. She didn't care about the money--truly. She just wanted them to admit they screwed up. They won't.

So clearly, gender discrimination is not dead. 'Course, this isn't gender discrimination per se. In any case, I believe that having more women in positions of power will help us all, since I believe (and maybe this is sexist!) women tend to be more supportive of family needs, and providing more support to families helps us raise happier kids, and that makes the world a better place!

[Booberdawg]

48. Thank NoBorders

Welcome to DU. :toast:

What a long stressful battle that sounds like. I'm sorry it didn't work out in the end. But that's what it really boils down to is deep pockets and a corporate-friendly system. Being right doesn't seem to matter anymore.

[NoBorders]

102. Alors,

Yes it has been a trying process, and disappointing. If not eye-opening. Thanks for your comments.

[spooky3]

136. I'm sorry too. Yours is a good example as to why EEOC needs more funding.

They are supposed to take on valid cases and fight for the "little guy/gal" against the deep pocketed organizational wrongdoers.

[salin]

149. May I just say...

THAT STINKS! A bit of empathy anger probably doesn't help, but I really feel for your wife - both from the first unfair action (and loss of income - and how awful to have to mix the joy of something like pregnancy with sorrow/anger of being fired?!), and then from the lack of justice. Please keep sharing the story. Sometimes I think that cases like this are invisible to much of the public, because of the lack of money to wage successful suits, and thus by much of the public the assumption is that such events do not still occur. Giving people vicarious first hand exposure forces a few to reopen their minds. Good luck to you both.

[haele]

51. When equal rights becomes a zero-sum game

All parties loose.

And unfortunatly, most self-proclaimed conservitives and extremists on "both sides" tend to think of rights and resources as being zero-sum.

Why should improving the quality of life and legal status for any group of human beings harm the rights and q-o-l of any other group? Unless a person is more concern of developing a class structure widening the gap between "us" and "them" - to the emotional and financial profit to "us", of course.

I'm not saying that as women we are not losing ground - we are, as the mood of the country is being dragged more towards an absolutist class/race/gender/religious/cultural warfare as social resources are being arbitrarily taken away by those who have been priviledged with luck and/or birth who seem to want to rule over a docile population rather than be part of a representation of a free people.

My main concern is that we as fighters for equal rights are not framing the argument as it should be - that a woman's right, a child's right, and yes, even a man's right to resources and legal status should be considered equal - and that the so-called leveling of the playing field does not lessen the rights of any of the other groups.

My personal reaction tends to be that when I hear or see a predominant use of language of division is being implimented by anyone in a discussion of "equality", it shows there is an undercurrent of a rather fearful (at best) or selfish (at worst) lack of respect of basic human rights going on in the argument. That, to me, is a fearful error when actually trying to get to the root of an issue - one must appreciate (as in "understanding and respecting", not as in "approving of"...) all sides of a situation that needs fixing before one can come up with a legitimate, fair solution to a problem.

Just my two cents.

(For the record, this was the first of the several heated feminist/equal rights threads going on that I could get to when I got the ability to get back online, so it's the one I've chosen to make this observation on - take it as you wish.)

Haele
(who spent her youth amongst those on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement - and saw what worked, what didn't and what was just sniping from the sidelines...)

[dreissig]

74. Zero Sum Game

Feminism promised more than it delivered. Women were supposed to humanize the workplace, but that's not what happened. Working people are just as likely to get pink-slipped by a woman manager as a man.

This is not the way feminism was presented, but it's how it turned out. There's no particular reason to support it now. Documents from the 1970's have a quaintness to them, like lava lamps. They are mostly irrelevant.

Edit: removed double negative

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Another man's view

First off, I think this is an interesting thread. But I think women don't see how far they have come, they see how far they want to go. Yes, the glass IS half full or a lot more than half.

In about one century, women have gone from suffrage to near equal status in our society. That's pretty damn good.

But some issues remain and not all of you are going to agree on them.

* Feminism -- Yes, it became a dirty word because of extremists. When extremists define a word, people avoid it. That doesn't mean ordinary women oppose equality, it just means they aren't radical about it.
* Gender roles -- This is all about choices, but in my experience, some more liberated (boy, I hate that term but I lack something better) resent women who choose traditional roles. If it's about life choices, choosing to be a mom, run a household, etc. is a legit choice.
* Sex -- Like it or not, sex still defines the male/female relationship. Maybe now more than ever. And, guess what, it's not likely to change. When you meet a man he is likely to be looking at you at least initially or sometime during the process in a sexual way. I think many women do this as well, but it is a strong part of who men are. Internet porn does not change or enhance that.
* True equality -- I doubt we can ever get there. Men and women are physically different. But we continue to get closer in status. I expect in my lifetime to see prohibitions against women in combat lifted. To me, if you can pass the physical tests, you can serve. I am amazed and disgusted that women have not challenged this to the highest court.

[prolesunited]

54. Thanks for your male perspective

But I do have a few questions:
Are you claiming that "feminist extremists" made feminist a bad word and not the RW and other groups who were against women's progress. In what ways can you be radical about equality. Cite some examples. Does asserting oneself make you "radical." I'm not going to sit there and wait for my rights to be handed to me, I'm going to demand them. Sorry if that sounds radical to you.

I agree, and stated previously, that it's all about choices and being a wife an mother is a perfectly legitimate choice. However, are all avenues truly open to women that that can even be considered that they have made a true choice.

Why do you think feminists don't like sex or enjoy their sexuality? I think they do much more than someone is repressed. :shrug:

Equal does NOT mean the same.

I've got to go to my other job and I can't post there, but it would be nice to see this discussion continue in this rational manner. :hi:

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Answers

I would blame both extreme feminists and extreme opponents for making "feminist" a bad word. But, face it, America doesn't like something that appears extreme. At least not the word.

Thanks for proving my point. Here I am, on YOUR side, yet any hint of departing from dogma and you appear to take offense. That is extremist.

I am glad you support the life choice of women who choose to raise children and stay at home. That's good. All such choices should be equal. (For men as well, I might add.)

I don't claim feminists don't like sex, but they object to men, I believe the popular term is "objectifying" them. Whatever the hell that means.

Yes, equal does NOT mean the same. But because it does not mean same, laws can make us exactly equal either.

[Nobody]

114. Here's what I see equality being

Choices: You can be yourself, whatever that encompasses. Without someone in the background trying to limit your choices with ridicule and disapproval. You are considered to be able to make your own choices about things that affect you.

Value: You are valued the same as anyone else. Society may value some traits above others, like courage, integrity, compassion. Whatever society values is open to all to strive for. Unlike previous eras, we shouldn't value strength and force half the population to sit still and stay indoors and don't develop their muscles while deriding them as weak. We shouldn't value education while denying it to half the population. What do we value? Who is excluded from it?

Respect: All are entitled to being treated with respect. Insults hurled at strangers is rude. If you know each other and you want to joke around, that's different and doesn't count. But does anyone enjoy having a deep conversation in a restaurant only to have some drunk sit next to you, invading your personal space, and then asking permission and when you say no, doesn't leave? Does anyone really appreciate being on the wrong end of double standards?

I've been told a hundred times that life isn't fair. I've seen the essay that starts out with: Life isn't fair. Get over it.

NO I WON'T GET OVER IT. Life may not be fair, but it's my duty as a civilized human being to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here.

To say that life isn't fair and to just get over it is like saying that the kitty litter box is full of cat shit, but instead of cleaning it and replacing the litter, you have to live with the smell permeating your house.

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. Those are all great to strive for

No one I know has them.

Choices: Others always try to limit those who do things differently. The first this, the new that all get put down. So what?

Value: No one is "valued the same as anyone else." Society values popularity, looks, brains, athletic achievement, etc. If a woman could hit homeruns against Major League pitching just like Barry Bonds, don't you think she'd earn a ton of money? I do. But since neither you nor I (assuming here) can hit that well, we don't get that money either. Unless we can manage some similar mighty achievement.

Respect: Respect is earned, not granted. Yes there is rude and crude behavior in the world. It impacts all of us, not just women.

You shouldn't get over it. You have summarized your duty quite well actually -- to make the world a better place.

[spooky3]

139. Another perspective

Here is how your post sounds/reads to at least one woman. Do you have any problem with the following? Then you will understand my concern.

"First off, I think this is an interesting thread. But I think blacks don't see how far they have come, they see how far they want to go. Yes, the glass IS half full or a lot more than half.
In about one century, blacks have gone from suffrage to near equal status in our society. That's pretty damn good.
But some issues remain and not all of you are going to agree on them.
* Anti-racism -- Yes, it became a dirty word because of extremists. When extremists define a word, people avoid it. That doesn't mean ordinary blacks oppose equality, it just means they aren't radical about it.
* Race-based roles -- This is all about choices, but in my experience, some more liberated (boy, I hate that term but I lack something better) resent blacks who choose traditional roles. If it's about life choices, choosing to fulfill roles traditionally filled by blacks is a legit choice.
* Race -- Like it or not, race still defines the black/white relationship. Maybe now more than ever. And, guess what, it's not likely to change. When you meet a white person, he or she is likely to be looking at you at least initially or sometime during the process in a racial way. I think many blacks do this as well, but it is a strong part of who whites are. Websites that some may find offensive do not change or enhance that.
* True equality -- I doubt we can ever get there. Blacks and whites are different in various ways."

(t (spooky3, not muddle of the road) know of no jobs parallel to combat, i.e., where blacks are forbidden from participating, so couldn't transform your example here).

[Yupster]

53. Girls today doing much better than boys in schools everywhere

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is an absolute crisis for boys in America today.

Girls get significantly higher grades than boys.

Girls get sent to the office much less than boys.

Girls get expelled far less than boys.

Girls are put on behavior modifying medication far less than boys.

Girls get diagnosed ADD or ADHD far less than boys.

Girls graduate high school at a much higher rate than boys.

Girls go to college at a much higher rate than boys.

Girls graduate college at a much higher rate than boys.

These numbers haven't always been this way. They have changed dramatically in the last 20 years or so,.

I believe boys are truly in crisis, and that crisis situation will filter through employment and the economy in the not too distant future.

There have been studies and many reasons have been advanced for the above numbers. They are interesting, and can be discussed if anyone cares about boys.

[Booberdawg]

57. How about some sources and links to go with those declarations

C'mon, you know how this works. Back it up with some verifiable stats and real evidence.

[Yupster]

58. Gotta take my son trick-or-treating

Here's a quick link though. I'll look for the hard data tonight. This one seemed to have some thought in it.

It's from canada.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/26/findings.html

Another quickie
http://www.bwctc.northants.sch.uk/html/beacon/html/underach.htm

This next one I can relate to
http://www.glennsacks.com/boys_the_new.htm

My son is in first grade and every week he gets a spelling test. He typically gets the highest grade of any boy. Usually it's about a 65. Usually just about every girl gets 75 or above. Why? My kid hasn't missed three words all year. But the spelling test is not a spelling test for my son and the other boys in the class. It's a penmanship test.

This one has some advice
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/pubs/rundell.html

The teacher is meticulous about the way she wants her letters made and counts points off for every letter that strays above or below the lines or are too close or too far together. For some reason, girls seem to have better penmanship in first grade (always?). Maybe she's doing a favor now by grading tough on penmanship, but it is absolutely a bias against boys in this class, and since these spelling tests are about the only grades taken, it is pretty quickly sorting the kids by grades into good students (girls) and poor students (boys). I feel the same way as this author seeing his grade at D with red all over the page, but then when I look closer, I see there's not a single word misspelled. We work and work on penmanship, but I have a hard time telling him how bad he did when he spelled every word right, and I see his unhappy face when he shows me how he did.

