A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[eldargal]

So the old one got locked, please leave whatever arguments were happening there and don't go getting this one locked.

Feminism is one of the most misunderstood philosophies in the modern world, largely because of a male dominated media that is threatened by it, doesn't understand it and has a vested interest in misrepresenting it.. Growing up even I didn't consider myself to be a feminist until my mother sat down and explained exactly what feminism is at its core, with all the misandry and nonsense shorn away. I thought I'd write it here as I see a lot of people who plainly have no clue what feminism is.

In fact the very core tenet of feminism is easy to explain:

A woman should be able to make her own choices and control her destiny inofar as any individual can.

That's it really. To elaborate, though:

Women should have the same political rights and responsibilities as a man.
Women should have the same social and legal rights and freedoms a man enjoys.
Women should be paid the same for doing the same work as a man.
Women should not be subjected to discrimination or abuse simply because they are women.
Women should not be barred from doing something a man can do based solely on their gender*.


Anyone who believes in the freedom to be in charge of their own life insofar as any individual can should consider themselves a feminist.

*So if you are advertising for a new employee and the final choice is between a man and a woman, your decision should be based on their skills, not their gender.

So there you have it. Feminism is not a man-hating ideology based around putting women ahead of men**, but simply the ideal that we should not be discriminated against because of our gender. Of course feminist theory is far more complicated than this, with as many viewpoints as feminists, but you won't find many who disagree with these as the basic tenets.

**There is an extremist feminist element that do believe in such things, and they are the single most damaging thing to women's rights there is. Equality can not be replaced as a goal by revenge.

Please keep any responses polite.

Useful links:
What is and is not Privilege (http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html)
What is male privilege? (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/)
What is the Male Gaze? (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/)
What about female privilege? (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/)
35 PRACTICAL STEPS MEN CAN TAKE TO SUPPORT FEMINISM (http://www.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps)

[Mr Mystery]

There was a 'debate' on Feminism on the 10 O'clock Show last night. Hosted by David Mitchell and panelled by three ladies.

Worth looking up on 4OD.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Basically the question to ask is: do you believe that all people should be treated like people? And the answer should be yes, and that's why feminism is necessary. Just like all the struggles out there for full personhood!

If your answer is no, then we need to talk.

[Kirsten]

yarr Cap'n.

[Wolfshade]

Because people think that this is funny: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22710744

[eldargal]

Basically the question to ask is: do you believe that all people should be treated like people? And the answer should be yes, and that's why feminism is necessary. Just like all the struggles out there for full personhood!

If your answer is no, then we need to talk.

Exactly. People often ask 'why feminism, why not just equality' but the fact is for most of our history the female half of our species has been oppressed by the male half. We may still have persecution and discrimination against various groups in most countries, and that is bad, but it is almost universal that women have been treated at best like second class citizens and at worse like property with no will or mind of our own. That's why we have feminism and not just a generic call for equality.

[Denzark]

Oh, EG, oppressed is such a harsh word. I probably won't stick with this for 100+ pages - and that ain't a crash course btw.

But, I will comment on a few things as I took the time to read all the links provided (less the comments):

I disagree with a comment on privilege: 'Its about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf'. Possibly semantics but fate isn't a conscious entity with choice - so it can't do anything on your behalf.

Also, from the primer on privilege, it states that according to its own definition, 'It's about advantages you have that you think are normal. It's about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal.' But if thats the case, a lower working class Jeremy Kyle Chav from a sink estate, who thinks that is the norm, would be privileged, and consider David Cameron and the patrician class, as the deviation from the norm, with implications of being unprivileged.

I actually learnt something interesting - the difference between sexual attraction and objectification. I think this is probably why men are reknowned for being able to disconnect emotions and sex - a bloke will put out because he fancies a shag just like scratching an itch. A women will more normally do this only if she is attracted to the whole package.

I liked the picture of Vicki Vale's arse in the Batman comic.

I also think I disagree that the opposite of 'male privilege' is not 'female privilege'. Apparently being a gentleman is actually bestowing 'chivlaric rewards' or some such lefty crap, and is a form of benevolent sexism. But actually if an individual like myself has been socialised into this belief system and it is a negative, then actually I fall into the category of un-privileged. Which is tosh.

As to this testes:

"There can't be productive conversation between a person who thinks they've gotten where they are on their own merits, and someone who knows that they would never have been given the opportunity to compete on the basis of their merits."

It sounds over-defeatist to me. Also, in the same way it is better that 100 guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent man be convicted, it is better for 100 people never to have been given the opportunity to compete on the basis of their merits, than it is for 1 person to be allowed to compete on the basis of some positivie discrimination/affirmative action.


Also, while I am on a roll, you might not have spotted this comment yesterday:

Originally Posted by eldargal
Women are kept from the front line because of an ingrained belief they have less right to defend their country than men and because men act like morons when they are around.


I don't know where you got this 'ingrained belief'. Everyone in the military contributes to the fighting. The clerk in the admin office generates the pay that the infantry soldier won't fight without. The engineer banging spanners on the apache is as essential as the stick monkey in the front. Not letting women on the front line is about (in the uk mil) unit cohesion. Young fit men in combat bond closely. Near death does that, more closely perhaps than any other human experience. Add females to the mix - there will be shagging. Absolutely there will be. there already is mass shagging in the rear echelons of 'Ghanners (cos we don't have the ridiculous yank honour codes preventing consorting) Then there will be jealousy. Then Private Jones Male, boyfriend of Private Smith female, sees her take a sucking chest wound. Instead of closing with Tommy Taliban to bayonet him, he stops to try and aid her, instead of fighting through.

If what I have described is men acting as morons, it is nature - we don't pay the shilling to our Private Soldiers to be rocket scientists...

[eldargal]

You're looking at privilege too narrowly. Yes that white male chav is still privileged because he is a white male. The white male Cameron is also privileged for being white and male and has other privileges which the chav lacks. Mrs Cameron has privileges Mrs Chav lacks but because she is female she will face far more discrimination than Mr Cameron or the Chav. As you start going down the privilege ladder you see minorities, homosexuals, transfolk etc. who each face more discrimination than the ones above them.

As to the fate comment, I agree the sentence is not a good one. What they mean is that privilege is about being born with certain passive benefits others lack. The most obvious is that as a white male no one will ever doubt your competence because of who you are. In contrast women, particularly attractive women, are often assumed to be stupid or incompetent simply because they are women. I experience this personally every day.


it is better for 100 people never to have been given the opportunity to compete on the basis of their merits, than it is for 1 person to be allowed to compete on the basis of some positivie discrimination/affirmative action.
It really isn't. Affirmative action helps break down psychological barriers that prevent people being judged on their merit and once that occurs it eventually becomes unnecessary. Without affirmative action the process still occurs but is much, much slower.

The issue of females on the front lines is a complex one and I agree mixed gender units seem to be very problematic. Irecall reading a story about a US Marine unit that had massive morale failure after a boatload of female Marines hit a mine and were killed including a 'mother of the regiment' type figure.

[DrLove42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22706896

It could be worse. This could be how TV is run in this country....

[eldargal]

That is horrific. I'm all for appreciating the beauty of the female form but WE ARE BOT HERE JUST TO BE LOOKED AT!

"Women's bodies thirst for men's words!" he insists. "We have had so much bad reaction from aggressive feminists and I didn't see it coming... Sure I wanted to provoke a little bit, but it's not sexist."
No, they ******* well do not. Our bodies are our bodies and if we want to display them fine but no one has a right to appraise us like meat. This show may be consensual but all it does is further the perception that women are here to be looked at and that is normal for men to judge our bodies like they own them.

[Psychosplodge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22706896

It could be worse. This could be how TV is run in this country....

Was just about to post that.
It's hardly TV, and it'd be pretty crappy porn...

[Denzark]

Does it solely reinforce that perception though? If all the programmes were about naked women, then maybe. But one show, where a participant goes on to say how empowered she feels? Do we think we should try and convert an individual who feels empowered, to a feminist view that it is a negative? What is it called when a majority forces its view on a minority? Feminists want conformity to the detriment of individual freedom?

[Psychosplodge]

Well there is that.
But then again I'd say Jeremy Kyle is hardly TV either...

[Mr Mystery]

Ultimately, the aim of feminism is to end feminism, by getting us to the point where it's just not needed anymore!

[DrLove42]

The best thing to come out that article is the news that Italy has cancelled at Reality TV. Should go live there....

[Denzark]

Feminism is like most 'isms' - it comes in many shapes and sizes and even if EG, as the academic she professes to be, has quoted the 'most accepted' academic sources in her references, I am sure there is another brand of more militant femmes who would state that their aims are far different and brand the authors of said references, as traitors to the cause.

Who is to say what is right and wrong? I tend to find most issues in the world would be nugatory if people treated each other with the bare modicum of manners - not even debrettes but just well mannered. I remember a comment from the original DeathWing short story - something along the lines of how the Plains People were naturally polite as if you weren't, you may find a stone axe buried in your head.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Feminism is like most 'isms' - it comes in many shapes and sizes and even if EG, as the academic she professes to be, has quoted the 'most accepted' academic sources in her references, I am sure there is another brand of more militant femmes who would state that their aims are far different and brand the authors of said references, as traitors to the cause.

Who is to say what is right and wrong? I tend to find most issues in the world would be nugatory if people treated each other with the bare modicum of manners - not even debrettes but just well mannered. I remember a comment from the original DeathWing short story - something along the lines of how the Plains People were naturally polite as if you weren't, you may find a stone axe buried in your head.

This man, is right on the money.

[eldargal]

Does it solely reinforce that perception though? If all the programmes were about naked women, then maybe. But one show, where a participant goes on to say how empowered she feels? Do we think we should try and convert an individual who feels empowered, to a feminist view that it is a negative? What is it called when a majority forces its view on a minority? Feminists want conformity to the detriment of individual freedom?
In a culture where women are already viewed as objects to be critiqued by men, yes, one show is a problem. Pornography at least is honest, this is insidious precisely because it has artistic pretensions when all it is is a bunch of sleazy men ogling women and critiquing their bodies. It wouldn't be quite so noxious if there were some women doing the judging but if anything it is the attitudes expressed by the men behind the show that are the truly offensive thing. to argue that mens opinions about women are repressed is absurd, we live in a culture where they are paramount and given precedence above womens own opinions. We aren't given a choice, our appearance is scrutinised every time we leave our homes. This show just reinforces the perception that it is acceptable and normal, even if some of the women do feel empowered. They could probably get that same feeling and earn more posing for an art class or posing for softcore erotica.


Feminism is like most 'isms' - it comes in many shapes and sizes and even if EG, as the academic she professes to be, has quoted the 'most accepted' academic sources in her references, I am sure there is another brand of more militant femmes who would state that their aims are far different and brand the authors of said references, as traitors to the cause.

Who is to say what is right and wrong? I tend to find most issues in the world would be nugatory if people treated each other with the bare modicum of manners - not even debrettes but just well mannered. I remember a comment from the original DeathWing short story - something along the lines of how the Plains People were naturally polite as if you weren't, you may find a stone axe buried in your head.
Feminism is diverse and many branches disagree with others. There are certainly militant feminists that are quite misandrist and to be frank they are a detriment. But the fact remains that all feminism wants is the truly equal treatment of women in society and to end gender based discrimination.
The problem is that men tend to treat each other with the bare modicum of manners and view women as some kind of automata that they are free to judge and abuse at their discretion.
Most problems would disappear if people treated each other with the bare modicum of respect, but they don't, so it is a moot point. Feminism is about ensuring that the lack of respect and discrimination against women ends, that's all. The media loves to focus on the few marginal misandrist and make out that they represent mainstream feminism because the media is male dominated and is threatened by feminism. This is one of the reasons I started these crash course threads, to try and educate people here on BoLS about feminism and why it is important and why it is NOT just man-hate.

[Mr Mystery]

And in other news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/posts/Star-Trek-A-Sorry-Business) Director of Into Darkness to apologise for gratuitous shot of leading lady in her scuddies.

Shame he's not apologising for making such a rubbish film :(

But yes. Said shot was entirely gratuitous. Was there need for her to change clothing? Yeah, ok I'll give them that one. Was there any need for us the audience to see the inbetween? Nope. Kirk, yes as it's part of his character. But the audience? Just gave us cheapies.

[eldargal]

That scene was bizarre. There are plenty of gratuitous female flesh scenes in film but I can't think of one more out of place and gratuitous.

Related to Star Trek again:

I went to Comicpalooza this weekend and I was full of nervous energy as I was standing in line to ask Sir Patrick Stewart a question at his panel. I first had to thank him for a speech he had given at amnesty international about domestic violence towards women . I had only seen it a few months ago but I was still dealing with my own personal experience with a similar issue, and I didn’t know what to call it. After seeing Patrick talk so personally about it I finally was able to correctly call it abuse, in my case sexual abuse that was going to quickly turn into physical abuse as well. I didn’t feel guilty or disgusting anymore. I finally didn’t feel responsible for the abuse that was put upon me. I was finally able to start my healing process and to put that part of my life behind me.

After thanking him I asked him “Besides acting, what are you most proud of that you have done in you life (that you are willing to share with us)?”. Sir Patrick told us about how he couldn’t protect his mother from abuse in his household growing up and so in her name works with an organization called Refuge for safe houses for women and children to escape from abusive house holds. Sir Patrick Stewart learned only last year that his father had actually been suffering from PTSD after he returned from the military and was never properly treated. In his father’s name he works with an organization called Combat Stress to help those soldiers who are suffering from PTSD.