[Yupster]

62. More links of interest

http://www.scoutscan.com/scoutbits/turning.html

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/morning/outclassed/article.htm

This one looks pretty encompassing
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2001737939_read20.html

Another good source - Leslie Stahl.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtml

[Booberdawg]

70. Your first two sources

relate to Canada and Australia and are not relevant to education in America. The third one did appear to me to be a good source and cited studies that did indicate girls as a group are doing better than boys academically and offered a host of sociological reasons for this.

Your fourth link also supports the claim that girls are doing better academically than boys, and seems to be a reasonable study as well.

So back to your initial 11 claims I will grant you that there is evidence to suggest girls do better than boys academically. However you haven’t produced any evidence that substantiates your other 10 claims or even mentions them, nor have you offered anything to suggest there is “an absolute crisis for boys in America today” or that a “crisis situation will filter through employment and the economy in the not too distant future.”

You haven’t made your case.

BTW I must have missed the last sentence in your original claim the first time I read it:

“They are interesting, and can be discussed if anyone cares about boys.”

C’mon, Yups. Do we really have to go there? Can we just mutually agree that as parents you and I care about both our sons and our daughters including anything that pertains to their success and well being and take that off the table?

[Yupster]

82. Well I guess if I haven't proven

that boys get sent to the office more than girls,

then, I guess it must not be then.

Even though anyone who's a teacher would say "duh. Of course they do."

My point was to put light on a very important problem in US education. It wasn't to prove anything.

Whether I prove that boys are committing suicide at a rate of four times more than girls is not very important. They are. Should we not try to do something about it, until Yupster proves it to you?

[Booberdawg]

63. Well the first 2 sources are from Canada, so that can't support any claim

about education in the United States.

The last source is indeed quite interesting. Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host. :eyes:

*sniff* can you say - right wing talking points?

Actually, it appears this is source where you got a lot of the assertions you made in you previous post.

Here's a coupla paragraphs from his Bio:

He has made over 100 radio and TV appearances, including the O'Reilly Factor, CNN's TalkBack Live, Fox News Live, Fox News America at War, ESPN, the Mike Gallagher Show, the Michael Medved Show, the Tom Leykis Show, Fox News Live with Alan Colmes, the Al Rantel Show, the Gary Nolan Show, the Charles Goyette Show, the Bill Handel Morning Show, the Australian Broadcasting Company's Morning Program, the Michael Jackson Show, the Chris Core Show, the Stacy Taylor Show, the Ricci Ware Show, the WOR Morning Show with Ed Walsh, the Blanquita Cullum Show, the Michael Graham Show, Ken & Co. with Ken Minyard, the Sterling Show, the Michael Fleming Show, American Family Radio, America Live, the George Noory Show, the Dennis Prager Show, Allred and Taylor and The Dolans.

Glenn's work is regularly featured or has appeared on hundreds of websites, including NewsMax.com, WorldNetDaily.com, BBC.co.uk, Heritage.org, Pravda.ru, JewishWorldReview.com, WorldTribune.com, CybercastNewsService.com, Rush Limbaugh.com, iFeminists.com, MensNewsDaily.com, DrLaura.com, AntiWar.com, IndyMedia.org, MediaTransparency.org, FreeRepublic.com, Rense.com, LewRockwell.com, CatholicExchange.com, AgapePress.com, IWF.org, Mensactivism.com and FrontPageMagazine.com

Good grief Yupster! Look at just that little bit of his bio I have posted here. Your source is a bastion of right wing horse shit! I wouldn't wipe my feet on this tripe much less rely on it as a source!

The rest of your claim is based on personal experience, which might be relevant to your and your son but is not appropriate for the greater generalizations for girls and boys as a group nationally.

Sorry, no sale.

BTW hope you and your son enjoyed trick-or-treating. One of my fav's when mine was a young'in :)

[Yupster]

80. We did have fun

I wrote my original post without any sources. Just from stuff I've seen and read.

When the next person asked for sources I did a quick Yahoo search and linked what I thought looked relevant. No I didn't read biographies of the authors.

No time tonight for thorough research. It is afterall Halloween.

As far as my assertions, do we need convincing that they are true? They don't fall under the heading of common sense?

I think anyone who's a teacher would say of course when told more boys get sent to the office or are on ridalin, or get put into special ed, or whatever the other points were. Ever see a classroom where one desk is separated from all the others because of discipline? Ever see a girl sitting in that desk? Me either.

I'm not going to convince people who don't want to see a problem, but it's there, and it's pretty obvious to people who look. And it's getting worse all the time.

Schools are eliminating recess which is more important for elementary boys than girls. Schools are declaring pee shooters and slingshots weapons under no tolerance policies. Kids are being told not to run and jump on school grounds, which is what elementary boys do.

And as far as the foreign references go, it's pretty much the same story throughout the western world. Why should Canada be any different from the USA?

Anyway, back to kiddoes. Keep being dismissive, and maybe it will all go away.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. You are more tolerant than I

I'd be in the principal's office every day with every parent of every boy in the class. Penmanship is not really an essential tool in this day and age. Spelling still is.

[NoBorders]

100. NPR did a story on this subject

A couple of months ago, maybe it was Jim Lehrer (it was on the radio anyway) did a piece on this subject--that subject being a trend of women doing better in school than boys. Their reporting focused on college and indicated that women were indeed grduating at higher rates, getting better grades etc...

The explanation is, of course, the controversial part. Some said that two decades of intensive focus in schools on building girls'/women's capabilities and self-esteem (to counter centuries to the contrary) has come at the expense of academic performance among males--that they are the ones now left behind. At least that was the gist of some commentators. And some female college administrators responded with the sentiment of, basically, 'cry me a river.'

Personally, I'm afraid of a 'dumbing' down of the male persona in pop culture, and in some strata of youth culture.

But who knows.

[Yupster]

121. No zero sum game here

I certainly don't see why helping girls should hurt boys, so I don't see the gains girls have made as a problem.

I see the problem as the schools not taking into account the way boys naturally are. Schools need to find outlets for their students to be active, get out of their seats and run around. All students need this, but especially boys.

Since elementary teachers are overwhelmingly women, there needs to be more inservice time devoted to how boys learn. There are plenty of worthless inservice hours that can be used for this purpose. Kids can't get sent to the office for normal behavior. If you see four of your boy first graders start to twitch in their chairs, maybe it's time to get out of your chairs and do something else, rather than start giving them stern looks. If you give a boy a twig, he's going to point it at someone and say bang. This should not be cause for suspension.

Teachers should not grade heavily on things like penmanship which girls have always done better in. It wouldn't be any more fair than grading high school kids on how fast they could run a mile, which boys will do better in.

In short, schools have some work to do in closing the gap between the success rates of boys and girls.

From this thread, it's not very encouraging.

[Maddy McCall]

209. More women attend, but more men graduate...

more men achieve professional graduate degrees and more men (85%) attain doctorates.

And that statistic translates to the workplace, where more men take on executive jobs and work in higher paying industries.

[spooky3]

222. your doctoral numbers are way off

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c2/fig02-18.htm

Please note also that discrimination in ACCESS still occurs.

[Maddy McCall]

238. No, they're not, but maybe I should have been more specific...

Women earn 35% of ALL doctorates, and only 8% of engineering doctorates and 18% of doctorates in physical sciences. And, as I said before, this translates to the professional workplace.

And you are right about access. Women are also shortchanged in scholarships and other forms of financial support for post-graduate education. Women rely on their personal and family resources to finance their education, while men can count on university financial support. According to the National Research Council, 56.1% of male doctoral recipients financed their graduate education with university support, compared with 39.9% of women. Of women doctoral recipients, 50.4% paid for their education through personal resources, while only 31% of men relied on their personal finances.

Info from NOW found at http://www.canow.org/issues/titleix.html

[spooky3]

250. Sorry, while these numbers are closer than your 85%

they are still not correct. NOW is not a research institution and may not have up to date information. While I'm sure you and I basically agree on the issues, it's important to have the correct numbers.

"Of all the doctorates awarded in 2001, 22,769 went to men and 17,901 to women. The total for men has
declined steadily for the last five years, and in 2001 declined by 1.7 percent. The number of doctorates earned
by women rose in 2000, but dropped in 2001 by 1.1 percent.
While the total number of women U.S. citizens who earned doctorates declined, they made up 49.5 percent of
the total, an increase of one-tenth of a percentage point over their share of the 2000 total."

This excerpt is from the November 22, 2002 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. The article relies on a comprehensive research study by Ronald Ehrenberg, one of the principal investigators of the annual Survey of Earned Doctorates. As the numbers above reflect, women earned 44% of all doctorates in 2001, and American women's proportion of US citizens' doctorates was higher, since a larger proportion of men who earn US doctorates are not US citizens.

The table I linked earlier (to another study) shows that women earn the majority of certain doctorates but are very much in the minority for some science and engineering fields. Thus there still appears to be substantial sex segregation in doctoral majors.

[Maddy McCall]

259. And what about in engineering and natural sciences?

What are the percentages there?

[spooky3]

263. more numbers

Reading the table I linked earlier, I think women in 1999 were approximately 34% of the natural sciences doctorates, 22% of the math doctorates, and 15% of the engineering doctorates.

According to the Ehrenberg et al. study, (on the "highlights" page):

"(in 2001), Women earned 47.3 % of the doctorates granted in life sciences, 54.4 % in social sciences, 50.6% in humanities, 64.6 % in education, and 42.7% in business/other professional fields. In the physical sciences and engineering, they constituted 25.2% and 16.9%, respectively."

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm

Hope this helps.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. I know that some right wingers blame feminists

for the relatively poorer performance of boys in school, but as a former teacher, I blame the pop culture.

The pop culture has always given boys rough and tumble images, but the macho heroes of the past were noble characters who protected the defenseless. Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart were very masculine, but they were not crude or vulgar or into violence for the sake of violence, and beneath their tough exterior was an underlying kindness and intelligence. This same type of personality carried through the fifties, with the Westerns directed at children, such as The Lone Ranger and Hopalong Cassidy.

But in the past twenty years, many of the pop culture heroes presented to boys have been hyper-violent, crude, grotesquely muscled, in-your-face, arrogant, and defiantly ignorant. And I have seen some of that reflected in my students, as when young men who are very intelligent, judging by their performance on schoolwork, put on a happy-go-lucky bozo act and go around telling everyone that they hate to read.

I think that the pop culture has told boys that intellectual achievement is for losers and that real men are obsessed solely with sports, booze, and chasing scantily clad women.

The girls, seeing this development, have looked at their male contemporaries, decided that they can't be depended on, and redoubled their efforts to achieve on their own.

[Yupster]

93. So as a former teacher, should

we be concerned about the way boys are falling further behind? or should it be dismissed as right wing propaganda?

The thing that really concerns me is the number of boys being put onto ridalin. Maybe I shouldn't worry. I have enough to worry about my own son.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. I think the "put boys on Ritalin" trend

is promoted by two groups (other than the pharmaceutical companies, of course).

1) Teachers who have too many students in the classroom. If you have 35 elementary students in the class, one lively boy can seem like ten. In a class of 20, he would be manageable.

2) Parents who would rather drug their kids than teach them to behave.

Now ADD-hyperactivity is a real phenomenon, but it's being over-diagnosed. Kids have different energy levels. When I was growing up, my German-American relatives referred to certain kids as "gepfeffert," or "peppered." They needed a combination of close supervision and frequent freedom to run around.