They were about to move onto the next question when Sir Patrick looked at me and asked me “My Dear, are you okay?” I said yes, and that I was finally able to move on from that part of my life. He then passionately said that it is never the woman’s fault in domestic violence, and how wrong to think that it ever is. That it is in the power of men to stop violence towards women. The moderator then asked “Do you want a hug?”

Sir Patrick didn’t even hesitate, he smiled, hopped off the stage and came over to embrace me in a hug. Which he held me there for a long while. He told me “You never have to go through that again, you’re safe now.” I couldn’t stop thanking him. His embrace was so warm and genuine. It was two people, two strangers, supporting and giving love. And when we pulled away he looked strait in my eyes, like he was promising that. He told me to take care. And I will.

Sir Patrick Stewart is an absolute roll model for men. He is an amazing man and was so kind and full of heart. I want to let everyone know to please find help if you are in a violent or abusive house hold or relationship. There are organizations and people ready to help. I had countless people after the panel thanking me for sharing the story and asking him those questions. Many said they went through similar things. You are not alone.
From here (http://lemonsweetie.tumblr.com/post/51652237280/let-me-tell-you-a-thing-about-an-amazing-man) via Lipstick Femininsts tumblr
http://25.media.tumblr.com/c38996b1a870fed8a760ffd0f22d85dc/tumblr_mnj98omm9e1s424vro6_500.jpg

[Earl Harbinger]

And in other news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/posts/Star-Trek-A-Sorry-Business) Director of Into Darkness to apologise for gratuitous shot of leading lady in her scuddies.

Shame he's not apologising for making such a rubbish film :(

But yes. Said shot was entirely gratuitous. Was there need for her to change clothing? Yeah, ok I'll give them that one. Was there any need for us the audience to see the inbetween? Nope. Kirk, yes as it's part of his character. But the audience? Just gave us cheapies.

I think it was David Duchovny who said that pretty much all nudity is usually gratuitous.

I haven't seen the movie and it certainly seems to be a case of using an actress as eye candy, and I can understand the exasperation that directors/studios still such trite appeals to the lowest common denominator. That said, it does seem to be a bit of making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's a summer movie that's a retcon of a sci fi series, the movie isn't harming anyone. It's not like there isn't a history of this type of thing in Star Trek. Why did Kirk always have to fight shirtless? Why did the Starfleet uniform for women consist of a miniskirt?

[Mr Mystery]

He's such a dude!

And nice to see he's taking a dual approach. Help tackle the abuse, and the cause.

Top, top man.

[eldargal]

I don't think it is making a mountain out of a mole hill. It was a stupid, pointless, gratuitous scene and it is being treated as such and the writer and director have acknowledged it as such and apologised. It was still an excellent film, in my opinion, and I've seen it twice.

[Earl Harbinger]

I don't think it is making a mountain out of a mole hill. It was a stupid, pointless, gratuitous scene and it is being treated as such and the writer and director have acknowledged it as such and apologised. It was still an excellent film, in my opinion, and I've seen it twice.

But it happens in virtually every movie, Alien, Return of the Jedi, Transformers, Barbarella, Independence Day, Total Recall, etc. Why is it a newsworthy travesty this time?

[Psychosplodge]

T
From here (http://lemonsweetie.tumblr.com/post/51652237280/let-me-tell-you-a-thing-about-an-amazing-man) via Lipstick Femininsts tumblr
http://25.media.tumblr.com/c38996b1a870fed8a760ffd0f22d85dc/tumblr_mnj98omm9e1s424vro6_500.jpg
Saw that earlier elsewhere on tumblr.
Lot of respect for Sir Patrick Stewart.

[eldargal]

Because people expect better of Star Trek, it isn't always perfect but Star Trek has been one of the most empowering shows for women for decades.

[Mr Mystery]

There's nudity, scuddie shots....and gratuitous ones of the same.

For instance, Alien. She's in cryosleep. Undies makes sense. RotJ...she was a slave girl, makes sense. Transformers? Gratuitous. Barbarella? Sexploitation film. ID? She's a stripper. Gratuitous role. Total Recall? EDITING THIS BIT... Whole film is about one man's ego trip. The gratuitous nature is part and parcel, and one could say a witty take on it, being deliberately gratuitous....

Into Darkness? Fully gratutious in what is essentially a family film. No need for it. Nothing to do with the plot. First one, where we see the lovely Rachel Nicholl greened up and in her scuddies? They're making out, and it's establishing the womanising part of Kirk's character. Less gratuitous, but still not entirely necessary.

[eldargal]

Right! Take the alien girls earlier. Yes they were scantily clad but they were there having consensual, adult sex with Kirk. No problem there. There was a purpose. There was no purpose to the other scene, in fact it was quite voyeuristic because Kirk was told not to look, indicating the character wanted her privacy, and he looks anyway AND the audience gets an eyeful. All for absolutely no purpose.

[Denzark]

I like these things where I learn something new - such as Misandrist. But there are contradicitions. EG spoke earlier in favour of positive discrimination. But that is an enemy of true equality. It is illiberal to try and change someones socialized for another socialized view, ie from non-feminist to feminist.

'But,' I hear you cry: 'those socialized views don't allow for the true equality of the male and female of the species in their natural form, we are all homo sapiens and thus equal.' Hang on though - if we go by pure Darwin the female isn't equal and tends to be (with notable exceptions stnad fast Zola Budd et al) be physically weaker.

So why should one acquiesce to a feminist viewpoint of equality, in opposition to one's social upbringing, just to accomodate the social mores of another, when the illusion of equality is against survival of the fittest (which issue was brought up in the links referenced by EG - ie the female homo sapiens takes on board a male homo sapiens protector and acts in submission to him in order to protect her against the other more sexually predatory male homo sapiens?

I rapidly come to the conclusion that society cannot take on board all view points as valid, thus society itself will always engender inequality - because there is a need to sacrifice self interest for the benefit of the many. Thus until all societal ideas of social standing disappear, society will always be unequal - probably because it matches the inherent inequality of the natural world.

I would not relinquish my social identity - the funny thing is those who suffer no qualms about their low social standing (I generalise with the Jeremy Kyle example) are those who I wish to distinguish from by highllighting my own social differences.

[Earl Harbinger]

Interesting article from earlier this week. I agree that feminism should be focused on removing barriers limitting women's achievements and not focused on demonizing men. Yet whether it's due to a media contrivance/conspiracy, or a misconception of feminism by some (many?) of the more publicized feminist groups the movement seems to focus more on the latter than the former. Domestic violence and abusive relationships are a serious problem but it seems rather myopic, hypocritical and political to take a position that satirical Facebook pages about domestic violence directed at women are horrible but satirical Facebook pages about domestic violence directed at men are ok. Shouldn't the focus be on educating people that healthy relationships don't involve violence at all? Taking a position that bad behavior is acceptable if it's directed at them but not if it's directed at us isn't going to be an effective strategy for eliminating that behabior form society.


Feminists vs. Facebook
By Cathy Young - May 28, 2013

Of course there is some real, gross misogyny on the Web. But how likely is it that a Facebook user would encounter such content on the site without actively looking for it? For the record, its existence was news to me after several years of Facebook activity. The now-removed pages were hardly popular: a Google cache shows that “Violently raping your friends, just for laughs” had a whopping 17 “likes”; “Kicking your girlfriend in the fanny because she won’t make you a sandwich” had 34. (That’s one fewer than the still-existing “Dumping your boyfriend via castration”.) On the HuffPost Live panel, Friedman and co-campaigner Laura Bates talked about women being driven off Facebook by sexism, but the evidence is, once again, strictly anecdotal. Non-anecdotally, women were 57 percent of Facebook users last year. Friedman also claimed that Facebook staff is “overwhelmingly male”; actually, in 2011, it was about one-third female, the best among the major technology companies.

Now, the feminist protest coalition is pushing advertisers to drop Facebook unless the company takes appropriate action. The demands include training moderators to recognize gender-based hate speech (presumably as defined by radical feminists) and “to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men.” The last part is especially revealing. The activists clearly don’t want equal treatment for what could be considered gender-based hate speech against men, such as the Facebook page “Beating up your boyfriend to keep him in line” (which is still online and has over 16,000 “likes”)—or a feminist “satire” exhorting the average man not to rape women, which has over a thousand Facebook shares.

People have every right to speak out against bigotry and bashing—and to ask moderated websites to reject noxious content. But letting ideologues dictate the boundaries of acceptable speech on a large area of the Internet is a very bad idea.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/28/feminists_vs_facebook_118574.html#ixzz2UmxdGxSD
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

[eldargal]

The thing about 'psotive discrimination' is that women are the ones being discriminated against. Affirmative action with things like gender quotas help break down that discrimination. It isn't discrimination against men because men already have the system weighted in their favour.

Equal isn't being the same. Women tend to be physically weaker, yes, but physical strength isn't what Darwin considered important (it is a common misconception) Strength in the Darwinian survival of the fittest sense was the ability to adapt and contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. In that women are vital, more important than men in fact because women of childbearing age are far, far more valuable to a society than a male. One man can father man children but it takes one woman to bear one child. For example in archaeology one can judge the health of, say, early American colonies by the number of young women in the graveyard. The higher the percentage of childbearing age the less healthy the colony and the less likely it is to survive. Also protection from other men had nothing to do with the subjugation of women, it is related solely to the structure of farming communities. In hunter gatherer societies women were treated equally or far more equally.

There is no 'feminist viewpoint of equality'. There is equality and feminists are striving to bring equality to HALF the species that has been denied it for millennia. Again survival of the fittest suggests women are more important.

Society has already embraced equality, the issue is actually delivering it. What you are saying is pure bollocks, basically, because you are arguing that women should be forced not to contribute to society on some bizarre assumption that by doing so they are benefiting the many. The opposite is true, women are more valuable contributing to their full capacity, not being enslaved to men.

All you are advocating here Denzark is that because men could physically beat women into submission in general that they have more right to contribute, which has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. It is just rule through strength. But that doesn't end with women, weaker men will be oppressed, ethnic minorities who lack strength of numbers will be oppressed and the result is the kind of medieval brutalism Britain helped lead the world out of through constitutional rule. It is abhorrent.

[Mr Mystery]

As to militant feminists.....may I direct you to the likes of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King?

Malcolm X was not a nice man. His methods were not positive. MLK was a more positive figure. Yet it took BOTH of them. Malcolm X forced the issue into the public eye. MLK became the 'acceptable' face of negotiation.

It's the same with feminism. Militant Feminists do at least as much harm as good, but keep the debate going. The dialogue is then opened with more moderate, less mental types. Things then change.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

I like these things where I learn something new - such as Misandrist. But there are contradicitions. EG spoke earlier in favour of positive discrimination. But that is an enemy of true equality. It is illiberal to try and change someones socialized for another socialized view, ie from non-feminist to feminist.

'But,' I hear you cry: 'those socialized views don't allow for the true equality of the male and female of the species in their natural form, we are all homo sapiens and thus equal.' Hang on though - if we go by pure Darwin the female isn't equal and tends to be (with notable exceptions stnad fast Zola Budd et al) be physically weaker.

So why should one acquiesce to a feminist viewpoint of equality, in opposition to one's social upbringing, just to accomodate the social mores of another, when the illusion of equality is against survival of the fittest (which issue was brought up in the links referenced by EG - ie the female homo sapiens takes on board a male homo sapiens protector and acts in submission to him in order to protect her against the other more sexually predatory male homo sapiens?

I rapidly come to the conclusion that society cannot take on board all view points as valid, thus society itself will always engender inequality - because there is a need to sacrifice self interest for the benefit of the many. Thus until all societal ideas of social standing disappear, society will always be unequal - probably because it matches the inherent inequality of the natural world.

I would not relinquish my social identity - the funny thing is those who suffer no qualms about their low social standing (I generalise with the Jeremy Kyle example) are those who I wish to distinguish from by highllighting my own social differences.

All men have equal rights, but not all men a created equal. Thats kind of a baseline assumption of human diversity. People have been trying to figure out the irregularities for a long time, but I think it comes down to choice. Some people find its too difficult to be self sufficient and intentional give up their independence for security.

Objectivists would argue that self-sacrifice is immoral.

Human Beings are decidedly unusual in the natural world though, what is true there, may not always be true here. Its like Realism in IR Theory. It can explain most things, except for the things it can't. ;)

[eldargal]

All men have equal rights, but not all men a created equal... Some people find its too difficult to be self sufficient and intentional give up their independence for security.[/U]
All HUMANS have equal rights, but not all HUMANS are treated equal. Women didn't/don't give up our independence for security, we were forced to. Hence feminism.

Women contribute more to society when we are given the same freedom as men because we equally competent at most things, inferior in some (hard physical labour) and superior in others (submarine crews, to use a military example).

[Mr Mystery]

Utter drivel.

I don't know a single person who wouldn't want to improve their standing. I know many who feel it's futile, and have given up trying. But they still aren't happy at being mired where they are.

I do not know a single person who never, ever tried. And it's codswallop to state there are those.

[Earl Harbinger]

I like these things where I learn something new - such as Misandrist. But there are contradicitions. EG spoke earlier in favour of positive discrimination. But that is an enemy of true equality. It is illiberal to try and change someones socialized for another socialized view, ie from non-feminist to feminist.

'But,' I hear you cry: 'those socialized views don't allow for the true equality of the male and female of the species in their natural form, we are all homo sapiens and thus equal.' Hang on though - if we go by pure Darwin the female isn't equal and tends to be (with notable exceptions stnad fast Zola Budd et al) be physically weaker.