School superintendents and school boards can be some of the dimmest people on earth, sad to say. If you don't like the way your school is being run, you need to get together with like-minded parents and vote the idiots out.

By the way, I question the idea that raising girls' achievement necessarily lowers boys' achievement. Are their egos so fragile that if a girl is doing as well as they are they sink into despair?

I still blame the pop culture and the general dumbing down of America for presenting hyper-macho, anti-intellectual role models for boys.

[Maddy McCall]

165. So you're a Hoff Somers reader, eh? Buying into the right-wing propaganda

"Why our boys are falling behind" is Somers' so-called expose on how feminism cheated boys out of good education. Just fess up that your info comes from RW propaganda.

[prolesunited]

169. I'll have to look into that

I couldn't figure out why this poster kept trying to change to focus to boys. When I called him on it, he decided it was time to "fold laundry." :shrug: Do you have any links handy?

One issue that he was trying to sidestep as well were gender roles within a family. If a woman wants to stay home and take care of the house and children while the man works, or vice versa, I think that's great if it's a mutual decision.

What I don't get is why if both spouses work, the majority of the household and child-rearing duties continue to remain the domain of women? His point about pay equity was that women drop out of the work force or don't put in the extra hours, but how can this change unless there's an equal sharing of the burden on the homefront as well.

BTW, thanks for chiming in on this thread. You've made some great points. A number of us have relayed our concerns to the Admins as well.

[Maddy McCall]

185. Critiques of Hoff-Sommers' flawed methodology

http://www.fair.org/extra/9409/stolen-feminism-hoax.html

Scroll down and start about 2/3 down the page:

"Right-Wing Feminism?

Sommers claims that she's a feminist, and journalists have largely taken her at her word. She has been identified as such on television, and many of the reviews of Who Stole Feminism? ran under headlines such as "Rebel in the Sisterhood" (Boston Globe, 6/16/94) or "A Feminist on the Outs" (Time, 8/1/94).

Yet Sommers was quoted in Esquire earlier this year (2/94), "There are a lot of homely women in women's studies. Preaching these anti-male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches--they're just mad at the beautiful girls." By that standard, Rush Limbaugh ("Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society"--Limbaugh Letter, 3/94) is a feminist.

Actually, Limbaugh--a proven font of disinformation--and Sommers--who portrays herself as a stickler for accuracy--have developed a mutual admiration society. Limbaugh repeatedly plugs her "brave and courageous book" (radio show, 6/14/94). "I'm proud that you like the book," Sommers wrote to Limbaugh in a letter he quoted on the air (7/26/94). "I'm asking you not to stop telling the public about it."

snip/

Sommers' book is filled with errors, from repeatedly calling the National Organization for Women the National Organization of Women, to quoting one source as saying cultural relativism was a "goon" when she actually said it was a "boon."

*******************************
Another source--the AAUW response to Hoff Sommers' "Who Stole Feminism?":

http://www.rightgrrl.com/steph/aauwmemo.html (A conservative website that remarkably posted the AAUW memo that debunked Hoff-Sommers book)

* Unfortunately, Who Stole Feminism? is not about making positive societal change or changing behavior to create a more equitable society for women and girls. Rather, AAUW perceives the book to be an attack on scholars, women's organizations, and higher education. Contrary to what Sommers contends, there is nothing in any of our research about terms she uses--domination, subjugation, victimization, or oppression. Anyone who has read The AAUW Report will know that none of this is in our research. Ours is not a radical agenda despite Sommers' characterization of AAUW. We are about positive societal change. What does Sommers have to offer women and girls of America?

Our research looks for solutions and is based on facts, not anecdotes or soundbites. The important thing to remember is that this debate is not about AAUW; it's about the children in this country. What is important is that our daughters and sons reach their full potential. Now let's talk about the facts.

snip/

Charge: Boys are the weaker sex due to drop outs, grades, and drug abuse. Test score differentials are minor in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP).

Response: Engaging in who is worse off is not a constructive discussion and will not help our children. Boys do drop out more, but they are more likely to return to school or get their GEDs. When girls drop out they stay out. And the cycle of poverty is greatly influenced by the educational attainment of the mother. Childhood poverty is almost inescapable in single-parent families headed by women without a high school diploma. Girls do get better grades, but boys score better on tests. Boys have outscored girls on both the verbal and math SAT since 1972. Boys score an average of 50 points higher on the math SAT. Scholarships based on SATs go to boys over equally qualified or more qualified girls.

************************
And an article in The Nation that exposes who these so-called "New Feminists" really are:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19990329&s=phillips-fein


It's more than a little disingenuous for Crittenden to present herself as being prompted into reaction by a harmless conversation over tennis. A seasoned journalist and founder of the right-wing Independent Women's Forum publication The Women's Quarterly, she's certainly no stranger to antifeminism. Nor is 23-year-old Wendy Shalit, whose stream-of-consciousness ramblings on boyfriends, college and virginity have been gussied up into a book by which Shalit herself will certainly be embarrassed in a few years; she's a frequent writer for conservative journals like Commentary. Together with other self-styled feminists like Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Christina Hoff Sommers, the two represent an odd new trend in right-wing thinking: The antifeminist appeal is today being made on grounds of women's well-being and satisfaction, in language that explicitly recalls Betty Friedan.

Contributing to one's eerie sense that all conservative books just might emanate from the same few ghostwriters, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us and A Return to Modesty are remarkably similar, both in their anecdotal style and in their obsessions. Both writers get frantic over coed bathrooms (Shalit, one of whose first big articles for Commentary was titled "A Ladies' Room of One's Own," has built her entire career on this unpromising foundation). Both note how revealing it is that we're "flocking to Jane Austen movies." Both feel obliged to establish their sympathies with mainstream economics. Shalit refers to her Chicago-school economist father, and Crittenden uses market metaphors to talk about sex: "When something becomes widely and cheaply available, its value usually goes down too."

*******************
There is plenty out there...you just need to look around. In my MA in gender history, I wrote a paper on these vile antifeminists and the backlash they have produced in polular media and culture. If I were you and I wanted to begin to get an understanding of this, I would read Susan Faludi's Backlash. It is a great starting point in explaining the cause behind sentiments to which both you and I have objected in this thread.

Happy reading! :-)

[prolesunited]

59. Still waiting for follow up

from several who replied in this thread.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. Stealth misogyny? DU would go broke the day the men's right's advocates

take over and the women are finally chased out. Take a look at any thread advocating men's rights over women's rights and look at where the contributors are. Count them.

It's time to force admin to take a stand and DEFINE sexism. It has gone on for far too long.

I refuse to PAY A SITE that advocates the dilution of our rights.

[Yupster]

132. Yeah

Only people who contribute should have an opinion.

My grandpappy used to tell me that only people who paid property tax should be able to vote.

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. Thank God

He's not in charge. Not everybody can afford property or payment.

[Maddy McCall]

161. I agree...that's why I won't be donating until ADMIN takes complaints

about sexism on DU more seriously.

[spooky3]

251. I agree and have been frustrated by the non-response

from admins. on other threads.

[smirkymonkey]

282. Same here - and by

the way, have you noticed some of the "bordering on porn mag material" images some posters have attached to their responses? A picture is worth a thousand words.

[David Zephyr]

64. I Love Your Chart.

I saw former Colorado Congresswoman Pat Shroeder speaking several years back and she posed a question that really hit me hard. I apologize in advance to this distinguished woman if I paraphrase here, but she asked something along the lines of this:

Would someone like Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton be satisfied with the status of women and girls in America today? She asked something like, 'could we face them and tell them that we carried on your fight'?

Her rhetorical question spoke for itself.

Thanks for this thread, Prolesunited. I will be reading with great interest the responses here. :hi:

[Yupster]

137. We should never be satisfied

with the status of girls or boys. We should always try to do better.

Even if four boys kill themselves for every one girl who does it, we should ask why the girl did it, not just why the four boys did it.

Even though women get 170,000 more degrees from college than men every year, we should not just ask why so many boys aren't getting there, but we should ask about those girls who didn't get there too.

Even though by virtually every statistical measurement, girls are greatly outperforming boys today in America, we should not ignore girls and their problems. They may be doing better than boys, but they have legitimate concerns too.

[prolesunited]

152. Several points here

It appears to me that you have repeatedly tried to hijack my thread with a discussion on the plight of boys. Why? I started this thread to discuss women, so why do you feel it necessary to change the subject. If that topic is important to you, please start your own thread. I'm sure the issue will get more attention than it will buried in my thread.

If you believe there is a correlation, would you please state what it is. Why and in what ways does the success of women necessarily come to the detriment of boys and men? Perhaps there is some confusion as we adjust to shifting societal roles? Perhaps the status quo is acceptable to males. Should women just acquiesce because it makes our patriarchal society uncomfortable?

Please review Haele's thread on progress for women not necessarily being a zero sum game. For the progress women have made, it does NOT mean we are taking something away from men.

If you feel that men are somehow victims in all of this, because that is the impression I am getting from your arguments, would you care to clarify your thoughts?

[Yupster]

159. I guess I would ask you to

see my posts # 121,

but I didn't mean to or know I was hijacking your thread, so I'll leave you to it.

I'm just concerned that there have been so many reports coming out lately about how badly boys are being left behind in school and society. From suicides, to crime, to drugs, to school discipline, to
grades, to college degrees, boys are just getting murdered and there just doesn't seem to be any interest in finding out what's going so wrong in the last 20 years.

The medicating of so many boys onto ridalin is a particular concern to me.

Anyway, I'll leave you alone and go sort the laundry.

[Maddy McCall]

201. And those flawed and anecdotal "studies" are coming out from the right...

with praise from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, for the sole purpose of destroying feminism. See my post above entitled "critiques of Hoff-Sommers" for more info.

Please don't buy into all the antifeminist lit that is available right now. Read deeper into the topic, or go to a local college and take a gender studies class.

FYI, every so-called "fact" you cite above, on how bad it is for boys, is a creation of people like Sommers. And her "facts" have been shown to be lies, anecdotes, and destortions based on her agenda, not on true objective research.

I am a parent of a boy--this issue concerns me and I have researched it thoroughly. Boys aren't being left behind; girls are progressing, and that progress doesn't come at the expense of boys, as Hoff Sommers and other pseudohistorians would have you believe. We all should be happy that there is more equity in education than before. Ritalin has NOTHING to do with feminism, by the way, so please don't attempt to attach it to it.

[dreissig]

68. Feminism is Boring

Feminism didn't start out boring, but it got tiresome after a while. Feminists used to promise that empowering women would result in a better world for everyone. That hasn't happened. When I hear male-bashing I quietly wish this person would get new material.

[Selwynn]

71. An honest question: have women really ever gained any real ground?

That's my question - have woman really truly gained any singificant groun in changing a patriarchal society or overcoming entrenched misoginy?

I'm honestly asking. Maybe certain laws protecting certain workplace rights, and laws for abortion rights and others really reflect genuine progress in changing the attitudes of society...

But sometimes I wonder...

I honestly wonder if attitudes of the heart towards woman have really changed that much in fifty years?

Thoughts?

[dreissig]

77. Anti-Feminist Women

Feminism's biggest problem is that there are so many women who oppose it. Every time you think gender politics will support progressive causes, anti-feminist women sink your hopes. Too many women like their lives just the way they are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. How dare they

Or doesn't feminist ideology embrace opposing views?

[dreissig]

83. No Real Constituency

Ideological rigidity is one end of the spectrum, but there's another limit to keep in mind: lack of definition. Feminism needs women's active support and participation; otherwise it loses momentum. Isn't that what this thread is about?