So why should one acquiesce to a feminist viewpoint of equality, in opposition to one's social upbringing, just to accomodate the social mores of another, when the illusion of equality is against survival of the fittest (which issue was brought up in the links referenced by EG - ie the female homo sapiens takes on board a male homo sapiens protector and acts in submission to him in order to protect her against the other more sexually predatory male homo sapiens?

I rapidly come to the conclusion that society cannot take on board all view points as valid, thus society itself will always engender inequality - because there is a need to sacrifice self interest for the benefit of the many. Thus until all societal ideas of social standing disappear, society will always be unequal - probably because it matches the inherent inequality of the natural world.

I would not relinquish my social identity - the funny thing is those who suffer no qualms about their low social standing (I generalise with the Jeremy Kyle example) are those who I wish to distinguish from by highllighting my own social differences.

Socially and legally people should view the sexes as equal but equal does not mean identical. Men and women are different and that difference is always going to be reflected in society. Why does my son like to play with trucks while my daughter takes her dolls with her everywhere? Because they're different and that's ok, neither society nor my wife and I are forcing them to play with specific toys, we make them share, encourage unstructured creative play etc.

What can be a problem with feminism and any -ism is that too often it can be used to minimize or discredit free will. For example, elementary school teachers are overwhelmingly female. There was a time when professions like school teacher, secretary and nurse were the only ones deemed socially accceptable for women. Thankfully current society openly encourages women to pursue jobs in whatever field they want. While society is more enlightened as to "proper" jobs for women, there is still a large majority of female elementary school teachers. One could argue that women are still choosing the teaching profession because of ingrained social norms and pressures to push them into taking those jobs. Such an argument discredits that idea that women are excercising their own free will and that the sexes are equal but not identical; their differences are shown in the choices they make. Short of a tyrannical intervention by a totalitarian state to force equal representation of the sexes in career fields in the oppostion of free will you won't see an equal distribution of the sexes in every job.

Women are more equal now than ever before, that's a good thing. They are not as equal as they should be but it is becoming increasingly easier to remove or overcome the remaining obstacles in their way. Unfortunately sometimes one of the obstacles in their way are so called feminists who undermine womens' exercise of free will. I really detest the insidious argument (and I'm not accusing anyone here of making it) is that a woman didn't really freely choose to be a 3rd grade teacher or a stay at home mom, because she's been effectively brainwashed by society into believing that those were the "right" choices to make. Women aren't empowered by refuting their ability to make their own choices.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

All HUMANS have equal rights, but not all HUMANS are treated equal. Women didn't/don't give up our independence for security, we were forced to. Hence feminism.

Women contribute more to society when we are given the same freedom as men because we equally competent at most things, inferior in some (hard physical labour) and superior in others (submarine crews, to use a military example).

Fair point. Women in intel fields and interrogations work well to as another example. My buddies units best interrogator was a Pakistani woman who was much better at getting information than her white male and female counterparts because she knew exactly how to talk to them. The amenities and conviences of the modern age will most certainly lead to a point where security and such that was a major player in the past for social interactions will no longer 'rule', and people can excel at roles the world excluded them from.

I'd imagine that since this is simply a little past the second century of mainstream women's and minority liberation, it'll take some time longer but eventually won't remain an issue. Comparing how people feel about monarchy and serfdom now, to three or four hundred years ago.

Another example would be when all bets are off and everyone's abilities are most important you see many women rise to the top, like the pirate princesses and women warriors of the ancient world.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Utter drivel.

I don't know a single person who wouldn't want to improve their standing. I know many who feel it's futile, and have given up trying. But they still aren't happy at being mired where they are.

I do not know a single person who never, ever tried. And it's codswallop to state there are those.

Are you familiar with literature about slaves who would rather have remained enslaved because the idea of freedom was too much for them to cope with. Or as a personal example, my own mother who hated to work and wanted to stay at home because the efforts she would've had to take to be successful were of less value to her than individual success.

[Denzark]

@ EG - I'm not sure I'm particularly advocating anything, I don't mean to imply men have more RIGHT to contribute if that's what you took away. Merely that I think society is naturally unequal and that nature in its raw form is unequal - and feminism (and some of the related issues we were talking about) to achieve what it thinks of as equality, would need to apply some inequality to meet its aims.

PS not sure where the sub crews evidence comes from, we don't have female sub crews yet and not sure the yanks do.

@ Mr M come now Sir, just because there are things out of your experience, doesn't make them drivel. Whilst I acknowledge people may always try to change their general situation for the better (bigger council house, more benefits, etc etc) I have met people of what used to be called working class (there is probably some cunning new sociologists term now and besides, said people were unemployed) who had absolutely no aspiration to improve their class status, or (more importantly) position their families to allow their offspring to become upwardly mobile.

[Earl Harbinger]

[QUOTE=eldargal;312091]The thing about 'psotive discrimination' is that women are the ones being discriminated against. Affirmative action with things like gender quotas help break down that discrimination. It isn't discrimination against men because men already have the system weighted in their favour.
[QUOTE]

Quotas are bad, they're counter productive. It is just as discriminatory and sexist to hire somebody based on their sex than it is not hire somebody based on their sex. The sex of the applicant shouldn't be the determining factor in their hiring. Forcing a company to employ X number of women doesn't advance equality it is merely a govt intrusion to cover up a problem with an empty aesthetic solution. If a woman meets the qualifications for the position it makes sense to hire her but passing a law requiring a certain percentage of employees to be female is absurd.

Anecdotally there seems to be a lot more male auto mechanics than female auto mechanics. If we pass a law that required every auto repair shop to have X% of their mechanics be females to offset this imbalance we then are faced with the problem, are there enough qualified female auto mechanics to fill all of those jobs? Do we need to have X% of auto mechanics be female? Are female auto mechanics not being hired? The sex of the mechanic doesn't impact their ability to fix a car so the most important factor in hiring mechanics is their ability to do the work. Therefore, you don't need a quota. If there is evidence of sexist discrimination you can pass laws making discrimination illegal, you still don't need quotas. Quotas mess with the market balance, you don't need any % of a given workforce to be female you just need employers to hire qualified candidates regardless of their sex.

[Earl Harbinger]

Salon (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/28/is_rape_legitimate_if_she_dresses_provocatively_on e_author_argues_yes/)

British author Nick Ross insists that “I’m not saying rape isn’t rape” – except when he says, “Rape isn’t always rape.”

He says things like, “Rape is one of the most defiling crimes and there is never excuse or justification for it.” Then he says, “In any other crime we take account of provocation and contributory factors. Even in murder. Why not with sex?” And he wonders why readers are a little confused.

In the U.K., Ross, the former host of a show called “Crimewatch,” has been making headlines with his new book, “Crime” — especially the chapter on sex crimes. In a controversial excerpt that ran in the Sunday Mail, Ross declared that:


“The main argument of my book is this: we can aggravate crime by tempting fate, and we curb it by playing safe. We have come to acknowledge it is foolish to leave laptops on the back seat of the car. We would laugh at a bank that stored sacks of cash by the front door. We would be aghast if an airport badly skimped on its security…. Our forebears might be astonished at how safe women are today given what throughout history would have been regarded as incitement … they would be baffled that girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late, often get profoundly drunk and sometimes openly kiss, grope or go to bed with one-night stands.”

It’s a theme he expands upon in his book, in which he says research reveals that “half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: They led him on, they went too far, it wasn’t forcible, they didn’t make themselves clear … For them rape isn’t always rape.” He adds, “We should not forget, of course, that women can sometimes turn sex to their own advantage, which occasionally has other implications for crime.”

In other words, if a woman blames herself for her rape, that’s just dandy, because ladies are always using their feminine wiles anyway.




Ross’ comments quickly stirred up an inevitable tempest over consent and assault — Sarah Green of End Violence Against Women told the Guardian the remarks were “horrible” and “trotting out the same spurious myths about rape.” And columnist Martin Robbins scoffed at “the myth of the self-guiding penis,” noting that “it allows offenders to abdicate responsibility for their actions, and transfer it to seductive women; it leads people to assume that rape is a crime of passion rather than a cold, premeditated act of psychological manipulation and physical oppression.” More charitably, Dr. Brooke Magnanti wrote in the Telegraph that “at heart [Ross] wants to be an ally of victims” – even if he’s gone about it clumsily.

We all assume a measure of personal responsibility in all our movements and actions, and not every ill-advised or mutually drunken encounter is a violation. But for Ross to say that “In sex, as in so much else, almost everything we’re told about crime is wrong” is to make the ugly, all too common assumption that rape is just sex gone amiss, a case of miscommunication rather than abuse. Yet any man who is not a sex offender understands the difference. A woman’s body is not a laptop in the back seat of a car, a treasure to be guarded.

Ross might say that, “Women are stronger and more capable of making their own decisions or running their own lives than we allow”; he seems to believe that men, on the other hand, are still just helpless slaves to their own desires.


Surprised this wasn't commented on already, but maybe the guy isn't a very popular author, I dunno I haven't heard of him before now but I'm across the pond; he's certainly not Star Trek famous.

The whole provocative dress thing is such trite bovine excrement. I don't see how somebody's clothing can incite crime. There are certainly outfits that I wouldn't want my daughter to wear when she's older but that is due mainly to my hope to instill a certain amount of self respect in her than with a fear that if she wears those pants she'll get raped. People are responsible for how they choose to dress themselves and image they choose to convey. Whether you're wearing a burkha or a bikini isn't an incitement of or protection against assault. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and nobody is responsible for the actions of another. IMHO it's actions like drug use and drinking that harm a woman's ability to exercise good judgment and defend herself that play a role in increasing the possiblity of assault, not her outfit. I've seen far too many people get hurt from stupid drunken behavior to condone anyone drinking to excess.

I'm not sure why people have such difficulty in discerning what qualifies as rape. It's always surprised me how little education there is on what is a pretty simple understanding. In high school there was no rape segment to sex ed, in college there was no rape segment to our freshman orientation. I did attend a mandatory rape/sexual assault seminar every fall as part of the football team in college, it was pretty straightforward and clear and nobody on the team in the 4 years I was there got in trouble for sexual assault.

If you get a VCR, Verbal Commitment Response, then it's not rape. There's 3 simple steps, ASK the girl if she wants to have sex with you. Make sure she UNDERSTOOD the question. Get a CLEAR VERBAL RESPONSE to the question. If the response is affirmative you can proceed, if it's negative you can try again or abandon the attempt. If the girl can't understand the question then she can't say yes and nonverbal "signals" or incomprehensible mumbles don't count as a yes. Pretty much every time I hear of a instance of a rape allegation the man didn't follow those 3 simple steps. I don't know why it isn't more widely taught.

Courting is what is really a gray area. The line between romance and harassment/stalking tends to be in the eye of the beholder and given our litigous society can lead to a lot of problems.

[Kirsten]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22717579

men who get a first in their degree earn more than men who get a 2:1, but women who get a first do not earn more than women who get a 2:1...

the 10 O'clock Live debate is good, I would disagree with Angela Epstein when she blames feminism. She picks up on the extreme branch and blames it for a lot of problems rather than seeing it as a small vocal minority.

[Psychosplodge]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/bcec6f9862ec60ddb76de29687213dfd/tumblr_mnmjjexrpq1rrcahvo1_500.gif
http://25.media.tumblr.com/ee81d06a354abf5bd1ac96d1a319b751/tumblr_mnmjjexrpq1rrcahvo3_r2_500.gif
http://25.media.tumblr.com/4aa714ba3785db207bc0177b0d65e86a/tumblr_mnmjjexrpq1rrcahvo2_r2_500.gif

[Kirsten]

really the perception of feminism in the media is exactly the same as with any other news issue, go for the extremists, they make better television. whether it is muslim clerics, EDL spokesmen, feminists, get the ones on that are going to say something controversial and incendiary. It is nothing new when it comes to politics or religion, but people are missing that point when it comes to social issues.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22717579

men who get a first in their degree earn more than men who get a 2:1, but women who get a first do not earn more than women who get a 2:1...

the 10 O'clock Live debate is good, I would disagree with Angela Epstein when she blames feminism. She picks up on the extreme branch and blames it for a lot of problems rather than seeing it as a small vocal minority.

In my experience the best option is never pursue it when alcohol is involved. Is she's sober talk it out first. Alcohol even in small amounts gives guys an advantage they don't deserve normally. I get made fun of for it, but I'd rather be made fun of than incarcerated.

[eldargal]

[QUOTE=eldargal;312091]The thing about 'psotive discrimination' is that women are the ones being discriminated against. Affirmative action with things like gender quotas help break down that discrimination. It isn't discrimination against men because men already have the system weighted in their favour.
[QUOTE]

Quotas are bad, they're counter productive. It is just as discriminatory and sexist to hire somebody based on their sex than it is not hire somebody based on their sex. The sex of the applicant shouldn't be the determining factor in their hiring. Forcing a company to employ X number of women doesn't advance equality it is merely a govt intrusion to cover up a problem with an empty aesthetic solution. If a woman meets the qualifications for the position it makes sense to hire her but passing a law requiring a certain percentage of employees to be female is absurd.
I used to think so too, then I saw some very convincing studies showing that companies that introduced quotas had a very rapid breakdown of the barriers of women entering senior positions to the point quotas were no longer necessary within a few years. These companies also performed better than competitors with a 'normal' gender bias towards men. The quotas are for management positions in companies, not all industry and trades.

really the perception of feminism in the media is exactly the same as with any other news issue, go for the extremists, they make better television. whether it is muslim clerics, EDL spokesmen, feminists, get the ones on that are going to say something controversial and incendiary. It is nothing new when it comes to politics or religion, but people are missing that point when it comes to social issues.
Yup. Just like the media focus on nutjobs like Abu Qatada while the ignore the vat majority of clerics who condemn violence and extremism and are actively trying to stop the radicalisation of young men in their communities.