Feminist leaders took the goodies that came with making trouble for The Man. They went off happy, leaving the remaining spade work undone. And that's where we are today. A handful of "strong women" making great money, having lots of options in their lives, while the mass of humanity lives in quiet desperation. This is not what feminism was supposed to have delivered.

[prolesunited]

86. My head is spinning on this one

It's women's own fault that their progess has stalled?

Just look at your language. You think the women's movement was simply about "making trouble for the man"?

[dreissig]

94. Grass Roots Implementation

The success of political movements depends on grass roots implementation. If it doesn't happen there, it doesn't happen at all. Feminism lost momentum when they ran out of ideas that were relevant to people's lives.

Yes, women should have options. But taking certain options closes off some others. If you want to be a big success in business, go to MBA school and work hard. However .... the people who do this give up an important part of themselves.

Career women turned into a third gender. When this was a new phenomenon, they were interesting. But now, they're just as boring as other business geeks. A lot of women don't want to end up like that, so they don't take that option. It would be nice if career people weren't boring, but I am not interested in discussing the forecast of 3rd quarter widget sales.

[prolesunited]

113. Excuse me?!?!

"Career women turned into a third gender."

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

"I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career."
— Gloria Steinem

BTW, you keep saying all of these issues involving women are "boring." Perhaps if you were as negatively impacted as we are, it might get your blood pressure up a bit. Nice of you to be so dismissive.

[Maddy McCall]

164. Astonishing that the very women who benefit today from our foremothers'

struggles are the ones who condemn feminism. Oh if they could only go back a half century and see what life was like then.

There is still much ground to cover and many glass ceilings to destroy, but for thankless, bratty young women to see feminism as "boring" and to classify career women as "a third gender" only demonstrates their lack of knowledge of how THEY THEMSELVES have benefitted from the movement.

Two questions to those who find feminism boring? Would you be willing to live as your grandmother did? Wouldn't you like to have the opportunities that males have? You probably can't answer these questions because you know nothing about history and possibilities.

[Maddy McCall]

163. This is the most offensive shit I have ever read on this site.

You are SOOOOOOOOOO very uninformed. You have been reading antifeminist "I'm-was-a-feminist-and-have-been-there-and-it-sucks" so-called insider bullshit propaganda by the likes of Christina Hoff Somers and her ilk, and you have naively or ignorantly bought into it.

How sad for you.

[dreissig]

170. How Sad for Me

Actually I'm not uninformed at all. Feminists used to be interesting; now they're not. You can't discuss anything with them because they always get abusive.

Some arguments you can't win, like the way pro-Israel people invariably find a way to call you an anti-Semite. So you learn to walk gingerly around such people, trying to avoid setting them off. It's the same with feminists. There's no way they are ever going to concede a point.

Feminist leaders sold out the rank and file. Now there aren't any leaders, just the rank and file with the same complaints they've always had. Nothing changes.

[Maddy McCall]

174. Really? Which feminist leaders sold out?

Evidently, again, you are basing your ill-informed opinion on "feminists" like Hoff Somers, Genovese, and the others who claim to have exposed the "lies of feminism."

REally, you put too much faith in the right.

[dreissig]

175. A Whole Generation

The whole 70's generation of feminists who took professional jobs in the corporations abandoned progressive politics. At one time, feminism was itself a progressive cause. The elite women scuttled that.

Don't tell me Condoleezza Rice is a progressive. And George Bush is not a progressive for having appointed her as National Security Advisor.

[Maddy McCall]

177. Instead of spouting right-wing talking points, give me NAMES

[dreissig]

182. I Can't Name the New Left Either

The New Left has certainly drifted away like the smoke from yesterday's campfire. They were very self-important in their day, but there's no doubt that they are gone.

There are probably more feminists still around than New Lefties, but we're not talking about people who have much influence on the politics of today. Maybe they got fat jobs in the corporations; who knows? They're not around now.

[Maddy McCall]

189. HAHAHAHA!!! Such anecdotal suppositions and opinions...

Can't even respond to something like this, based on your personal opinions and anecdotal observations, rather than on any kind of documented fact. Sad sad sad!

Funny how people expose who they really are when gender issues are discussed, isn't it. ;-)

[dreissig]

196. It Always Ends This Way

Can't argue with pro-Israel people either. Sooner or later they're going to call you an anti-Semite. Sometimes I wonder if they can help themselves.

Thank you for your informative replies; I've enjoyed this chat. Waiter ... check please.

[Maddy McCall]

199. You paying your bill? WOW. Thank a feminist that you can work...

outside the home! Amazing, isn't it!

[noiretextatique]

213. what utter bullshit!!! you made a specific claim

yet when you were asked for names of these "sellouts" you whine because you can't. it's clear you have not the slightest idea of who these "sellouts" are...if you did, you would simply name them, vs. continuing spouting your unsupported opinions, ad nauseum. this tactic of yours doesn't work very well with an historian who actualy knows :wtf: she's talking about. though i must admit...i enjoyed the exchange...she handed you your ass quite deftly.

[prolesunited]

176. Could you elaborate

on why you find feminists boring and abusive? What points do you want them to concede? Why do you apparently have a strong dislike for them?

What do you suggest women do? Do you believe all of the issues have been resolved? Do you feel men have been harmed by the feminist movement?

I'm really trying hard to understand your points here but it's hard to see beyond your harsh rhetoric.

[Maddy McCall]

178. Excellent questions...

doubt you'll get any substantial answers from a poster who finds feminism boring.

[dreissig]

181. SUV's and 401-K's

Former feminists are now more concerned with SUV's and 401-K's than politics, that's why you never hear of feminism anymore. In the early 1990's female Air Force pilots demanded the right to bomb populated cities like male Air Force pilots. Not exactly a winning issue.

[Maddy McCall]

187. That is such shit that it is impossible to respond to such anecdotal

BS! Can't even respond, your post is so stupid!!

edit misspelled word in heading

[dreissig]

194. Just Trying to Be Helpful

California has two female Senators, both of whom trace their political careers back to an earlier time period, one that might be called feminism's Golden Age. The governor is political newcomer Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Take note of the direction in which political events seem to be headed. Feminists don't have the clout they used to have, do they?

Thank you for your interesting replies; I've enjoyed this chat. I'm outta here.

[dreissig]

179. Feminism Disappeared

When people talk about feminism they are talking about the vestiges of a movement of a generation ago. As an ideology it doesn't have much impact on American policy. Consider the issues of homelessness and warmongering.

Homelessness among families has skyrocketed in recent years, and it isn't even mentioned. This is certainly a feminist issue because most homeless families are single-parent families headed by women. Where have feminists disappeared on this issue?

U.S. warmongering has received a very tepid response among such feminists who still exist. This is another issue in which feminism is simply a no-show.

Feminism is gone. When you mention feminism, you are talking in the past tense.

[Maddy McCall]

191. Really? Have you not been to a domestic violence shelter...

or to a peace rally? Have you not noticed NOW's activism on behalf of both issues?

Again, the more you type, the more you reveal your ignorance and arrogance, which is grounded in complete lack of knowledge on the issue.

Just because feminism isn't "relevant" to you, or visible to you, you assume it is dead. Could it be that people with sexist views fail to see the value or existence of feminism?

[dreissig]

193. Feminist Issues Didn't Go Away

Feminist issues didn't go away, feminists did. Is the National Organization for Women the sole remaining feminist organization? What happened in California that women voted for Schwartzenegger?

I'd like to duck out of this discussion now. Somebody raised the question What happened to feminism and I gave what I consider to be a truthful answer, namely that once feminist leaders made their peace with the corporations, they stopped caring about politics.

Now I'm being abused as ignorant and hostile, etc. Ho hum. This is the boring part, and it always gets down to name-calling.

[Maddy McCall]

195. Yeah, maybe you need to get back to reading...

your Hoff Sommers and Fox-Genovese so you can have more antifeminist talking points for next time.

tata :hi:

[dreissig]

197. No Converts Today

Same old same old. Waiter ... check please.

[Maddy McCall]

198. Thank a feminist today that you can earn a decent wage to pay that check.

Otherwise, you'd have to depend on a man to do so. ;-)

[smirkymonkey]

283. He is a man...

of course, see profile.

[prolesunited]

200. I would be delighted

if you would pay your check and leave. :hi: I really can't say you've added much to this discussion.

[smirkymonkey]

281. Dreissig has a major stick

up his ass about feminism, as noted in other posts. Pay no attention to his uninformed rants.

[Selwynn]

88. Not when those views are inherently misoginist or exploitative.

You don't have to burn a bra. You do have to support equality and the rights of woman as well as all races, colors, creeds, orientations etc in order to be "accepted" by feminism (as well as basic decent people):)

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Care to elaborate

On what views or actions you consider, "inherently misoginist or exploitative?"

[Selwynn]

124. I already have.

In response to you're sarcastic question about feminism being open to other points of view, I said this:

You don't have to burn a bra. You do have to support equality and the rights of woman as well as all races, colors, creeds, orientations etc in order to be "accepted" by feminism (as well as basic decent people)

And that answers your question. You don't have to call yourself a "feminist" nor, support a "feminist" political agenda, nor support feminist philosophy and so on.

But you do have to support equality and the rights of women as well as all races, colors, creeds, orientations etc in order to be "tolerated" by "feminism" or anyone else - which is the basic unifying theme underling feminism on all its forms. Views I consider inherently misoginist or exploitative are views that do not do this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. I guess I was looking for something more specific

And less general.

Do you consider porn misogynistic? Do you consider stripping the same? I'm just trying to get an idea where you are coming from on this.

[Selwynn]

158. Specifically, I consider

positions that do not support equality and the rights of woman as well as all races, colors, creeds, orientations etc in order to be "accepted" by feminism (as well as basic decent people)to be either misoginistic or explotative.

[Muddleoftheroad]

183. I guess that doesn't answer a thing

It's just a statement that reads like it's from a handbook somewhere. I asked specific questions, that doesn't answer them.

[Selwynn]

79. Sounds like my mom.

I love my Mom, and she's happy, and my Dad is a beautiful a-typical man, who would never ever ask or expect this kind of attitude from my mother. But my mom grew up with whole "husband is the head of the house" and "I know my place is in the home" and "I'm here to support my husband" kind of thing... its sad cause Dad's not even about reinforcing that crap. It's just what my mom thinks.

Oh well, she's an old lady - not going to change. I'm thankful that my father fiercely loves her and doesn't mistreat her ever.

[Maddy McCall]

162. YOU need to read Faludi's "Backlash"

Isn't there sad irony in the fact that the very women fighting feminism are the ones who benefitted it. Their attitudes are "I got mine, and I am too good to stay in a home and raise children, but that is what YOU, as a woman, should do."

That kind of hypocrisy is astonishingly offensive!

[cally]

90. How about the right to vote

That took generations of feminists to ensure. My first professional job was one that the those in power assured us that women couldn't do because it took long hours.

I believe women have gains but we re facing massive setbacks if the * wins.

[mmonk]

84. There still needs to be more women as head of

corporate boards. Women's wages in many areas continues to lag. They have made strides in property rights. More women now in congress than it used to be. Pretty much a mixed bag. Better than in most countries though. (I've written this without reading the other posts in this thread because I didn't want to be thrown off course by other's arguments).

[spooky3]

142. relative to their numbers in the population, women are grossly

underrepresented in Congress. The fact that it may be better than in some or even most countries is not a good yardstick for progress, IMHO.

[Muddleoftheroad]

188. That is their choice

Women make up slightly more than half the citizens in the U.S. If they wished to change the representation in Congress, collectively, they could do so.

[Ambassador Hope]

190. Good answer

We need to think more. Just because one small group states they rep women and yell and scream the most, does not mean much. Women could have all women in if they wanted to. They are smart and vote like men.

[prolesunited]

218. Hmm...

"Women could have all women in if they wanted to. They are smart and vote like men."

Let's parse this statement. What you are really saying here is that only stupid people would vote for women. Smart people vote for men.

Is that what you meant to say here?

[noiretextatique]

216. perhaps men could help?

since women help elect men...or is this just a "female" problem?

[Muddleoftheroad]

223. I vote for the best candidate

So if some women ONLY want women to be elected, that IS their problem.

[Cheswick2.0]

244. yup and no woman will ever be the best candidate

I know your type

[Muddleoftheroad]

254. You don't know squat

I actually LOOK at the candidates and their ideas and voting records and such. I don't give a damn about gender of an elected official. If you do, there is something wrong with you.

[spooky3]

224. you're conveniently ignoring

the role of money, control of the media, bias on the part of party leadership, etc. And why shouldn't men vote for women too? I've seen your views enough to know you are not able to grasp the notion of sexism, even while you express concerns about racism, so this will be my last response.

[Muddleoftheroad]

225. Sexism

I can grasp sexism and admit it still exists. But women are a full half of the voters in the U.S. Yes, money matters, so does media. But if women really just want to vote in women, they have that ability.

I think the reality is many women consider JUST voting for a woman because of her gender to be downright stupid. It's just as stupid as voting for a man or an African-American or an Asian, etc. not because of their skills and their ideas, but because of their gender or race.

I vote for the best candidate. I am appalled that someone who suggest we only vote for someone because of their gender/race/ethnicity.

[dreissig]

173. Women Voted for Schwartzenegger

You can't advance "women's causes" when women themselves vote against them. Why did women vote for Arnold?

If you want to know why feminism doesn't have any impact, start by examining the voting patterns. There's no reason women should have voted for Arnold, but they did.

[noiretextatique]

217. women are idiots, too

that explains the arnold phenomenon in women, just as it does in men. not all women support other women...some of the arnold supporters said they wouldn't mind if arnold groped them, and claimed all the women threw themselves at him. maybe some did...i doubt all did though. what makes you think women are not as ignorant as men?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cheswick2.0]

110. or several men on this thread....... look up

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Care to be specific

As to what you consider in this thread that falls into that category?

[Cheswick2.0]

172. care to kiss my ass?

I don't do command performances "dude". I think you can guess "what" I am refering to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

184. Not a freakin' clue

Feel free to rant though, if it makes you feel better.

You call out several posters here for stealth misogyny and don't back it up with examples. Inquiring minds want to know.

[dreissig]

192. Time Warp

It's not 2003 in the minds of certain feminists, it's whatever time period they like to harken back to. In those unlamented days, feminist epithets had real stopping power because they referred to things that were definitely there. History has left a lot of them behind like Miss Havisham in Dickens' Great Expectations.

[Maddy McCall]

208. Really...I am a historian who is quite up on feminist and antifeminist

literature and issues, and every post you have made has emanated from right-wing, agenda-based literature.

I am quite aware of current scholarship and activism. Perhaps you are not because you only see what your narrow vision allows you to see.

[noiretextatique]

212. tell me that when you face gender discrimination

i will be all ears...i assure you :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

215. I am a woman in a male-dominated field

I am in high-tech sales and am very accomplished. I have worked in this field for 17 years, and have many female friends who have worked the same number of years and longer in sales. We consistently get paid less than our male counterparts and hit a glass ceiling if we try for management positions.

BTW I consistently over-achieve my quotas and outperform my male colleagues. If gender discrimination doesn't exist, how do you explain this?

[CivilRightsNow]

104. Thank you for this thread

As a 25 year old female, Ive spent alot of my life online or innundated by media at this point. Online, I've had to mask my sex or become a hyperfeminist, blinking through the rage as "bitch" is routinely thrown at me when people arent intelligent enough to argue my points, only attack me personally. It hasnt happened on DU, probably because I dont reveal my sex. I have seen it happen on DU, but to a much lesser degree as on most bulletin board systems.

The internet is the world of technology, until quite recently it's been a man's world and I havent seen them enjoy us bashing their party. Ive had so many things to me said online when engaged in political debates that Im pretty damn sure a man would never in his life say to my face. The internet lets the subconscious free.. and the subconscience seems to be very misogynist in most cases. Another responder alluded to the question of wether the percieved change in equal rights and respect was real, deep down in in the hearts of some. And I really feel that it isnt. Putting on that face seems to breed even more resentment in these people.

I guess I should get to the questions before I ramble on about other topics, eh? :)

Are women gaining or losing ground in the battle for equality or has it remained stable in the past decade?

In the last decade I came to adulthood, out of the cradle of metrics and academia. It has been a rude awakening. I learned that all of those things that I was taught as a little girl growing up werent true. Now as I look back at my mother's life, I realize she was teaching me a beautiful yet damaging fairytale that she never experienced. She was always paid less then her male counterparts with much more responsibility. She always put in a ridiculous amount of hours trying to make it, to "prove" herself. But got token promotions while males got promoted through golfing games and strip club outings. Now, 25 years later, she finally found a company that almost gives her the respect she deserves.. but damn, what a struggle it was. She still doesnt make the money her male counterparts do, but the differences arent nearly as great as they once were.

In my own personal life, I feel like the average woman is losing ground. I work in the technology field, which is probably the worst good ole boy field one can work in. No matter that I've got my MCSE +I, CCNA, 7 years of experience, have successfully run my own consulting company (I didnt make millions, but it wasnt bad for a 20 year old at the time).. have recieved promotion after promotion (read, more title, more responsibilities, itty bitty pay increase), I still never make the same salary as my male coworkers.

Perhaps the most insulting case of it was when I was hired by a company at the same time as a 19 year old male. He had no certifications, 1 year of experience.. yet he was paid 7 K more then I was for the same exact job. This was after the dotcoms went bust and jobs were increasingly hard to come by in California. After working there for 2 months I notified my boss I was quitting, that they were incredibly sexist and that I could not believe with my qualifications they had the audacity to pay some kid with no experience, no education and no certifications 7 thousand dollars more then myself. Not only that, but the only other woman working in our department had been there for a year and made 1K less then me, 8K less then the kid.. yet she had a year of experience at the company. They had my pay raise authorized within 30 minutes and like an idiot, I stayed on. The cycle continued until Id had enough. But it's the same everywhere, it was the same at every job prior. So, I started my own company and I still have to deal with selling it to my male clients who arent quite sure because Im a female. But I love the fact that most of my clients are female and they choose my firm because Im one too.

Outside of the work environment and the glass ceiling that we not only hit but are asked to windex.. the media has definately regressed in the last 10 years. Im shocked and awed by television and magazines. I remember as a young teenager, I would read my mother's Cosmo mags and they would be a little racy, but they were mostly focused on women's issues. Now, Im friggin aghast at the crap that is in them. Everything is about objectifying yourself sexually. As if your vagina is the only thing you have going for you. That, and of course, your toned body in clothing not fit to wear in public. I fear for our young girls. They are like "How to become a whore/ slut/ virgin" manuals. I took my 16 year old cousin to her first concert the other day and I couldnt believe the way these 13-16 year old CHILDREN were dressed. Their innocence and female power is being stolen from them at such a young age that I wonder if they will miss it? If they will ever even know about the power that a very active group of feminists gave them at large personal cost. I really doubt it.

Why are some women now reluctant to identify themselves as feminists?

I am a proud feminist. I have wonderful strong women in my life that refuse to accept feminism as a bad thing. Im incredibly lucky because of that. But, out in the real world, away from these women.. it's like being feminist means you are man hating bitch. I've said I was a feminist in classes throughout my educational career and had men go from sexual harrassment to pure hatred and contempt. Society has branded feminists as radicals, along with the PETA supporters and Tree huggers. And to society, we are alot more dangerous.. because we could be lurking anywhere.

Do you think men have become more accepting of the idea of women as equals or is hostility increasing as they feel threatened in their position of dominance?

I think men have been forced to become better at the art of patronizing. I dont think most accept women as equals. Engage them in a debate and by the end, half of them are rabid and foaming while spewing the word bitch because you let them know that equality isnt real and gave them a handful of reasons that they couldnt refute. But the successful man, he has to get past that stage. So, he silently seeths if we threaten his dominance, going to more good ole boy rallies to ensure his place in the food chain.

How can we break down the hostility that seems to exist between both camps?

If I knew the answer to that question, I could win the Nobel Peace Prize. :)

I also wanted to touch on a couple of other topics discussed in this thread. Back to the media. I think, in all fairness, it's destroying men as well. Men are constantly emasculated by being cast as whiny "sensitive" men, gay men, or hapless knuckle dragging football watching, cant wipe my ass without my wife's input nincompoops. So, naturally, young men turn to the violent masculine gangster or psychopath -- Who wants to be an emasculated feminized male? While women are only portrayed as "strong" in fantasy stories like Buffy and Xena.. and in those stories, they are completely objectified sexually, stealing any empowerment away. I dont even need to go into the rest of TV.. like The Man Show, Reality TV, etc.

I think it is all about dumbing down the masses.. Make women ditzy, perfect bodied bimbos and make men idiots or columbine gunmen. Either way we will all psychologically destroy ourselves so much that we have no capacity to keep the government and the corporations in check.

I could go off about male female relationships, the fact that women rarely have meaningful relationships with other women anymore.. etc, etc... but this is probably enough for now :)

I needed this thread so I could vent. Thank you. Who needs a shrink when you have DU? ;)

[mmonk]

119. How can we break down the hostility?

IMO, more and more discussion.

[janekat]

129. Hell yeah!!!

n/t

[Ambassador Hope]

180. I do not see all this hostility you talk about

I know women who are leaders in business and the home. I do not see what your talking about.

I know the now group is a small group of women that protest issues but they are very small. We have a women gov., no one gripes about it. Never heard it raised once.

You have a problem if you try to force women to be the way one group states women should be.

I am new on this board and read many things and I saw so many positive things about women. I had never heard in the news that Rice maybe the vp for Bush and found that here. I read women here who are very positive.

[noiretextatique]

207. never heard of sexism, pay inequity and so on?

i want some of what you :smoke:

[Maddy McCall]

210. You would be ASTONISHED at some of the ignorance and

misinformation evident on this thread, noiret. I have been. Even more astonishing is that supposedly progressive DUers are using right wing talking points to demonstrate the irrelevance of feminism. When DUers start sounding like Christina Hoff Sommers, my antennae go up. :mad:

[noiretextatique]

211. actually i am not astonished at all

it's about what i expect, jchild. if this is what we face with our allies, imagine the truly deep shit we are in. i know this is no consolation...just the way it is. the women i know who would scoff at feminism the most are the ones who need it in their own consciousness, and their lives. i could tell you stories...but i won't. the shit my friends put up with to have men in their lives just appalls me. i think a good dose of feminist self-esteem would solve a lot of their problems...but :wtf: do i know? i don't think feminism is some evil plot to cast all men as victimizers and all women as victims. but i do find it interesting that the most victimized women i know think rejecting femimism gives them some kind of power.

[Ambassador Hope]

235. In Hawaii we do not lack the hope you have

We elected a women gov. First time.

A women AG took on the crooked old boy network to break up the stealing of money from Hawaiian children.

You want to have no hope. Most women and men have hope.