@ EG - I'm not sure I'm particularly advocating anything, I don't mean to imply men have more RIGHT to contribute if that's what you took away. Merely that I think society is naturally unequal and that nature in its raw form is unequal - and feminism (and some of the related issues we were talking about) to achieve what it thinks of as equality, would need to apply some inequality to meet its aims.

PS not sure where the sub crews evidence comes from, we don't have female sub crews yet and not sure the yanks do.
Well advocate may have been too strong a word, but the end result of what you were suggesting was tyranny of strength. Society does tend towards inequality but there is a difference between one person earning more than another because they went to a better school and got a better education and someone being made to be unequal because they were born female.

The sub crew thing came from something I read years ago that advocated all-female sub crews, female sniper units and female pilot group thingies instead of front line ground duty because women were more suited to those duties than lugging around 60lb of gear on the ground. Women tend to have smaller frames so good in enclosed spaces, use less oxygen and cope with pressure (and g-forces for pilots) better than men and so forth.

[White Tiger88]

I like my view...Who care's what sex the person is if they are good at something hire them if not tell them off.

[eldargal]

While that works in principle the reality looks more like this in a typical country:

You have ten applicants suitable for the job, 7 men and 3 women. The group of people responsible for selecting the new applicant are all or mostly men. So a male gets chosen. It's not conscious, it's a deep seated psychological thing. Quotas work by letting the women in and when you get a situation where women are as likely to be overseeing recruitment as men you tend to get an equilibrium of recruitment between genders.

It is not discrimination against men because the playing field is already tilted in favour of men. Quotas help rectify an imbalance that discriminates against women.

[Earl Harbinger]

While that works in principle the reality looks more like this in a typical country:

You have ten applicants suitable for the job, 7 men and 3 women. The group of people responsible for selecting the new applicant are all or mostly men. So a male gets chosen. It's not conscious, it's a deep seated psychological thing. Quotas work by letting the women in and when you get a situation where women are as likely to be overseeing recruitment as men you tend to get an equilibrium of recruitment between genders.

It is not discrimination against men because the playing field is already tilted in favour of men. Quotas help rectify an imbalance that discriminates against women.

It is absolutely discriminatory against men because the goal of quotas isn't to get the best candidate hired or even the best female candidate hired it's simply to increase the overall number of females employed. If a company has a job opening and they are required to have at least 12 women employed but they currently only have 11 then a woman will get hired regardless of whether or not there were male applicants that were better qualified/suited for the job.

If a company doesn't have many female employees that doesn't mean that there is sexist discrimination occurring. You have to evaluate the hiring PROCESS not the just the OUTCOME. An unbiased hiring process can still result in an imbalance of the representation of the sexes in a given workforce. If fewer women apply for a job then unless that smaller sample has a much higher ratio of great candidates it would be mathematically impossible for them to place an equal number of women in the job openings. There are industries that don't draw a lot of interest from men or women for various reasons wherein even the white collar jobs in those industries that could be done equally well be either sex don't see equal or even near equal representation of the sexes in the workforce.

If there are two equally qualified applicants for the job, one of each sex, and the person hiring is male than the male applicant will probably be choen a majority of the time. People tend to favor others who are like them, being of the same sex, ethnicity, etc. Even with that innate tendency it's impossible for a third party to state with certainty somebody's else's thought process. If both resumes/CVs are equal there's still a host of other factors that could tip the balance in one's favor, age, length of commute, health, family commitments, etc. Short of having somebody admit that sex was the sole determining factor in hiring people on a consistent basis creating a pattern of discrimination I don't see how you could prove such a thing.

I'm sure there are people out there whose hiring decisions are consciously or subconsciously being affected by sexist prejudice. Forcing such a person to hire an employee in opposition to that prejudice could very well (a long as the employee does their part) disspell their prejudice. That is great, getting people to acknowledge a prejudice and overcome it is good. Showing a man that a woman can do job that he previously didn't believe a woman could/should do is a victory for society. However, just because a quota system could have some success at doing that doesn't mean that a quota system is the best way to do it. Using the ends to justify the means is bad.

I don't want to keep going around and around on this unless you feel there are other points you want to make/address. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Kyban]

Snip

I think the biggest thing about the quotas is that while it may not be the best way for now it's really the only feasible way and may eventually lead to it being unnecessary.

[eldargal]

You get 100 applicants for a job. 70 of those have all the qualifications. Ten have the right personality and work ethic and would be the 'best candidate'. Three are women. You have to choose one. You currently have a 70/30 gender ratio. Do you choose one of the men, or one of the women? Without a quota chances are you will choose the man. With a quota you will hopefully choose the woman. The idea that quotas let less skilled workers into jobs is usually utter bollocks put out by fear-mongering men who are scared of losing their power.

There may or may not be other factors involves but the result remains the female applicants are less likely to get the job and this is routine for them. It isn't discrimination because those male applicants will still be able to go and apply for other jobs and still reap the benefits of being born male. It's rarely as simple as just picking the single obvious choice of best candidate.

I think the biggest thing about the quotas is that while it may not be the best way for now it's really the only feasible way and may eventually lead to it being unnecessary.
Exactly. They break down barriers and become unnecessary because they help end institutional sexism within an organisation.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

You get 100 applicants for a job. 70 of those have all the qualifications. Ten have the right personality and work ethic and would be the 'best candidate'. Three are women. You have to choose one. You currently have a 70/30 gender ratio. Do you choose one of the men, or one of the women? Without a quota chances are you will choose the man. With a quota you will hopefully choose the woman. The idea that quotas let less skilled workers into jobs is usually utter bollocks put out by fear-mongering men who are scared of losing their power.

There may or may not be other factors involves but the result remains the female applicants are less likely to get the job and this is routine for them. It isn't discrimination because those male applicants will still be able to go and apply for other jobs and still reap the benefits of being born male. It's rarely as simple as just picking the single obvious choice of best candidate.

Exactly. They break down barriers and become unnecessary because they help end institutional sexism within an organisation.

Going off what Eldargal is saying and the quotas model, an alternative might be to have an entirely faceless evaluation process with no names of gender entered into it. You could do interviews via email or message and it would entirely eliminate everything but qualities from the decision making process.

In fact if I ever start a business this is what I will do.

[eldargal]

That could work, though it could lead to situation where you hire people with personality issues that can impact on their ability to do their job. You also will face problems with people faking credentials, at least faceto face you can test them a bit more. Though I suppose asking question via a messaging program while they are isolated from the internet proper so the ycan't google things might work to some extent.

[Kyban]

Going off what Eldargal is saying and the quotas model, an alternative might be to have an entirely faceless evaluation process with no names of gender entered into it. You could do interviews via email or message and it would entirely eliminate everything but qualities from the decision making process.

In fact if I ever start a business this is what I will do.

I doubt you'd get very good employees. It's a lot easier to learn what a persons like when you see them face to face, that's why many companies start the hiring process that way but always include an in person meeting.

[Psychosplodge]

That could work, though it could lead to situation where you hire people with personality issues that can impact on their ability to do their job. You also will face problems with people faking credentials, at least faceto face you can test them a bit more. Though I suppose asking question via a messaging program while they are isolated from the internet proper so the ycan't google things might work to some extent.

Read Halting State (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Halting-State-Science-Fiction-ebook/dp/B002TXZR6S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370024247&sr=8-1&keywords=halting+state) by Charles Stross. Interviews are carried out in isolation booths with voice distorters and separate building entrances for the interviewer and candidate.

[Kyban]

Read Halting State by Charles Stross. Interviews are carried out in isolation booths with voice distorters and separate building entrances for the interviewer and candidate.

I haven't heard of Halting State. It still seems like it would have the same problem and still not hide the gender very well.

[Psychosplodge]

It's the one before Rule 34.
It's near the beginning when a programmer is going for a job interview, it's exactly to hide gender/race/religion etc to comply with european/scottish equality laws

[Kyban]

It's the one before Rule 34.
It's near the beginning when a programmer is going for a job interview, it's exactly to hide gender/race/religion etc to comply with european/scottish equality laws

I googled it and it looks really interesting, I might add it to my reading list, though I heard there's 2nd person narrative that's kind of annoying.

It must be a really good voice distorter, I don't think I've heard any that successfully disguise gender.

[Psychosplodge]

It's set in the near future, everyone has the google glasses type thing going on, so a voice distorter is the least in suspension of believe. It was the second book of his I read. I now own around a dozen...

[Earl Harbinger]

You get 100 applicants for a job. 70 of those have all the qualifications. Ten have the right personality and work ethic and would be the 'best candidate'. Three are women. You have to choose one. You currently have a 70/30 gender ratio. Do you choose one of the men, or one of the women? Without a quota chances are you will choose the man. With a quota you will hopefully choose the woman. The idea that quotas let less skilled workers into jobs is usually utter bollocks put out by fear-mongering men who are scared of losing their power.

There may or may not be other factors involves but the result remains the female applicants are less likely to get the job and this is routine for them. It isn't discrimination because those male applicants will still be able to go and apply for other jobs and still reap the benefits of being born male. It's rarely as simple as just picking the single obvious choice of best candidate.

Exactly. They break down barriers and become unnecessary because they help end institutional sexism within an organisation.

You're still evaluating based on outcome instead of process. Not having equal representation of the sexes in a workforce isn't proof of a discriminatory process.

You can't substantiate the claim that men are so inherently biased against women that men in a position to do so refuse to hire qualified applicants solely because they're women. Instead of believing that there is a subconscious sexist conspiracy by men to keep women from achieving parity in the workforce maybe, just maybe, there are other perfectly rational explanations for the disparity. The higher up the corporate ladder you go the fewer women you find, maybe instead of an old boy network of chavinists whose bigotry and narcissism refuses to allow them to even consider hiring a woman to a position as powerful and important as CFO or CEO or Chairman of the Board of Directors, maybe the reason is that large companies have a large financial stake on the line and they demand that the people running the company have very specific qualifications. The reason you see the same people or the same type of people being recycled by the top companies is because those companies want to hire people with a proven track record of successfully running a Fortune 500 or 200 or whatever company and there are only so many of those people out there. As the number of women working white collar jobs has increased, the number of qualified women to run big companies has increased and the number of women doing that job has increased. In the future the number of women in those positions will be greater still, it just takes time to build up the appropriate resume.

Change takes time. You may not be satisfied with the pace of change and there are some steps that can be taken to help the process along but it's not going to happen overnight. Having a totalitarian govt dictating who can and can't be hired like some sort of sociology experiment to put up a pleasant facade over the issue as an effort to pander to voters and win elections doesn't make things better.

The idea that men have an infinite supply of employment opportunities and a pair of testicles so they are certain to fall into gainful employment no matter how many jobs they're locked out of due to woman quotas is laughable. Especially in a time of high unemployment and stagnant economies it's immoral for the govt to arbitrarily step in and artificially limit the employment opportunities available to a given group of citizens. The idea that certain groups of people are impossible to be discriminated against is bollocks, anyone can be discriminated against for any number of reasons. People have free will, an individual can choose to discriminate against someone either on their own or in concert with a group of other individuals. There is no magic immunity from discrimination.

[Chris*ta]

totalitarian

http://www.mikechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/inigo_montoya.jpeg?70e0a1

[Kyban]

*Snip*

Huh? He seems to have used it correctly...

[bfmusashi]

Optimus Prime was a feminist and that's good enough for me.

[chicop76]

Optimus Prime was a feminist and that's good enough for me.

Don't you mean alitta One.

[bfmusashi]

"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." He did love that Elitta One but he had to fight... FOR FREEDOM!

[Kirsten]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-brave-fan-asks-patrick-stewart-a-question-he-doesnt-usually-get-and-is-given-a-beautiful-answer?c=gt1

an absolutely amazing man, and an absolutely amazing video. Patrick Stewart discussing domestic violence.

[Chris*ta]

Huh? He seems to have used it correctly...

Not really. It refers to states that attempt to control all aspects of society, not just have a single policy to attempt to combat sexism.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Not really. It refers to states that attempt to control all aspects of society, not just have a single policy to attempt to combat sexism.

He is discussing the coercion aspect of government regulation. When you and I disagree and you coerce me into doing it anyway, it is illegal. When the government does it to resist is criminal. When people feel safe and secure that they are forcing you to do something for the right reasons it becomes a slippery slope. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Kirsten]

none of that alters the fact that making employers have to take on a certain number of women helps. getting men used to seeing women in board rooms and other high powered positions means breaking down barriers so that it becomes normal and acceptable, so that the legal requirement is no longer required. without the government stepping in nothing will change, and the glass ceiling will remain. it is unfortunate, but you will just have to deal with it for a while so that half the population can catch up.

[Bitrider]

none of that alters the fact that making employers have to take on a certain number of women helps.

I should know better than to get into these threads, but that just can't be right can it? It is one thing to ensure that no one is barred for a chance at a job, but to force an employer to hire a mandatory set number of a certain group can't be the way to go about things.
Part of that poorly worded sentence is angst but most of it is a honest question.

"Sorry, can't hire you Male Applicant even though you are more qualified than the Female Applicant because the law says I have to have 10 women and I am one short."

Not trying to be snarky but there has to be a better way than putting an employeer in a postion of having to hire someone that is less qualified than another person, or worse leave a vacancy not field simply because of a law. Where do you draw the line?