[Maddy McCall]

239. Oooohhhh! So what you are saying, from a very right-wing frame of ...

reference, is that the only reason Rose has experienced obstacles in her career is because she has no hope? So, you are saying that if she just tried a little harder and cheered up that she could bust through that glass ceiling she is imagining? So, you and every other rightwinger believe that it is a personal flaw of women that inhibits their ability to move on up that ladder.

How badly I would like to tell you to...well, let me just say this. Stupidity (or, maybe in your case, naivety) on this board is astonishing. Perhaps you should go read some scholarly books on feminism and on discrimination in the workplace before you chime in on a topic you evidently know NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH about.

And you pick a very anecdotal example to show that if only Rose had hope and wanted to achieve as much as your woman governor did, she could. How many women CEOs, governors, or even senators can you name? Considering that women make up at list HALF of the population, do you NOT find it a little startling that there are so few women on your list?

[smirkymonkey]

284. Aligning oneself with a dominant group,

especially one in which you do not naturally belong, is the cowards way of feeling powerful. There are a lot of cowards out there. If most people had integrity, this current administration would not be in office.

[noiretextatique]

205. my answers

• Are women gaining or losing ground in the battle for equality or has it remained stable in the past decade?

Losing ground.

• Why are some women now reluctant to identify themselves as feminists?

Because most of them have no idea what feminism is. i include my friend who is in an abusive relationship, but feels her first and only duty is to "honor" her marriage vows. i am so sure she would scoff at any mention of feminism.

• Do you think men have become more accepting of the idea of women as equals or is hostility increasing as they feel threatened in their position of dominance?

I think a little of both...I see some progress in this area.

• How can we break down the hostility that seems to exist between both camps?

We have to convince people that equal rights doesn't mean THEY lose something...the same with race.

[Madrone]

234. My thoughts.

I know my opinions in a recent abortion thread caused some uproar. I also think that some of that was a misunderstanding. I was looking at the situation from an angle that involved 2 people in some sort of relationship - and whether the man's desires should have any consideration in the decision to be made with regards to the pregnancy. Other people were looking at it as an issue of lawmakers taking away the reproductive rights of women. As a woman I believe lawmakers should have NO say in what reproductive choices I make. As a "person" in a relationship I believe that if I were to become pregnant I owe it to the person I make a mutual decision to be intimate with to hear out and honestly consider his thoughts and opinions on what decision should be made. In that scenerio I don't view myself as a "woman" demanding my reproductive rights, but as a "person" involved with another "person", both equally responsible for the consequences of our actions. In that situation I would demand my opinions be heard and respected, and as a result would extend the same to the man involved.

I consider myself a strong, independent woman with strong opinions. I am 31 years old, never married, with no children. I was an only child. My father wanted a "boy", but it was only small preference, mostly he wanted a healthy child. I was obviously not a boy, but he wasn't disappointed. I was a tomboy, and he taught me everything I know about fishing, and playing sports. He and I spent a lot of time outside in the woods, where he taught me about different plants and animals. He also taught me from a young age about guns, and when I was a little older, how to shoot.

I align with my dad's politics much more than my mom's. He's a staunch Democrat - but I am far more liberal than he is. My mom think's GeeDub is the bees knees, and Rush Limbaugh is an authority to be listened to.

I learned how to make my own decisions. To look at all sides of an issue and come to my own conclusions. I've never been one to believe something just because "someone said so" - even when I was little.

I consider myself a feminist, but my opinions are often unpopular with other feminists. My opinions are often equally unpopular with men in their movement. I think this is sort of funny - that I piss off both sides of the fence - but that is also WHY I am a feminist, because my beliefs are mine, and as a woman I am not afraid to express them at the risk of unpopular opinion. I don't come by my beliefs easily, they are well considered and thought out. They are also subject to change. I am not unbending - and because I consider all arguments and research things for myself in order to come to a personal conclusion it is possible to change my mind. I am completely open to new evidence and opinions and I feel my personal code of ethics is ever evolving.

I do not have a problem with the word "bitch". I understand why some do - but that issue does not so much as blip my radar. I don't consider myself anti-women because of that, even though others may. One of my larger concerns is why girls have eating disorders, and women's body image. The pornography industry bother me. I don't feel it should be illegal, and I don't think women should not be allowed to make the choice to enter that industry. My problem is - why would they want to? That's my focus - why women have no problem objectifying themselves.

The plastic surgery industry bothers me. Women who go under the knife to sculpt themselves into an image more suited to what men consider "attractive".

To answer some of the questions presented as to not be totally offtopic -

Are women gaining or losing ground in the battle for equality or has it remained stable in the past decade?

I believe that in most cases things have remained fairly stable. There is still progress to be made, but progress is being made. I also think that for full equality to be achieved I have to accept some things I'd rather not. Women being eligible for the draft is one of those things.

Why are some women now reluctant to identify themselves as feminists?

Personally, I think it's because some feminists seem to demand women's rights at the expense of men's. Instead of approaching the issue as one of "human" rights it's often turned into a men vs. women fight. This leads to defensiveness and fighting on both sides. Historically, men have had full control over everything from politics, property, and wealth to the women and children in their lives. This has changed to a large degree, and rightfully so. And we should not forget about these things. I believe a problem arises when we anrgrily apply these arguments to men now when trying to make them understand women's issues today. A man who may ordinarily be sympathetic to women's issues could very easily be turned off completely if he feels he's being attacked for simply being a man - because some men viewed (or view) women as nothing more than their property and recepticles for their sexual gratification. In my experience most men do NOT view women in this manner - and they resent being treated as if they do.


Do you think men have become more accepting of the idea of women as equals or is hostility increasing as they feel threatened in their position of dominance?

I believe men are MUCH more accepting. My experience has been that most men do not want a non-thinking, obedient bimbo in their life. I also think the gender roles from the 50's are changing dramatically. Now more than ever men cherish taking active participation in their children's lives. Most men I know share equally in household chores, and all other aspects of day to day responsibilities. Sure, there may still be a few men that DO want that bimbo, but much more unfortunate than that, in my estimation, is the fact that there are still women out there happy to be that bimbo. I think the men looking for that are in the minority. My opinion is sought out and respected by many men in my life - not in spite of me being a woman, or because of it. Simply because I am a fair-minded person with a unique and often perceptive way of viewing things. I get a great deal of respect from men that know me - but I don't think it has anything to do with what sex I am or am not - it's simply they respect me as a PERSON. I believe that alone is an example of how far men as a group have come in their thinking.


How can we break down the hostility that seems to exist between both camps?

Most importantly - stop attacking "all men" for what many men historically have done to attack women. Using slavery as an example - I find it ABHORANT - and I'm white. White people historically owned slaves. I never have personally, nor would I now if it were to suddenly become acceptable. My forefathers never owned slaves, but even if they had it wouldn't make me personally responsible for their reprehensible behavior. In the same vein, it's not fair to hold today's men accountable for the views of their forefathers. Men can be educated to understand the plight of women both past and present, and I believe most would be sympathetic to our cause if they didn't feel they were being attacked for being one of those vile "males". When men hear the message from women that we don't CARE if they may be getting screwed over in the family courts, for example, because men in the past screwed women over all the time they not only tune out what we are saying they give a huge F-YOU to the women's movement in general. This shouldn't be a "paybacks are a bitch!" issue - and I've seen it made into that. (another example of why many women don't want to consider themselves feminists) I believe we'd alleviate much of the hostility by removing the "blame men" attitude from the discussion and instead focusing on how women as a group have been treated as less than HUMAN.

[prolesunited]

237. Thank you for putting so much time and thought into your post

But I feel that in some ways that you only furthered some unfortunate stereotypes about feminists and the women's movement — many of which, if you examined this thread more closely, weren't evident from the women's posts on this thread.

Not familiar with the abortion thread that you are posting about, but it seems like a reasonable position and if that is your personal stance, it sounds like you have carefully examined it from all sides. However, I would draw the line at having the government MANDATE that men have a say in the situation. I know there are some who advocate men legally having a say in abortion issues. How do you feel about that?

I don't view that feminists are some monolithic force that want women to all feel and believe the same way or make the same decisions. That is one of the stereotypes out there and I'm sorry that if you believe that to be the case. I think the empowerment that you feel to speak your mind, make your own decision, lies at the very core of feminism.

To me, it's all about opening a realm of possibilities, removing the societal constraints that have held women back for far too long and ensuring women receive respect and equal treatment. For example, I think it is a myth that women who work outside of the home look down on women who chose to focus on their home and children. Could you find some examples, sure, but I don't think it is as widespread as some would lead people to believe.

I don't agree with this statement at all: "I think it's because some feminists seem to demand women's rights at the expense of men's."
Can you cite me some contemporary examples of this? I think this is a stereotype that continues divide men and women.

I certainly don't see any evidence of the self-proclaimed feminists on this thread attacking men. However, I did see the opposite occurring here. Did you see Haele's post on it being not being a zero sum game for which she received support. I also did not see anyone here being hostile toward men and nobody has attacked anyone for simply being a man. Being a feminist does NOT mean that you hate men.

I think the portrayal of feminists as some sort of bitter, man-hating, overly aggressive, unattractive is something that must end, but it appears that you somewhat agree with this stereotype — at least the man-hating part.

Although I agree with you on many points, such as embracing our common humanity and earning respect based on who we are as a person and not a woman, I really don't agree with your characterization of feminism. However, because it is such a subjective area — it's not like there is statistical analysis of this — I doubt we will reach agreement on this topic.

Although you may be able to find anecdotal evidence of the "paybacks are a bitch" mentality, I think it is much too wide of a brush to paint the entire women's movement with and it certainly was not in evidence among the women posting here on DU.

Thanks again for your perspective and adding to the conversation here.

[Woodstock]

240. the "male bashing" myth

is an artificial distraction from the real issues

the VAST majority of women I know who I would call feminists love men, as I do, and do not bash them

I have many male friends, too

this has absolutely nothing to do with the gross inequities women face in this country and in the world

this is in no way diminishing any problems men have

but when women

are in the vast minority when it comes to government representatives, often do not receive equal pay for equal work, are physically abused in far greater numbers, are raped in far greater numbers, have a majority of male legislators and judges making their reproductive and medical decisions, have an inequal number of health and drug studies done on their bodies, have parts of the bible and history books missing where they are presented with dignity and as equals and their contributions are valued, are presented as sex objects without clothing while men are fully clothed in the film and entertainment industry, are not allowed to serve as church leaders in some large religions (and in the case of the religion of the party in leadership, are told God considers men the leaders), have birth control pills not covered in their health plans while Viagra is, are in the vast minority when it comes to corporate leadership,... ; and in other countries, are not permitted to vote, are pressured to wear burkas and veils against their will (and many Muslim women do NOT want to wear them), are subject to inequal punishment, are restricted to living inside their houses, are subject to routine genital mutilation, are restricted from using birth control by male-dominated religious groups and also by the Bush administration as a condition of aid, ... (and let's remember, that with Bush weakening the Constitution and injecting his religion into our government - it is not so far fetched that what they are facing will start to be felt here, as well)

then they are facing a lot of problems that men do not face, and clearly, these problems require attention

[ForrestGump]

243. I would like to think, in the more 'western' societies

that I have lived in or visited, feminism has faded as an obvious movement because it has been integrated into the very fabric of those societies. Unfortunately, though I do believe that progress has been made, I'm sure that my wish is an exceedingly naive one. Without even going near the topic of misogyny, that's really a whole other animal (in my undoubtedly underinformed view, anyway), it's pretty obvious that women have achieved neither true social equality nor even basic respect in many areas, including that of salary equity. How can they get away with paying women, at least in some fields, less than men who hold the same jobs? I have no idea. Isn't there a law, somewhere...

It does seem to me that discussing media and pop culture attitudes toward women can get a bit mired in distinctions between basic sexism or exploitation, female sexuality, and sheer commercialism. But there's still no shortage of evidence of some pretty rampant pop-culture sexual objectification out there. Again, where is the line? Where is the distinction between a woman who is exploiting (and I don't mean that in a negative sense) her own femininity for a living - Madonna is far from the only pop singer to have done that, for example - and someone who is being exploited?

Perhaps sometimes that line is hard to find, especially with the "I'm a feminist but I want to be sexy and show my breasts" attitude that's so prevalent, that I assume is labeled postmodern feminist or some similar virtually meaningless catchphrase. And, no, I certainly have no problem with that both as a hormonally-seething male and as a whatever-I-am-that-appreciates-women-as-people-first...I hesitate to use the word 'feminist' because I'm increasingly uncertain as to what exactly it means. In fact, if that's what postmodern feminism is, then some of my best friends are postmodern feminists. For that matter, I don't even think that I could have any kind of romantic relationship with a woman who was not a feminist-by-whatever-name. Nobody said that beng feminist was being anti-male or anti-sex.

Well, actually, that's not quite true. And maybe some of the anger and dislike directed toward feminism comes from experiences like mine. When I was first in university, I was appalled by the screeching political radicals on campus. I don't choose to say where this university was, not on DU, so suffice it to say that the prevailing societal climate was firmly left-of-center in comparison to the US and that these "trendy lefties" on campus were basically Moscow-aligned communists. What they really were were annoying little f***s, probably all of them now contently capitalist.

Anyway, the campus' outspoken feminists were hewn from the same kind of vociferously obnoxious template, and I decided then that radical feminists were probably more damaging to feminism's chances than anything the male-dominated system might devise. I thought that all this spelling of "woman" and "women" as "womyn," "wimin," or whatever was just plain silly - I appreciate symbolic gestures a great deal but that one struck me as being about as useful as calling a manhole a "personhole" and other expressions intended to unify that are perhaps more likely to divide. I can't say I was really offended - I wouldn't rant and rave about this - but it was a "give me a break" thing. It seemed like perhaps there were more useful ways to express their agenda.

But what really got me were the posters and the shouted slogans along the lines of "all men are rapists." Excuse me, but that's a fairly offensive piece of misandry...no matter how male-dominated the society may be, and no matter how valid the grievances of feminists, that's akin to men shouting at women that "all women are whores!" It's not only untrue, but is considerably beyond offensive, especially to those males who know or love rape victims (and that's probably all of us, including those who don't know it).

So, sure, we're talking callow, hyper-idealistic, young university students who probably 'grew out of it,' but that kind of thing can still do a lot of damage. And radicals of any flavor do tend to be unpleasant people (I contribute in many ways to environmental groups, for example, but would never associate with the more in-your-face radical ones because the way they deliver the message more often than not eclipses the message and sets back the mission or more temperate groups who are actually out there doing constructive things).

So, I'm not sure what feminists are, nor what a true radical feminist is these days. Odds are good that I'd like them a lot better than those sociopaths of my youth and, as someone wrote above, how can you be radical about wanting mere equality? But I do know that I was bitten by a large feminist as a child (figuratively speaking) and that such destructive confrontation may have played a large part in shaping a negative perception of feminism, among men and women, that has contributed to its diminution, or demise, or whatever the hell happened to it.

Anyway, that's...well...whatever all that is. Fire at will, but please just bear in mind that I am a man (more an overgrown boy, actually), and thus can only intellectually conceive of the depth and breadth of sex-based discrimination that half of my fellow astonauts might potentially be subject to every (or any) day. Also, of course, I'm so ignorant about this that - even after readng most of the billion or so posts above - I am even less sure of what a feminist is than I was before.

And - I really can't help this - I think Gloria Steinem is and was a total babe...

[Madrone]

246. Wow. Excellent post.

Intelligent, insightful, and even funny. Thanks!


Thank you for pointing out the "all men are rapists" thing especially.

The men I deal with that are most virulently anti-feminist often bring that catch phrase up - they are sickened. And their minds are decidedly shut to the women's movement because of those attitudes. They turn off at the anti-male stuff they hear, and are therefore unable to wrap their minds around the real issues that face women - their very own wives and daughters!

Like I mentioned in a post below - we (people in general) are more often on the same team than opposing teams. I would say far more than gender, race, or religion - language, or words, is what divides us.

[ForrestGump]

255. Thanks - the "all men are rapists" thing still chaps my hide

when I think about it ("chaps my hide" - how manly is that?! I'm feeling like a nonsmoking Marlboro man, just saying it).

So I don't buy that the anti-male feminist is a myth, because I'm not a mythical figure (nearly so, of course). However, I do buy that it's an aberration, and maybe even more so now than 20 years ago. Regardless of how you see it - sheer myth or a rare exception - the idea of the man-hating feminist is very real, and is perpetuated, and I'd agree that it's a primary stumbling block in getting men and women together on the issue of women's rights.

And it wouldn't take much, for most men who feel that women are "out to get them," to understand the simple concept that feminism is not about taking from men but is about women having an equal shot at the brass ring. So simple: I know that if one of those campus radicals had told me something along those lines, instead of blanket-accusing my friends and I as rapists, I'd have felt a lot less prefabricated hostility toward some of the more forceful feminists that I encountered after that time.

EDIT: I'll just add that my early ideal of a 'feminist' was to some degree shaped by encounters with the rabid kind, and that the more 'normal,' representative feminist was to a large extent what most of the women (my age and odler) that I knew actually were. In other words, my ground state was within a feminist ideal, to an extent, though I did grow up (such as it is) within a relatively progressive society.

[Maddy McCall]

258. "Feminist" = anyone who supports equality/equity for women

This includes men. This includes women.

People who consider themselves feminist include a wide array of people. In any group, someone will disaffect you, even here at DU.

I really am not aware of "man hating feminists." What I am aware of is that myth being created by the right in the late sixties and early seventies, when it became apparent that women were going to make gains. I mean, my god, you had the pill, abortion on demand...and the ERA was being considered. Rightists felt threatened, so the invested their energy in creating the monster....drumroll please...

Phyllis Schlafly! And thus the manhating myth was begun. Women hate men. Women want to be like men. If women become equal, they won't want to have children any more, they will leave their husbands, ad nauseum.

Complete and utter bullshit.

With any group, there are elements who are extremists and those elements usually give the middle more credence, but to say that the whole reason the woman movement has floundered is because of "rabidity" on the part of "man-hating feminists" is too much, Forrest, and you KNOW I expect better from you.

But that's ok, I can handle our differences, you're still my bud.

[ForrestGump]

260. Then I AM feminist

I always thought so, but I feel kind of weird saying it, possibly because I've seen so many men say "Now - don't get me wrong - I'm a feminist, but" or impart that "some of my best friends are feminists" feeling.

Yes, I can definitely see the bovine egestae component of that man-hating myth. What I experienced was not symptomatic of the larger feminist movement(s), I realize, but just a bunch of overzealous morons. But the point is that they didn't exactly do much to positively raise awareness of women's issues, and if their spiritual kin still rove the landscape (no matter how small the numbers) they're only going to reinforce those false images. It doesn't matter if they're wackos who are 'off-message,' because what matters is the perception that they foster among their audiences, and a vocal minority can have a significant effect.

And I contritely accept my spanking because you are right. If I said that these icky wiymyiyn and their like were solely responsible for the grounding of the feminist cause I was entirely wrong. So what happened, then? Did society become just enlightened enough, as a whole, that the mainstream feminist groups no longer really stood out on the landscape? Did other considerations, such as just 'getting by' as the economic boom tailed off, take precedence? All of the above?

Because it seems to me like the US has been well and truly primed for finishing the job that was started in the '60s (and even before...my great-grandmother was one of the more prominent suffragettes and jailed for her betrayal of her class and society). What's the hold-up? I mean, apart from the fact that I'm sure many corporations just love having available a pool of workers who're at least as skilled and dedicated as their male emplyees but less expensive to employ.

And you're still my bud, too, :D

[prolesunited]

272. Well, then

shout it from the rooftops. My name is ForrestGump and I am a feminist! ;-)

I did not say I doubted the existence of such extremists. There are some of those in every political movement. That would be like saying that flag-burning anarchists are representative of the anti-war movement. There are strident voices that can be used by a movement's opposition to mischaracterize it.

I think you also are speaking of what took place earlier on as well. At the onset of a movement, I think you always hear the harshest rhetoric as one side pulls against the other with full force until it settles down somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for joining in our discussion. :hi: I've really enjoyed the male perspectives here (well, some of them anyway).

[ForrestGump]

275. Thanks, my fellow feminist

:-)

I shall do just that. I just hope that my little crush on Ms Steinem is consistent with my feminist beliefs. :D
And I agree that what I encountered was more like the lunatic fringe of feminism, where the eddies at the edge of positive change get a litle confused. And, yes, this was the early '80s and I do suspect that things were still rather raw in terms of the inroads made my "women's lib" and the challenges that it still faced, even in my fairly progressive neck of the woods.

Thanks for having this discussion. I'm learning more and more as I read and re-read it and that, to this still somewhat politically-naive dude, has always been one of the best things about DU.

:hi:

[ForrestGump]

277. P.S.: here you go

[cally]

262. Aww, you describe my alma mater

Berkeley. I do agree that a statement that 'all men are rapists' is absurd. I understand the time and the understanding it came from, though.

[spooky3]

265. I always liked Al Franken's response to that

Goes something like this: "It just isn't true that feminists believe that 'all heterosexual sex is rape.' I have a lot of feminist friends, and only one of them believes that, and she and I have been happily married for 20 years."

I think it was in his "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" book.

[ForrestGump]

268. The People's Republic of Berkeley!

All right!

Thinking about it, though, if I were teaching effective self-defense to women it'd unfortunately perhaps be necessary to point out to them that all men should be considered potential rapists. There's lots of room for paranoia and other unhappiness there but, if the statistics that I've seen are in any way indicative, there's something to a degree of paranoia on that count. Alertness and wareness, anyway.

It's sad, for everyone, but to a certain degree women are effectively engaged in the equivalent to guerilla warfare with men because there is no outward signal that discriminates rapists from the rest of us. I don't want to overplay that warfare metaphor, but the similarities are there.

I always felt bad whenever walking or running alone and encountering a woman who was alone, especially when I sensed fear. I often felt inordinately apologetic just for my very presence, and for the feelings that it may have provoked within her. I sometimes even felt the kind of guilt feeling that people tend to get when questioned by an authority even when when the interviewee knows that he or she has done no wrong.

[cally]

271. I wasn't intending to put

you on the defensive. I agree with your post mostly. I don't like that good men feel bad encountering women because the women are scared. It happens and for logical reasons, but I don't like it. I know it affects both men and women.

[ForrestGump]

276. Oops...sorry, not put on the defensive at all

Why? You wanna make something of it? :D

(smiley inserted because, after all, this is the Generally violent and filled with vitriole Discussion forum)

I really was just thinking about that "all men are rapists" thing, when I walked away from the computer in search of hot chocolate, and realized that there is a grain of truth there as far as women are concerned, no matter how distorted that grain may be when expressed in a hateful and counterproductive manner. So my post was just a reflection of that piece of cogitation.