[Earl Harbinger]

none of that alters the fact that making employers have to take on a certain number of women helps. getting men used to seeing women in board rooms and other high powered positions means breaking down barriers so that it becomes normal and acceptable, so that the legal requirement is no longer required. without the government stepping in nothing will change, and the glass ceiling will remain. it is unfortunate, but you will just have to deal with it for a while so that half the population can catch up.

Government sanctioned discrimination and coercive hiring mandates are not going to bring about freedom and equality. Government tyranny doesn't create freedom it eliminates it. Inviting the government to take ever greater control over your life isn't going to solve inequality because it doesn't empower individuals it empowers the govt to make arbitrary decisions and force them on individuals.

[Chris*ta]

tyranny

http://www.twirlit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/inigo-montoya.jpg

[scadugenga]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-brave-fan-asks-patrick-stewart-a-question-he-doesnt-usually-get-and-is-given-a-beautiful-answer?c=gt1

an absolutely amazing man, and an absolutely amazing video. Patrick Stewart discussing domestic violence.

Just saw that. Wow.

[eldargal]

Government sanctioned discrimination and coercive hiring mandates are not going to bring about freedom and equality. Government tyranny doesn't create freedom it eliminates it. Inviting the government to take ever greater control over your life isn't going to solve inequality because it doesn't empower individuals it empowers the govt to make arbitrary decisions and force them on individuals.
But they do, they have been very successful here in Britain. Gender ratio mandates are not discrimination because all they do is level a playing field that is tilted dramatically in the favour of men. When one group has more power than another taking some of that power and redistributing it to another group is not discrimination.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-brave-fan-asks-patrick-stewart-a-question-he-doesnt-usually-get-and-is-given-a-beautiful-answer?c=gt1

an absolutely amazing man, and an absolutely amazing video. Patrick Stewart discussing domestic violence.

It is a beautiful video and he is an amazing man.

[Chris*ta]

But they do, they have been very successful here in Britain. Gender ratio mandates are not discrimination because all they do is level a playing field that is tilted dramatically in the favour of men. When one group has more power than another taking some of that power and redistributing it to another group is not discrimination.

Personally, I'd say it is discrimination, but that doesn't mean it's bad. This is largely a matter of definition, though.

[eldargal]

New Feminist Frequency Tropes vs Woman in Video Games video is up: Damsels in Distress Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs
Before you watch it, remember she isn't necessarily saying the games are bad, just that the story elements involving women are often problematic and sometimes downright sexist.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

New Feminist Frequency Tropes vs Woman in Video Games video is up: Damsels in Distress Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs
Before you watch it, remember she isn't necessarily saying the games are bad, just that the story elements involving women are often problematic and sometimes downright sexist.

I remember the first time I had to kill my girlfriend after she was fused with a monster. :P




Video games are notoriously insensitive. But then again think about the kind of people who make video games. Imagine they are paragons of understanding women? Probably not. I don't many of them were capable of speaking to women until college and the ones that could were not very good at it.

[eldargal]

Sadly you're right, as Ms Sarkeesian says in the video. It isn't some kind of malevolent plot, it's mostly just clueless developers who aren't aware of the messages their writing sends out. Especially to women.

It's sad because it could be quite easy to subvert things in very interesting ways. Take Dishonoured (spoiler alert), I was quite cranky that you couldn't play a female character. I enjoyed the game immensely anyway bu it got me thinking as to how with a little effort being able to create a female main character could have made for a very interesting plot twist. At the end of the game it is strongly implied that the Empress' daughter whom you rescue is your daughter. Now imagine if you had created a female character and the hints were that you, as the Empress' bodyguard, had given up your own daughter to secure the future of the monarchy and ensure a stable succession. That's a twist most people wouldn't see coming.

[Kirsten]

I loved Dishonoured, especially the fact that you wear a skull mask to conceal your identity as a wanted criminal, yet everybody attacks you on sight regardless...

[eldargal]

I loved it too, still proud of myself for melee killing a tall boy without reading spoilers on how to do it.:) Can't blame the mabout teh maks 'Oh good a sinister man with a skull mask, kill it now! is a fairly rational response in any fantasy setting.

[Kirsten]

yes but it makes the whole 'conceal your identity' bit a bit moot. why not a phantom of the opera mask? or a nice kitten mask? something that doesn't get you attacked in the street :p

[eldargal]

Yup, super secret assassins whom no one knows but everyone recognises on account of his highly distinctive mask.:rolleyes: It's like the whole 'assassins/thieves wear black leather with hoods' fantasy has happening. End crime in <insert fantasy city of your choice> by arresting on sight anyone wearing dark leather clothing with a hood.

I like the Kitten mask idea, someone should mod that.

[Kirsten]

he should go to the mask shop from Ocarina of Time, loads of choices.

[eldargal]

Or Etsy.

[Wildeybeast]

At the risk of getting back on topic, this seems like the thread to point out today is the 100th anniversary of the death of Emily Wilding Davison at the Derby. I wonder what she'd make of today's society.

[eldargal]

Probably an equal mixture of pleasure at the progress we've made, annoyance at how much further we have to go and horror at some of the problems facing modern women.

[Wildeybeast]

That was the conclusion I came to.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Probably an equal mixture of pleasure at the progress we've made, annoyance at how much further we have to go and horror at some of the problems facing modern women.

How mad would MLK be to see a half-black president, but three times the number of blacks in jail as were ever held as slaves (if my figures are current ;) )?

How mad would the Continental Congress be to see the country they built government agents able to write their own search and seizures warrants, just like the agents or the crown could.

It feels like when societies try to fight injustice, the deeply entrenched -isms being fought against fight back harder and make life much more difficult for those trying to free themselves.

[Earl Harbinger]

But they do, they have been very successful here in Britain. Gender ratio mandates are not discrimination because all they do is level a playing field that is tilted dramatically in the favour of men. When one group has more power than another taking some of that power and redistributing it to another group is not discrimination.

Quotas don't work, you're just ignoring all of the harm they do because they appear to give your cause a short term gain. Special rules that favor one group over another is discrimination, playing semantics doesn't change that. Achievement isn't a zero sum game. The philosophy that the best way to help my daughter achieve her potential is to penalize my son so it's harder for him to achieve his is wrong. You can't make moral gains from immoral actions.

You seem to think that it's ok to harm others as long as it helps women but the same actions done in the name of any other group would be just as wrong. Quotas are a punishment, worse they are a punishment meted out against people who are automatically judged guilty without conclusive proof. It is false to claim that the only reason for an unequal representation of the sexes in a workforce is sexual discrimination.

What if Welsh people weren't represented in the UK workforce in equal measure to their respective % of the UK's total population? Obviously that would be bad for society because society would be held back, missing out on all of the gains that could be made by allowing the people of Wales to reach their full potential as productive contributors to society. Something would need to be done. A great solution would be the govt passing a law to require every company to employ a given number of Welsh. Anyone not employing enough Welsh people must be prejudiced against Welsh, that's the only plausible explanation. Since such prejudice is inexcusable any such company is obviously guilty and therefore breaking the law. Such a company would need hire X number of Welsh or face govt prosecution leading to fines or imprisonment. The anti Welsh employers must be forced to overcome their bias and stop harming society with their outdated ways.

If you don't like that example then we can showcase the same injustice with a different one.

Economists agree that youth unemployment is bad. Young people, say 16-24 year olds, who don't get work experience when they're that age find it harder to get future employment, the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to find employment, etc. Therefore anything that society can do to increase youth employment is good. The govt should pass a law requiring any business employing at least 50 people should have at least 2 people in the 16-24 age group. The only explanation for companies not employing enough young people is age discrimination so it's good for the govt to get involved and right this wrong. If a company is fully staffed but not compliant with this new law they should just fire enough people so they can hire the required amount of young people. Old people would probably be best, afterall, they've already enjoyed the benefits of employment for a while, they'll cost the state more money as they age so we need younger workers anyway, and if they want to find another job they'll surely get one since they're old and not discriminated against like young people. Isn't that what govt is for? To decide what is best for people and then force it on them.

It's not as if employers weren't hiring women before the quotas were imposed. They may have been hiring them at a pace that wasn't fast enough to suit you but they were still being hired. The percentage of women in the workforce has been increasing for decades. There is no credible reason to believe that trend would come to a screeching halt or worse change to a decline without installing the quotas. The "success" of the quotas simply proves that alleged employer sexism isn't that pervasive. If employers as a whole were committed to sexist hiring practices you wouldn't see the increase in female employment prior to the quota implementation and you would currently see female employment in line with the minimum amount required by the quotas. The quotas created a short term increase just like all govt incentive programs do. If a company has 1 female employee and the govt mandates that one isn't enough, that the company must have at least 3 so the company shuffles personnel and hires 2 more women. Next year the company hires 2 more women, they were the best candidates for the job openings, with or without the quota they would have been hired anyway. However, now the company has 5 female employs instead of 1, that's a huge percentage increase so quotas obviously work. No, the quota didn't make the company any more or less sexist it just forced them to hire 2 women for the sake of hiring 2 women.

The quota system created more govt expansion, more govt intrusion into private enterprise, less individual freedom, and set the precedent that the govt can put its finger on the scales and tip the balance against one group to boost up another group any time it feels such action is needed. You got politicians to guarantee short term gains by making some people more equal than others in order to increase the likelihood of you helping them get reelected. It might look good to you now but when the govt decides to intervene on behalf of a different group and you get penalized you won't appreciate it. You get have some people more equal than others while simultaneously demanding that everyone be equal under the law. Whenever you set a precedent for intervention for one group it allows another group to demand the same, after all, if everyone is equal than every group is equally deserving of govt assistance. I think you've lost more than you've gained.

[eldargal]

Reversing discrimination is not discrimination just because it inconveniences men. Women being artificially restricted in the workplace is discrimination, using regulatory measures to end this is not. Women are not an ethnic or cultural minority or an age group. We are half the ******* population.

Also the fact is even with non-compulsory quotas in the UK we've seen an increase from 12.5 to 16% of women holding snior positions in FTSE 100 company boards. This is in a society where at least half the university graduates are female yet only 16% are rising to the top, and you are concerned because we have a non-binding quota set at 25% for FTSE companies.:rolleyes:

[Kirsten]

don't forget that women are every bit as capable at doing these jobs as men are, we just don't get the opportunity. taking more women into roles is not going to harm a company in any way, and it is about time men faced more competition for places.

[eldargal]

Yep. One thing that often annoys me is the assumption that if you have quotas the womens legitimacy will be undermined, that people will think they got their job not because they are qualified. But no one questions whether all the men already in those positions got their job solely through merit. We live in an age where it is often compulsory to take up golf if you aspire beyond middle management so you can network and pal up to your seniors in a more casual environment. That is considered a normal part of networking yet it can still let charming, less competent men get promoted. Just as people who are adept at office politics may not be particularly competent. But no, all of a sudden quotas to force companies to appoint qualified women to senior positions will be the ruination of society.:rolleyes:

Here is an interesting study (http://www.skema.edu/lists/skemabranding-skemacommuniquepresselist/cp-feminised%20companies%20a%20better%20investment.pd f) which found that companies with a 'feminised' (over 25%) gender balance perform better in crises.

Edit: Anotehr thing to remember that quotas are just one tool to be used and not one that should be used as a hammer. I support the current 25% quota for publically listed companies. In addition things like tax concessions for companies that achieve higher targets and programs to encourage women to start their own companies or go into senior management positions are all worth looking at too.

[Earl Harbinger]

Reversing discrimination is not discrimination just because it inconveniences men. Women being artificially restricted in the workplace is discrimination, using regulatory measures to end this is not. Women are not an ethnic or cultural minority or an age group. We are half the ******* population.

Also the fact is even with non-compulsory quotas in the UK we've seen an increase from 12.5 to 16% of women holding snior positions in FTSE 100 company boards. This is in a society where at least half the university graduates are female yet only 16% are rising to the top, and you are concerned because we have a non-binding quota set at 25% for FTSE companies.:rolleyes:

I'm not concerned with your British quotas, I don't live in the UK. I'm concerned that you think the only way to create "fairness" is through direct government intervention.

I already addressed the issue with the lack of female CEOs and CFOs but I'll repeat myself. Shareholders and board members set demanding standards for top company positions so those positions typically only go to people with proven track records at other companies. I doubt there are many FTSE 100 companies that are going to hire anybody, male or female, straight out of university to run their company. They are going to want to hire somebody that has worked their way up to a senior position at a lesser or equal company and then run that company well for at least a few years. That takes time so you would expect to see a lag. Women graduating today won't be in senior positions for 10-20 years. While 50% of university graduates today are female, that has not historically been true so as you go back to previous generations whose women are old enough to have acquired work experiences and achieved higher success you find fewer university graduates. There are perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for the number of women in senior positions at FTSE 100 companies without declaring that half the ****ing population has aligned itself in a sexist conspiracy to prevent women from climbing the corporate ladder.

Change is happening. There are more women in senior positions at FTSE 100 companies than ever before. The number will continue to increase. You personally are not happy with the current pace of the improvement. That's understandable but that doesn't justify heavy handed intrusive govt policies. Creating equality through govt fiat isn't going to provide the outcome you desire.

Also, again, equal isn't identical. You'll never see parity in the representation of sexes in all employment sectors. Men and women are different, there will always be some sectors that attract more males than females and others that attract more females than males. You can't just draw conclusions from the outcome while ignoring the process. Yes half of university graduates are women but what degrees are they earning? What career paths are they choosing? Of the people who are aspiring to reach senior positions of FTSE 100 companies how many of those are women? There are plenty of people in the workforce of both sexes that don't want to pursue corporate careers for a variety of perfectly valid reasons.

[Denzark]

That could work, though it could lead to situation where you hire people with personality issues that can impact on their ability to do their job. You also will face problems with people faking credentials, at least faceto face you can test them a bit more. Though I suppose asking question via a messaging program while they are isolated from the internet proper so the ycan't google things might work to some extent.

If it is OK to not hire someone based on a 'personality issue' that impacts on their ability to do their job, why is it not OK to hire someone based on a 'family issue' that impacts on their ability to do the job, ie a woman who declares her intent to get pregnant and take 9 months maternity leave, leaving the company with either giving her work to co-workers, or hiring a temp, with resulting training burden and lack of experience?


Just asking...

[Chris*ta]

I'm not concerned with your British quotas, I don't live in the UK. I'm concerned that you think the only way to create "fairness" is through direct government intervention.
You haven't provided any alternative method. And if it's working everywhere else in the civilised world, there's no reason to assume it wouldn't work in America.


I already addressed the issue with the lack of female CEOs and CFOs but I'll repeat myself. Shareholders and board members set demanding standards for top company positions so those positions typically only go to people with proven track records at other companies.

I doubt there are many FTSE 100 companies that are going to hire anybody, male or female, straight out of university to run their company. They are going to want to hire somebody that has worked their way up to a senior position at a lesser or equal company and then run that company well for at least a few years. That takes time so you would expect to see a lag. Women graduating today won't be in senior positions for 10-20 years.
But the lag is significantly longer than 10-20 years they're are plenty of women who graduated 50 years ago who have been prevented from reaching significant positions in business. It's also worth noting that we're not talking about senior positions, it's actually anything above middle management.


While 50% of university graduates today are female, that has not historically been true so as you go back to previous generations whose women are old enough to have acquired work experiences and achieved higher success you find fewer university graduates.
Actually, more than 50% of University graduates are women. And the percentage of women who've graduated in previous generations in relevant degrees is not reflected by the percentage of women in senior positions in most businesses.


There are perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for the number of women in senior positions at FTSE 100 companies without declaring that half the ****ing population has aligned itself in a sexist conspiracy to prevent women from climbing the corporate ladder.

Change is happening. There are more women in senior positions at FTSE 100 companies than ever before. The number will continue to increase.
You need to do more reading on the patriarchy. Simply put, people are more likely to hire people for positions that remind them of themselves and they feel would "fit" into the current culture of the business. Read: rich white guys are likely to hire rich white guys.


You personally are not happy with the current pace of the improvement. That's understandable but that doesn't justify heavy handed intrusive govt policies. Creating equality through govt fiat isn't going to provide the outcome you desire.
Desired outcome: more women in significant positions in business. Easily achieved by what's being discussed. What exactly do you think are the negative consequences of these policies?


Also, again, equal isn't identical. You'll never see parity in the representation of sexes in all employment sectors. Men and women are different, there will always be some sectors that attract more males than females and others that attract more females than males.
Look at the number of women in senior positions outside the corporate field, e.g. NGOs, charities, government, Universities. It's a lot higher than in corporations. All these places seem to be doing fine. And they're are not more women because they're are more women in these fields, but because they have fairer hiring/promotion policies.


You can't just draw conclusions from the outcome while ignoring the process. Yes half of university graduates are women but what degrees are they earning? What career paths are they choosing? Of the people who are aspiring to reach senior positions of FTSE 100 companies how many of those are women?
But why don't women pursue senior positions in corporations as often? Could it be that they feel that it's not worthwhile because they feel they'll be discriminated against?


There are plenty of people in the workforce of both sexes that don't want to pursue corporate careers for a variety of perfectly valid reasons.
So?

[Chris*ta]

If it is OK to not hire someone based on a 'personality issue' that impacts on their ability to do their job, why is it not OK to hire someone based on a 'family issue' that impacts on their ability to do the job, ie a woman who declares her intent to get pregnant and take 9 months maternity leave, leaving the company with either giving her work to co-workers, or hiring a temp, with resulting training burden and lack of experience?


Just asking...

Generally because it's illegal to not hire someone on this basis. Also remember that there's a certain amount of not hiring women on the assumption that they're going to leave to get pregnant, whether or not this particular woman has any intention to do so.

[SeekingOne]

If it is OK to not hire someone based on a 'personality issue' that impacts on their ability to do their job, why is it not OK to hire someone based on a 'family issue' that impacts on their ability to do the job, ie a woman who declares her intent to get pregnant and take 9 months maternity leave, leaving the company with either giving her work to co-workers, or hiring a temp, with resulting training burden and lack of experience?


Just asking...

It may or may not be considered "illegal" as Chris*ta pointed out above (laws in different countries may differ), but there's a considerable ethical degree to this question as well. Generally, the principal difference here is that for a woman to get pregnant is not an 'issue'. It's a very natural thing that is supposed to happen if life is to go on. So, despite the fact that people running businesses may find this horribly inconvenient from the PoV of their personal struggle for income, a woman should not be penalised for it. It should be opposite, in fact.

[Denzark]

It may or may not be considered "illegal" as Chris*ta pointed out above (laws in different countries may differ), but there's a considerable ethical degree to this question as well. Generally, the principal difference here is that for a woman to get pregnant is not an 'issue'. It's a very natural thing that is supposed to happen if life is to go on. So, despite the fact that people running businesses may find this horribly inconvenient from the PoV of their personal struggle for income, a woman should not be penalised for it. It should be opposite, in fact.

You say personal struggle for income like it is a bad thing. Actually, that a business owner will employ people at all, is what puts wages in workers pockets and thus food on their tables. So what is horribly inconvenient doesn't affect just their bottom line but potentially wages for all their employees if the firm becomes untenable and the owner checks out - I clarify I am talking about the small firm scenario here as it was mentioned earlier.

[Chris*ta]

You say personal struggle for income like it is a bad thing.

That seems entirely like your interpretation to me.

As for your question about small business, that's why government should provide benefits to small businesses when women (and men) are on parental leave.

[Denzark]

Sure Christa, that is yet another thing they should consider doing with the endless pot of wealth ...

[Chris*ta]

Sure Christa, that is yet another thing they should consider doing with the endless pot of wealth ...

Yes it is.

It increases participation in the workforce and enlarges the economy.

[Chris*ta]

Posting this: Fox News complaining about how women are earning money when they should go make me a sandwich (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/30/four_out_of_ten_households_have_female_breadwinner s_fox_news_responds_with.html).

[Denzark]

Yes it is.

It increases participation in the workforce and enlarges the economy.

OK, lets examine this. Lets take a 2 year period. Lets say a company hires worker A, a married female, at the same time as worker B, a single male. After 6 months she goes on maternity leave for 6 months. The employer has 2 choices - spreading worker A's work amongst the rest of the work force - they work harder - or getting a temp in.

If the employer gets a temp in, the temp is (in most cases) less experienced than Worker A - OK they may have been in that industry longer, but they are not in that specific role - they don't know the exact and current MO of the job. So there is a factor of x% less productivity. When Worker A comes back to work, poor old temp is back on the job market, possibly claiming benefits. Worker A, at the end of the 2 year period, is at the very least, 6 months less experienced and thus less productive - actually because she has to re-learn what she originally learnt, it is probably worse than that.

So, how the hell is the Government going to assess an amount that realistically covers the x% of less productivity during the absence, and less experience on return, and then pay it when its up to the ear lobes in debt? And also, Worker B, already sees a disproportionate spend of tax money on Worker A based on the fact she has chosen to have a child - child benefits, NHS for the child, education etc - now you think that disproportion should become greater to try and compensate the Employer?

[Denzark]

Yep. One thing that often annoys me is the assumption that if you have quotas the womens legitimacy will be undermined, that people will think they got their job not because they are qualified.



I think quotas are bollocks and do undermine legitimacy. The only measure should be the best candidate gets the job. Quotas are unfair. If the top 5 candidates for 4 vacancies are Male, Male, Male, Male, Female, why should candidate No4 get bumped just to make your 25% quota? Why should sex be the only quota - there are other demographics potentially as disadvantaged in recruitment, as females? Why not religion, sexuality or disability? Why should companies not be forced to represent society as a whole? But hang on, what if the demographics for a company oop North in T'Sheffield is different to dahn Sarf in London - do you use the national demographic or the local?

What if the company does not have a management structure that divides by 4 to get a 25%? What if there are insufficient female candidates? To turn away a candidate for being female is wrong. To turn away a candidate because he isn't female and you are trying to reach a quota, is equally wrong.

[Bigred]

This is one of those times where one should step back and understand that the needs of artificial constructs based around the trade of arbitrary fiat bases units of value (companies and money respectively) are subservient to the needs of societies, which are in turn subservient to the biological needs of the species.

You make exceptions for things that the species need for survival.

Remember managers - your employees are dying! Every single one of them. What are YOU doing about it? Think of all that critical experience and institutional memory going out the door. Each and every single employee is going to die and deprive the company of those annoying, irritating people that make it work. Now if only there was some way to make new fresh employees....

Hmmm...

Birds, bees, you know the rest (I hope)

At the end of the day, companies and their needs are completely irrelevant in the face of the reproductive needs of homo sapiens.

I will close my argument with my irrefutable formula gifted to me by a wise elder gamer:

booty > money > everything else

:)

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Denzark has the right idea. Capitalism and successful economics are systematically tied, you cannot have the optimal economy when you let the tyranny of the majority dictate what the economy can and cannot do.

The argument for quotas has its heart in the right place obviously, but the unseen consequences of quotas are detrimental to society as a whole.

As an aside. In the quest for women's rights its often overlooked that a man does not have the same options as a woman in making sure they are fed. For instance a man is far, far less likely to be able to marry a career woman and be a 'stay at home' husband. But a woman , no matter how qualified is able to get married and be provided for in a far more frequent series of eventualities. Yet to say so is 'sexist' or 'insensitive'.

It might be socialization and culture, but if I don't want to work I will be poor. Of a woman does not she can get away with it by being married.

If I and a woman identically qualified to myself graduate on the same day and attempt to enter the workforce the option for her to just get married and not work will always be an ability she has. Yet if I attempt the same the chances of it working are far less likely. When it comes to 'fairness' that seems like an advantage for women that assures even though you may not get for work like you want at least you will eat and have shelter. A man who does not work is far less likely to experience such regardless of the number of women who are willing to provide, since it is such a small percentage to be negligible.

[Kirsten]

that argument is utterly flawed however. Quotas are needed in order to allow more women to get the jobs they deserve. what you think about it is irrelevant, it is necessary and it works. Once more women are able to get the jobs they want, especially the higher paid jobs they want, then the quotas wont be necessary. Once more women are able to do those jobs, then more men can be stay at home husbands. complaining that you can't just get married but a woman can is a) nonsense and b) the fault of men.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

It isn't nonsense and yes, it is the fault of men, but to trivialize it is identical to the discrimination women experience.

[Kirsten]

what I am trivialising is the fact you think women can just get married if they don't feel like doing anything.

all these complaints against quotas are hilarious. women get turned down for jobs all the time purely for being female, now that men might face some discrimination in order to make a fairer system in the long term men are up in arms. how awful for you that your gender will only get 75-90% of the top jobs if board room quotas come in.

[eldargal]

It isn't nonsense and yes, it is the fault of men, but to trivialize it is identical to the discrimination women experience.
No it isn't. If we take the FTSE 100 then the senior management is 85.5% male but they are being selected from a graduate pool that is evenly split between the genders. The quotas are not discriminating against men, they are combating discrimination against women. Women are being allowed into jobs they were barred from, men are not being forced out of jobs. The woman who gets a job because of a quota would not get that job normally just because she was a woman, the man who missed out will have no problem getting a similar position because he is not discriminated against.

Also to address an earlier point, the gender ratio between graduates has been near 50/50 since 1980. The idea that the private sector is playing catch up to graduate demographics is absurd.

[Chris*ta]

The argument for quotas has its heart in the right place obviously, but the unseen consequences of quotas are detrimental to society as a whole.

Umm, any kind of evidence for this assertion? Plenty of countries with quotas are doing fine currently.


As an aside. In the quest for women's rights its often overlooked that a man does not have the same options as a woman in making sure they are fed. For instance a man is far, far less likely to be able to marry a career woman and be a 'stay at home' husband. But a woman , no matter how qualified is able to get married and be provided for in a far more frequent series of eventualities. Yet to say so is 'sexist' or 'insensitive'.

So, you want to marry a rich career womanso you don't have to work, but you're against a system that would increase the number of rich career women? Just a little hypocritical? Also, I don't know what century you live in, but where I live there are not that many men rich enough to support a wife who doesn't work in anything like luxury. Saying so is 'sexist' because it's actually F**KIN' SEXIST!

Also, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, because I think it bears consideration:


Look at the number of women in senior positions outside the corporate field, e.g. NGOs, charities, government, Universities. It's a lot higher than in corporations. All these places seem to be doing fine. And they're are not more women because they're are more women in these fields, but because they have fairer hiring/promotion policies.

[Learn2Eel]

I'm very much a supporter of the feminist movement - but more so as one part of a move for equality for all humans in general - as I feel the mistreatment of women is etched deep into modern society. Everywhere you go, women - but less so men - are constantly told what kind of person to be, or what weight/looks are "acceptable". I don't see any of the same stuff for men, and it ticks me off as there shouldn't be any of that crap in general. In the workplace, we all know about the "glass ceiling", even if managers don't consciously do it. Then there is the constant objectification of women in nearly every corner of society. At school for example, girls others considered to be "ugly" were picked upon and generally discriminated against, but the same thing rarely happened to boys who were also considered "ugly". To me, anyone that judges a person on physical appearance is an idiot anyway, but it nonetheless remains a valid issue. Why does one gender cop stuff like that but not the other?