I don't know that there's really any solution to men running into women as I described, and both feeling bad as aresult, as long as men continue to very often do bad things to women. And it might be prudent to not put yourself in that situation if you're a woman (and, increasingly, even if you're not), but that is, in itself, very sad. But better suspicion on the part of a woman, and me feeling bad that my presence seems to have caused concern, than blissful lack of awareness on her part.

Women can't go alone in situations that perhaps they once could. I can't leave my door unlocked when I leave, as my family once did. Trick-or-treaters are increasingly constrained, if not all together contained in controlled settings. A man talking alone to a little kid is viewed with suspicion even if he's related to the child. It all sucks and I think it's all part of a larger, systemic problem that infiltrates every level of our entire society.

I don't know if we can return to how it used to be - it was always far from perfect, and downright evil in many ways (race relations, etc) - but how did people in a supposedly evolving society get so sick and nasty to each other on the scale that we see now? I'm assuming that it really has changed, and that such behaviors are not solely the results of various crimes being reported more often now or a greater awareness of things like rape and pedophilia. Of course, as a shifting baseline, what young kids today see might one day seem like the 'good old days' to them, too.

Man, I do go on. Maybe I need another hot chocolate.

[Madrone]

249. the "male bashing" myth

- is no myth at all. It happens, I've SEEN it happen (read my post below - specifically the part regarding father's rights).

It may not be what's prevalent in the women's movement, but it's what STICKS with a lot of people.

I'm intelligent enough, or rather, informed enough to understand that the women's movement is NOT about "man bashing" or the hatred of all things male. The problem is - a large portion of society believes it IS about this - and they didn't come up with this on their own. They came to this conclusion because a few vocal women who view themselves as feminists have NOTHING decent to say about men and have the "payback is a bitch" attitude I mentioned before.

Other than that minor quibble - I think the rest of your post is beautiful and presented exactly as you have stated it I believe even the "feminist-hating" men would find little if anything to disagree with.

I think women's issues if discussed EXACTLY how you have so wonderfully laid them out would resonate with both men and women who seem to think the women's movement is nothing but a huge load.

I do not believe most men are women haters - and as I mentioned earlier I don't believe most men would appreciate an obedient bimbo in their life. They have wives, daughters, and girlfriends in their lives - even if they cannot relate personally they can certainly relate through the women they love.

[Madrone]

245. A response -

Let me begin my saying that my greatest asset is also my greatest curse. I am a person that can very easily see both sides of an issue, often from my position on the fence. :) I think it has something to do with a strong libran ascendant in my birth chart - which seems to greatly overrule my leo sun sign! I see damned near everything in shades of grey, which makes it VERY difficult for me to come up with a definitive answer in many situations. Often, I can only say that something is wrong the way IS - but I can't often come up with an answer on how to change what's wrong, because usually a simplified answer will be as or more wrong than the original wrong in the first place. Whew - still with me? Generally, when dealing with "human" issues I determine my position by asking myself how I would want to be treated, and how I would feel if I were in the situation in question. I do this from BOTH viewpoints, and from there I determine my position in a matter. I am extremely fair-minded - even when being so may go against my personal self-interest. Another of those personal asset/curse issues.


<<<However, I would draw the line at having the government MANDATE that men have a say in the situation. I know there are some who advocate men legally having a say in abortion issues. How do you feel about that?>>>

I wholeheartedly agree a government mandate regarding men's say in abortion would be BAD! What a slippery slope and huge mess that would be! However - I will allow the libra in me to tell you that I also really believe that in some situations such a thing would be more FAIR than the way things are currently. This is why I tried to explain how I view the world in my paragraph above - hoping that you'll understand that when I mention what is right, just, and fair to all involved you'll also understand I know that there is no "one size fits all" and changing a LAW to make things more "fair" to some would do far more damage to far more people than leaving the original "unfairness" stand as it is currently.

Let me turn this around slightly and approach an unwanted pregnancy scenerio as if I were a man. (this will further demonstrate how my twisted little mind works) Let's say I were a man in a relationship of some sort - whether it be strictly "friendly" or a real love interest, and a pregancy resulted from this. Let's further assume I loved children and desperately wanted one, although I had none. Let's also say that I believed in a woman's right to choose, but maybe personally didn't agree with abortion. (In my real life as a woman let me state I have NO personal qualms about abortion) Now - in this situation (again as a man) let's say I was ecstatic about the prospect of having a child, but the woman involved wanted no part of it whatsoever. In fact, I want this child so much I am willing to take full and total repsonsibilty for it emotionally and financially and absolve the woman of all parental responsibilities in their entirety, if she will only allow me the option of doing so. I would present this idea to the woman, and would want her to honestly listen to my heartfelt feelings and honestly consider them.

Let me also say that I've seen something like this in action - although the choice made during pregnancy wasn't abortion but adoption. The man involved wasn't aware of the pregnancy until the decision had been made, and he wanted the child. The woman involved wouldn't entertain for a MOMENT his thoughts on the matter - the decision was HERS, and HERS ALONE and tough shit if he didn't like it. He was devastated.

I guess it's having seen that situation play out, and my habit of placing myself in the other person's shoes that has shaped my opinion in this matter. The short answer to your questions is a resounding NO. Absolutely in no way should a government mandate allow men to have a say in what a woman chooses to do with her body. My more personal opinion and not so short answer (taking into account the many shades of grey and what's fair) is that I could not demand my feelings and opinions be honestly considered and respected by a man I found myself "accidentally" pregant by if I weren't willing to extend the same respect to him as well. I have a difficult time asking someone for something I'm not willing to do myself. This is why, if stuck, pregnant, in a situation as described above I couldn't NOT honestly consider the wishes of the man to have the child, even if it were to go against my own self interest in not wanting to be pregnant in the first place.

In my mind this isn't a legal issue (the current law on these things should NOT change) - it's an issue of morals, fairness, and treating others as you would want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot.


<<<To me, it's all about opening a realm of possibilities, removing the societal constraints that have held women back for far too long and ensuring women receive respect and equal treatment. For example, I think it is a myth that women who work outside of the home look down on women who chose to focus on their home and children. Could you find some examples, sure, but I don't think it is as widespread as some would lead people to believe.>>>

I agree with you on this. To me feminism isn't the view women HAVE to be career minded and work outside the home - it's having the glorious CHOICE to be career minded, and the choice to be a stay at home mom. The choice, minus the expectations one MUST.


<<<I don't agree with this statement at all: "I think it's because some feminists seem to demand women's rights at the expense of men's."
Can you cite me some contemporary examples of this? I think this is a stereotype that continues divide men and women.>>>

I'm going to use the father's rights struggle as my anecdote for this one - mainly because I've become more intimately familiar with this subject than I would have cared to because I currently have a SO mired down in the mess that is the family courts and the prejudices that exist there in favor of women. I've also become intimately familiar with the anger men (not my SO, but I wouldn't call him part of the father's rights movement either) in the father's rights movement have towards women in general, and how they perceive feminists as winning at ALL costs, at the expense of the rights of men.

There was actually a thread here a couple of days ago from someone speaking about the injustices of men in the family courts. There were a few posts by women that were prime examples of the "at the expense of men's rights" situation. Some comments were made (I am totally paraphrasing here) that it's tough shit if men get screwed over by the courts because women have been screwed over for a long time, so turn about's fair play! Other comments were made saying that until men can bear children - tough shit, they have NO say in their children's lives. They are effectively sperm donors, and no more. Still more comments insisted that most men don't even fight for custody because they care about their children, but simply to regain control over the life of their ex. Basically, it's like men should pay their child support, and STFU!

Before I became involved with a man fighting for custody of his child (and RIGHTFULLY SO!) I probably thought much along the same line as the women angry a man would even consider wanting primary custody over the mother - if I considered it at all. When my parents divorced my father certainly never fought for custody - he paid his child support, I went over to his house every other weekend and part of the summer. That's just the way it "was". I've now been allowed a window into the "other side" - up close and personal. It ain't pretty.

What's clear to me now is that possessing a vagina doesn't make a better parent. It doesn't make a decent parent. It certainly doesn't make a parent that gives 2 shits about the best interests of her children. Rather than learning that men that fight for custody are simply looking for more control over the life of their ex I've learned the opposite. There are MANY vengeful bitches out there that delight in hurting their children to control the lives of THEIR exes. It's sick, and it's WRONG. It happens far more often than you think.

We women who care about equality are doing ourselves no favors by turning our backs on men's injustices in the family courts - after laughing in their collective faces. No man I've encountered in the father's rights movement abides ANY man that doesn't pay child support, doesn't spend every moment he can with his children, and/or uses his children as tools to manipulate his ex. I've not met ONE. These men aren't "traditional" - they're men that actively love and nurture their children (when not prevented from doing so by vindictive exes), they are men that want to share equally in the joys and tribulations of their kids. These men will also rip any other man a new asshole for being anything like what we women like to think of as "deadbeat dads". We are actually all more on the same team than we aren't. BTW - these men are also the ones I piss off for being "feminist" when I see them say something that pisses me off regarding women and bitch them out for it. :)

Basically - the message these guys are getting from "feminists" (and I've seen it) is that:

1. they are nothing more than sperm-donors and atm machines.

2. Mother is ALWAYS best - she possesses the vagina.

3. If you see your child being abused or neglected, STFU and see #2.

4. STFU and see #2

and

5. STFU!! See #2! ;-)


As an idividual I absolutely believe father's have rights. I'm not prepared to deny those men (and by default, their children) those rights for the sake of promoting my own. I'm certainly not prepared to laugh in their faces and turn my back to them because there are OTHER men who are complete and total assholes that damage their children.

This is one big place where I see *some* feminists loudly and vocally promoting their rights at the expense of men's. Men resent the HELL out of this attitude (rightfully so, in my opinion) and it hurts the woman's equality movement as a WHOLE because we all end up looking to them like the vengeful bitches keeping them from their children for no other reason than to flex their vengence muscle.


One last thing - as this post is already HUGE and I've wasted hours composing it already -


<<<Although you may be able to find anecdotal evidence of the "paybacks are a bitch" mentality, I think it is much too wide of a brush to paint the entire women's movement with and it certainly was not in evidence among the women posting here on DU.>>>

I absolutely, 100% agree that the entire women's movement cannot be painted with the same broad brush. I have, however, seen it here on DU, and I've seen it more than once. It makes me :wow: every time I see it, and it's usually my response to something like that that has me pissing off the "feminists" - and they'd REALLY be pissed off if I didn't heavily, HEAVILY edit myself to the extreme. Like I said - I piss off the "boys" in the same manner when they post some "feminist" rant that particularly offends me on a board for non-custodial parents that I frequent. There, I'm too much a "militant feminist" - here I'm a mysogenist. *L*

In my opinion what it boils down to on both sides is my inherant sense of fairness. If I see something that offends that, I get pissed off and I WILL comment on it - if in a moment of weakness ;-).

[Crowdance]

266. Oh, yeah! Look here in DU for the evidence,

a thread proposing that the party stop supporting reproductive rights in order to win the south--and the 2004 election. Surely, this proposal to sacrifice women on the altar of politics is symptomatic of how little concrete progress we have made in these decades.
Read it here: http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=637113

[Maddy McCall]

267. Yes, disgusting that some on DU don't see women's issues as important

to the core Democratic platform. Sad thing is that without women, the backbone of the Democratic party, this party would literally CRASH.

So, it's really smart to propose alienating women all over the nation in order to pick up popular votes in the South. But, WAIT, what about race--should the democratic party also abandon blacks to pick up votes in the south? Should it also abandon gays?

Looks to me that the Democratic party could become a nationwide Dixiecrat party, if the above things were to happen. tsk tsk tsk