One thing that really irritates me is the "perception", if it can be called that, that women are physically weaker than men. What? Most women I know would kick my butt. The only reason this "view" exists is because society tells women to be thin, and it tells men to be muscular. A woman has exactly the same potential to be big and muscular as a man; this "physically inferior" stuff is utter crap in my opinion. How about this; let people be who they bloody well want to be. I held these views throughout school and got bullied for them, but I didn't care. I would rather stand for equality and the freedom of choice than be a slave to corporate interests.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Umm, any kind of evidence for this assertion? Plenty of countries with quotas are doing fine currently.



So, you want to marry a rich career so you don't have to work, but you're against a system that would increase the number of rich career women? Just a little hypocritical? Also, I don't know what century you live in, but where I live there are not that many men rich enough to support a wife who doesn't work in anything like luxury. Saying so is 'sexist' because it's actually F**KIN' SEXIST!

Also, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, because I think it bears consideration:

Nope you caught me. I'm a huge sexist, in spite of a lifetime of objectivism and liberal philosophy I am a complete and utter bigot/racist/sexist/religionist/insert 'ist' here. No need pretending trying to discuss this as adults, clearly because I have a different view of the world than you do I am wrong.

[Chris*ta]

I didn't call you a sexist. I said that a comment you made was sexist.

It's really hard to discuss sexism with you if you can't see how the idea that "a woman can always fall back on marrying a rich man who can take care of her" isn't sexist.

[Denzark]

that argument is utterly flawed however. Quotas are needed in order to allow more women to get the jobs they deserve. what you think about it is irrelevant, it is necessary and it works. Once more women are able to get the jobs they want, especially the higher paid jobs they want, then the quotas wont be necessary. Once more women are able to do those jobs, then more men can be stay at home husbands. complaining that you can't just get married but a woman can is a) nonsense and b) the fault of men.

Jobs they 'deserve'? Let me get this right - what makes one deserve a job is not being the best candidate, but purely being a different sex? 'Once more women get the jobs they want?' Oh so a quota is about meeting a woman's employment whims, not anything to do with what is fair?


No it isn't. If we take the FTSE 100 then the senior management is 85.5% male but they are being selected from a graduate pool that is evenly split between the genders. The quotas are not discriminating against men, they are combating discrimination against women. Women are being allowed into jobs they were barred from, men are not being forced out of jobs. The woman who gets a job because of a quota would not get that job normally just because she was a woman, the man who missed out will have no problem getting a similar position because he is not discriminated against.

Also to address an earlier point, the gender ratio between graduates has been near 50/50 since 1980. The idea that the private sector is playing catch up to graduate demographics is absurd.

If any woman could prove she had been discriminated against during a recruitment process, to a legal evidential standard, she could sue the tits off any company that had done so. I know for a fact that there have been instances of people with names indicating an ethnic origin being dropped at the paper sift of recruitment - and when they send in a CV with an anglicised name they get through. What is the body of evidence that women are not getting selected purely because of their sex - numbers actually in post prove nothing - you would need to prove that a disproportionate amounts of applicants - OF EQUAL OR BETTER QUALIFICATIONS - are not getting the jobs purely because they are female.

I also wonder how those 14.5% in top management would feel, that potentially the people turning that percentage into the 25% you said would be acceptable, got their posts not on merit like the woman already in the post, but above a more meritorious candidate purely on the basis she is a she?

Sounds unfair to me. So feminists must engender unfairness to others to get fairness for themselves.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

It isn't that a woman must marry a rich man, since most men are not rich. But the option to get married and not work is a statstically reliable option for a higher number of women than men. To point this out is not sexist.

[Learn2Eel]

It isn't that a woman must marry a rich man, since most men are not rich. But the option to get married and not work is a statstically reliable option for a higher number of women than men. To point this out is not sexist.

Prove it. This is almost like saying "some women, but not so much men, actively don't work and use their looks to get married to rich people". Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it.

[eldargal]

Jobs they 'deserve'? Let me get this right - what makes one deserve a job is not being the best candidate, but purely being a different sex? 'Once more women get the jobs they want?' Oh so a quota is about meeting a woman's employment whims, not anything to do with what is fair?
There is no such thing as 'the best candidate'. There are many candidates, most of whom are perfectly well qualified and would perform the job capably. Many of them are women. The women do not get chosen because people tend to choose people like them which in the UK and Us means white men. It isn't necessarily a conscious decision on the part of the people doing the selecting, that is why it is called institutional sexism and why few lawsuits against such things are undertaken.


What is the body of evidence that women are not getting selected purely because of their sex - numbers actually in post prove nothing - you would need to prove that a disproportionate amounts of applicants - OF EQUAL OR BETTER QUALIFICATIONS - are not getting the jobs purely because they are female.

There is a great deal of evidence that qualified women are overlooked in favour of men. You only have to look at the figures. Over half of graduates are women with minimal variation except in things like IT and engineering. Most female graduates graduate with higher honours than their male counterparts. They enter the workforce at the same time but the women career trajectory slows down in middle management regardless of whether or not they have children.

Remember it isn't just about blatant things like women not being selected, many companies, particularly older companies have leaderships cultures that are often extremely boorish and male centric which can put women off leading to resignations or women not putting themselves forward for leadership. This is still institutional sexism and it is another way quotas can help by forcing the leadership culture to change.

I'm also really sick of this assumption that all the men already in these positions got there through merit alone. They did not, ask anyone working for a corporation what they think of the competence of upper management. They got their through a combination of charm, office politics and old boy networking. They are all mostly basically competent but few of them are necessarily 'the best candidate for the job' when judged on pure merit. No one cares, because it suggests to men they can take short cuts to the top by playing golf and being chummy with bigwigs. :rolleyes:

The idea that this would harm companies is also baseless when there are several studies that show companies with a higher percentage of female leadership perform much better than their male dominated counterparts.

Remember with a gender quota the woman being chosen still has to be qualified and there will by dozens if not hundreds of people who could have filled the job. The issue is making sure more women are chosen instead of being overlooked. Also, just having a un-enforced voluntary quota in the UK has sparked a significant change because it isn't actually difficult or detrimental for business to do this, it is a cultural change and little else.


I want to move away from this issue though, the thread is about educating people about feminism in general not focusing on whether or not gender quotas.

[Kirsten]

If any woman could prove she had been discriminated against during a recruitment process, to a legal evidential standard, she could sue the tits off any company that had done so. I know for a fact that there have been instances of people with names indicating an ethnic origin being dropped at the paper sift of recruitment - and when they send in a CV with an anglicised name they get through. What is the body of evidence that women are not getting selected purely because of their sex - numbers actually in post prove nothing - you would need to prove that a disproportionate amounts of applicants - OF EQUAL OR BETTER QUALIFICATIONS - are not getting the jobs purely because they are female.

I also wonder how those 14.5% in top management would feel, that potentially the people turning that percentage into the 25% you said would be acceptable, got their posts not on merit like the woman already in the post, but above a more meritorious candidate purely on the basis she is a she?

Sounds unfair to me. So feminists must engender unfairness to others to get fairness for themselves.

the evidence is all around you, women are half the population but not half of all jobs. a lot of the women in the board room are there because of legislation already. It really is amazing how you fail to grasp the simple principle that women are unfairly treated and will continue to be unfairly treated. the only way to change it is make people change. chief execs, directors, board members etc. do not want women in their men's club and that is inherently unfair. How many of these high powered positions do anything? how many of the men there are qualified to do anything? there is no danger whatsoever of any negative effect to a company. When I worked for AIG, the director would stroll in around 10:30, read the paper for an hour, take a few hours for lunch, and often not come back in again. What exactly is the qualification for that job pray tell? Your *****ing about it being unfair is hilarious, yes some qualified men will lose out on a job because they are men. you know what? tough. deal with it. The sooner the glass ceiling is removed, the sooner women are acknowledged as able and equal, the sooner artificial quotas can be removed and a fair system implemented where candidates are chosen for their merits.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Prove it. This is almost like saying "some women, but not so much men, actively don't work and use their looks to get married to rich people". Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it.

So you've never in your life known someone to get married and stay at home? You're looking for an implied insult in what I am saying and there isn't one. Everyone is obsessed with the idea of CEOs and major mover and shakers of business but the reality is, if you frequent sites like this you probobaly don't run a billion dollar business. Working can just be work. It doesn't have to be a major role in a mega corporation.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

the evidence is all around you, women are half the population but not half of all jobs. a lot of the women in the board room are there because of legislation already. It really is amazing how you fail to grasp the simple principle that women are unfairly treated and will continue to be unfairly treated. the only way to change it is make people change. chief execs, directors, board members etc. do not want women in their men's club and that is inherently unfair. How many of these high powered positions do anything? how many of the men there are qualified to do anything? there is no danger whatsoever of any negative effect to a company. When I worked for AIG, the director would stroll in around 10:30, read the paper for an hour, take a few hours for lunch, and often not come back in again. What exactly is the qualification for that job pray tell? Your *****ing about it being unfair is hilarious, yes some qualified men will lose out on a job because they are men. you know what? tough. deal with it. The sooner the glass ceiling is removed, the sooner women are acknowledged as able and equal, the sooner artificial quotas can be removed and a fair system implemented where candidates are chosen for their merits.

Again, you are talking about making people do something and that is force. Force is not an acceptable means to an end. A government that can force people to hire women is powerful enough to force people to not hire women. Please do not forget that fact. Appealing to government to solve your problems will only be abused later. Change society, government is not society. Government is an immoral repository of power mongers.

[eldargal]

Let's keep the political theory to it's own thread please.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Let's keep the political theory to it's own thread please.

No worries, my apologies.

[Learn2Eel]

So you've never in your life known someone to get married and stay at home? You're looking for an implied insult in what I am saying and there isn't one. Everyone is obsessed with the idea of CEOs and major mover and shakers of business but the reality is, if you frequent sites like this you probobaly don't run a billion dollar business. Working can just be work. It doesn't have to be a major role in a mega corporation.

I've known many people that have been married and stayed at home. And you know what? Half of them are men, half of them are women. The notion that more women marry rich men rather than an even split or even the other way around is a pretty silly notion to throw around when there is little, if any, proof. As to an implied insult, I'm sorry, but as a human, I take exception to all stigmatic or derogatory descriptions of women.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

I've known many people that have been married and stayed at home. And you know what? Half of them are men, half of them are women. The notion that more women marry rich men rather than an even split or even the other way around is a pretty silly notion to throw around when there is little, if any, proof. As to an implied insult, I'm sorry, but as a human, I take exception to all stigmatic or derogatory descriptions of women.


Get over it. There was not nor is any stigmatic or derogatory statements in what I said unless you intentionally twist my meanings. If you look at the majority of western society it is more acceptable for a woman to get married and stay at home than a man. And it has nothing to do with wealth.

[eldargal]

It is more acceptable because it used to be compulsory and there is still something of a stigma attached to women who choose career over family. Ironically it also meant that men who may be less fit for employment than their wives were forced to be breadwinners or today are looked on with bemusement for doing 'womens work' if they stay at home looking after their children.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

It is more acceptable because it used to be compulsory and there is still something of a stigma attached to women who choose career over family. Ironically it also meant that men who may be less fit for employment than their wives were forced to be breadwinners or today are looked on with bemusement for doing 'womens work' if they stay at home looking after their children.

Eldargal you are such a sexist for pointing that out! Where is your data!? Where is your proof!?

[Learn2Eel]

Get over it. There was not nor is any stigmatic or derogatory statements in what I said unless you intentionally twist my meanings. If you look at the majority of western society it is more acceptable for a woman to get married and stay at home than a man. And it has nothing to do with wealth.

So you're saying there is nothing stigmatic in your post when you imply it is easier for women to be married as a stay-at-home partner than a man? You might think it common knowledge, but it really serves to highlight the deeper issues with society where such a role is expected for women but frowned upon for men.

Incidentally, I didn't say I took insult to it. I merely said the situation displeases me. But way to prove your immaturity with such a snide comment!

[Marshal2Crusaders]

So you're saying there is nothing stigmatic in your post when you imply it is easier for women to be married as a stay-at-home partner than a man? You might think it common knowledge, but it really serves to highlight the deeper issues with society where such a role is expected for women but frowned upon for men.

Incidentally, I didn't say I took insult to it. I merely said the situation displeases me. But way to prove your immaturity with such a snide comment!

Isn't this a conversation about those exact ideas and their place in society? Again, the problem that all of these conversations come to is that when the 'progressive' idea is challenged, the challengers are anti-progress, in spite of their actual point.

[Denzark]

Your *****ing about it being unfair is hilarious, yes some qualified men will lose out on a job because they are men. you know what? tough. deal with it. The sooner the glass ceiling is removed, the sooner women are acknowledged as able and equal, the sooner artificial quotas can be removed and a fair system implemented where candidates are chosen for their merits.

Right Kirsten, lets do some true equality here. lets turn your argument around on yourself.

You *****ing about it (women not getting jobs because they are women) is hilarious, yes some qualified women are losing out on jobs because they are women. You know what? Tough. Deal with it.

Bet you don't like the boot being on the other foot do you?

PS what legislation do you refer to, that has got women into the board room?

[Psychosplodge]

At the risk of getting back on topic, this seems like the thread to point out today is the 100th anniversary of the death of Emily Wilding Davison at the Derby. I wonder what she'd make of today's society.

See we had an Empire, then we gave women the vote....

[Wolfshade]

Some interesting stats.
The male female ratio isn't 50:50 there is a swing to female majority, despite China's best efforts...
When you are looking at quotas the issue is what ratio do you use? General population, industry ratio, applicant ratio, company ratio, or position ratio.

[eldargal]

Right Kirsten, lets do some true equality here. lets turn your argument around on yourself.

You *****ing about it (women not getting jobs because they are women) is hilarious, yes some qualified women are losing out on jobs because they are women. You know what? Tough. Deal with it.

Bet you don't like the boot being on the other foot do you?

PS what legislation do you refer to, that has got women into the board room?
Ever heard of false equivalence? That's that your post is. Women currently make up 13.5% of FTSE 100 boards despite being HALF the graduate pool and usually having better academic qualifications than the men. While a man may not get a job due to a gender quota that will not prevent him getting a similar job in the future. In contrast that quota is the ONLY thing letting that woman get the job thanks to entrenched institutional sexism. The boot is so far from being on the other foot as far as women are concerned we don't have a boot at all.:p

[Denzark]

EG I am no mathmetician, statistician nor scientist. But I am pretty sure that the figure that matters is not merely how may are on the FTSE board versus overall number of graduates, but how many are on the board versus number of applicants. If 50% of applicants are women, and if that 50% held some better qualified persons who weren't getting through even when lesser qualified males were, that would be a more relevant figure. Ang I bet it is not in the 85% region, nor anywhere near it.

In fact, when some of those 50% take their degrees and go into other employment sectors where they represent more than 50%, ie Teachers (UK figures here people) that will skew the ability of those who aren't teachers, to present a 50% candidate pool.

Also, skew in the fact that the age of FTSE board members may be concurrent with motherhood, and some suitable candidates have opted out as a matter of choice. Therefore that reduces the candidate pool even further from 50%. I'm not saying only 15% are candidates and 15% get in so its all hunky dory - but that graduates representing 50% of society is an almost irrelevant figure for the reasons above.

[Psychosplodge]

Stolen from tumblr





12-year-old girl: I don't want kids when I grow up.
Society: You'll change your mind when you get older. You're only 12. You're too young to know what you want.
16-year-old girl: I'm pregnant.
Society: How could you be so stupid? Do you know anything about safe sex? You should be ashamed.
20-year-old woman: I'm a single mother with an infant son.
Society: You should've gone to college first. You need a stable career before you can support a child.
33-year-old woman: I'm married and my spouse and I both have stable careers. I have two young daughters now.
Society: You're not staying home? Who's going to take care of them? You're just going to put them in day care while you work? That's selfish of you. You can't expect to raise decent kids with a full-time job.
45-year-old woman: I just had my first child.
Society: Why would you have a child when you're that old? Do you realize the health risks of being pregnant at your age? When your kid is a teenager you'll be a senior citizen. That's inconsiderate of you.
60-year-old woman: I haven't had any children.
Society: Your life must be so unfulfilling. Is there something wrong with you? Why didn't you want kids? How strange.

[eldargal]

EG I am no mathmetician, statistician nor scientist. But I am pretty sure that the figure that matters is not merely how may are on the FTSE board versus overall number of graduates, but how many are on the board versus number of applicants. If 50% of applicants are women, and if that 50% held some better qualified persons who weren't getting through even when lesser qualified males were, that would be a more relevant figure. Ang I bet it is not in the 85% region, nor anywhere near it.
You're right, because institutional sexism sets in well before women get to the position that they can be appointed to boards. The entire system is dramatically stacked against women and that is why quotas are necessary, to help break down the self perpetuating, male dominated culture that permeated the private and public sectors.

Also, skew in the fact that the age of FTSE board members may be concurrent with motherhood, and some suitable candidates have opted out as a matter of choice.
But this would apply to fatherhood. Funny how being a parent immediately disqualifies women from senior positions but not men, despite the fact the woman may only be absent from work for a matter of weeks or months.

Norway introduced a 40% quota for boards, here is a quota from Norways Director General of the Departement of Family Affairs and Equality, Arni Hole:

In the past, it was simply a case of structural discrimination. What we saw, after a lot of research was done, was that many competent women (and many competent young men) were not even being put on the election lists to be nominated for elections to boards. So, in fact, it’s a question of having a gender balance when they set up election lists for boards, and looking for competent individuals from both genders from the very start of the process.
In other words not only were competent women being excluded in significant numbers, but so were competent men. Why? Because the selection processes for these positions are not merit based, they are based on social and political factors. The idea that quotas are contrary to a meritocracy is flawed because no such meritocracy exists, not on an industry wide level. Some companies will differ.

Psychosplodge, exactly so. Women cannot win no matter what we do. It is relevant to the gender quota hing too, women are often not put on lists for promotion because it is assumed they will have children and assumed it will compromise their ability to work. But no such assumption is made about men of a similar age who may already be fathers.

[Denzark]

I'm not sure I understand the Norwegian example. 'Election lists' - I thought we were talking about specific recruitment - not elections - ie a popularity contest. I fail to see how an election list quota for females will prevent competent young men being disadvantaged due to socio-political factors.

When I referred to motherhood, fatherhood is different - in that you don't have the physiological differences that pregnancy brings, so even if the woman does carry, drop, and go back to work sharpish, there will have been a period where she cannot necessarily put in the hours that she would do if not swollen with child.

On the subject of meritocracy, as a commissioned officer I compete directly against my peers for promotion, irrespective of sex, colour, creed or any other distinugishing factor except for ability. So maybe my views are trifle flawed - I can think of none of my female colleagues who would either want or more to the point, need things sewed in their direction in terms of quotas for any selection process. But then there are some they are naturally disqualified from - ie front line service.

On the subject of such, again, most of my female colleagues would rather not have all jobs made open to them - merely to advance gender equality. They would only want such a thing if they thought it would contribute more positively ie in terms of military effect than it would detriment things. The current thinking is that this is the case - I subscribe to that and am happy to describe why - I think I probably did in the dying pages of the last thread.

Based on that principle - that social engineering ie 'quota-ing' of employment - should be secondary to whether or not the end result is positive or negative for said organisation - I do not support quotas - you mentioned socio-political factors - it is well nigh impossible to completely represent society and I don't see why females should have action taken to reduce the socio-political factors that may prejudice them - when other minority/disadvantaged groups ie disabled, religious, gay whatever - do not.

[eldargal]

Election lists = list of candiates, internal or external.

Men can take leave and go on holiday, what's yout point? It still comes bck to motherhood being seen as a liability while fatherhood is not. That is sexist.

The military, particularly the British military, has always been more meritocratic than the private and public sectors.

But of a woman meets all the physical and mental requirements for, say, front line duty why should she be barred from it just because men have issues with it? That isn't meritocratic.

Ending discrimination against women is not social engineering. I have already provided a link to a study which found that companies with boards comprising more than 25% women were considerably more profitable than their male dominated competitors. While quotas can be problematic there is no doubt that the end result, more women on boards, is better for women, society and the companies in question.

[Denzark]

One of my chaps is currently on light duties having had gall stones removed. That impediment is taking less time from his primary duties than pregnancy even with the minimum maternity leave. That is not a sexist fact - it just is. Both are liabilities in their own way, i do not view one as worse than the other. I don't even take into account that the former is unplanned, the latter will in most cases be the individual deciding the time is right to have a baby.

When it comes to teeth arm service, I agree there are women who may be better, faster, fitter than men. One of the ladies I graduated with took the trophies for academic and sporting achievement, and already outranks me - I took no trohpies. I acknowledge Soviet studies that females may make better snipers. But these are very rare individuals. The overall negative effect on unit cohesion outweighs any perceivable benefits at this time. I would probably support all female units - but scale of economy is that there are simply not enough women who can make the grade - and I would not support a dumbing down of standards to allow the entry requirements to be met.

With regards to the profitability of boards with over 25% of women - I think this is your false equivalence thingymabob. The profitability might not be a direct link to the ratio of xy chromosomes but actually that the dominant males on the board, are open minded enough to allow females on - as opposed to the dinosaur companies that don't follow suit - therefore that mental flexibility is what make the profits - not the femmes who unless you provide a breakdown by individual porfolio/responsibility - may just be decoration.

[Psychosplodge]

IDK about that, in my experience of pregnancy the majority are unplanned.

[Kirsten]

there is the argument again though, women should not be front line soldiers not because of fitness, but because the men wouldn't like it. Undoubtedly it would have an effect, but that is exactly the problem, women being denied something they can do because men don't want it. As far as board room evidence, EG cited the Norwegians, France have I think a 10% requirement, the UK has done some voluntary things, tried to encourage companies, with little success and are now looking at enforcing it. Or were, it was a labour initiative I think so the tories may have scrapped it.

[eldargal]

If I get a cold I'll take less time off than minimum pregnancy, what's your point? The fact remains there is a perception that you don't promote women because they will have children and thus no longer be useful. It's absurd. Obviously the military is different again because one can work in an office while heavily pregnant, much military work not so much.

If they are rare it is because society tells women not to be stronger, faster and fitter than men and the fact that even if they then achieve those standards they will be prevented from serving is just another disincentive. I don't support a dumbing down of standards either, that is far more damaging than the perception that quotas let less competent women be promoted. This attitude is actually symptomatic of another mechanism used to dis-empower women. We are told our heroes are exceptions, aberrations in the natural order. From Joan of Arc to Lyudmila Pavlichenko to Marissa Mayer (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/19/turnaround-marissa-mayers-first-300-days-as-yahoos-ceo/) we are told these women who do what men do or even greater things are rare exceptions, not something every woman could aspire to. In contrast similar male heroes are often portrayed as what any man could aspire to if he puts in the effort.

No it isn't false equivalence. False equivalence is comparing two things that are completely different and pretending they are the same for the sake of making a point, to put it simply. In the case of the study on female boards you have something that is exactly the same: corporate boards. The ones with more women were considerably more profitable, the ones without were not. The idea that it is benign male leadership is ridiculous, if the male leadership were so open minded the same companies would have more than 2% female CEOs.

[SeekingOne]

Before I comment, here one curious general question to you people...

We all, hopefully, agree, that women and men are (or at least should be) essentially equal in their rights, but still are not identical as human beings. Now, suppose I say that this difference, in particular, manifests as a significant difference in capability to take care of children, especially small ones (say, under 5 years). In other words, suppose I say that on average men are significantly less capable to take care of children than women. And this might play a certain role in the whole thing about matherhood influencing the number of women in top management positions, etc.

Would that be considered sexist? If yes, then in favour of which gender? Or would you simply argue that this statement is blatantly wrong? (I know at least one specific guy surely will, but what about others? :D)

Please let me know what you think.


But this would apply to fatherhood. Funny how being a parent immediately disqualifies women from senior positions but not men, despite the fact the woman may only be absent from work for a matter of weeks or months.

It is relevant to the gender quota hing too, women are often not put on lists for promotion because it is assumed they will have children and assumed it will compromise their ability to work. But no such assumption is made about men of a similar age who may already be fathers.
I just can't help mentioning that in my experience (and I stress that it's just my personal experience based on my local culture, so opinions may and likely would vary), this stuff happens not without a reason.

See, throughout my life I've been constantly running into a number of factors, and it happened often enough for me to firmly believe it's a system rather than coincidence.

Factor 1. Senior management functions, at least when done properly, are extremely taxing. Effectively, a typical successful senior manager is practically what I'd call a 'no-lifer' :) It's a person who comes to office at about 8 am and leaves at 9-10 pm, which leaves little time to any sort of personal life. And even when out of office, they're still at work - dining with business partners, constantly writing e-mail, making and answering calls, etc. Many also spend weeks upon weeks in business trips. One might argue that it's not the 'proper' way of doing things, and I wholeheartedly agree - but that's what I see as a reality around me. So, mind you, it's not some imaginary stereotype that I'm retelling, but my actual experience of people who I personally know or knew.

Factor 2. Men tend to care very little about their family role as husbands and fathers. Seriously, there is a select handful of caring fathers out there, but most men practically don't give a damn. Again, this may sound as a dumb stereotype, and there does exist a stereotype of this sort. And when I was young I also seriously thought it to be bollocks, but, believe it or not, eventually I did come to realise that this stereotype kind of reflects the sad truth. And it doesn't mean that men don't love their wives or kids - most of them do. It's just that men, on average, tend to be generally much more inclined to fulfil their own egos than to care about others (and this, btw, is precisely the main reason for the long-standing discrimination of women imho). At least, they seem to be much more inclined to that line of behaviour than women - in my experience, that is. Thus, when a man is given an opportunity of a senior management position, he's often quite willing to pursue this opportunity, even if it comes at the expense of his role in his family.

Factor 3. Women, on the other hand, somehow tend to be more caring. I'd even go as far as to say that, in a very general sense, women tend to be a bit more cooperative, while men tend to be somewhat more competitive. This actually might be one of the reasons why companies with considerable number of women on their boards tend to do even better than male-only ones - internal competition and ego-fulfilment often happens to be bad for business (and those "old-boy networks" are also all about mutual ego-fulfilment, really). But, this also means that women do tend to take their family life more seriously, and are less inclined to sacrifice it to career - which makes them somewhat less willing to assume senior management positions. In other words, this is not about materinity leaves as such - but rather about general unwillingness of women to become management 'no-lifers' at the expense of their families.

EDIT:
Mind you, I'm not trying to prove that women are not discriminated as far as jobs or salaries go. Rather, I'd say that women may not even be put on lists for promotion not only because of inherent sexism, but also because they themselves don't put so much competitive effort into getting on those lists - and that is because they sometimes may not really feel like getting into those top tiers of management.

Just sharing my experience, really. Feel free to dismiss it as immaterial :)

[eldargal]

Well, we don't know if women are actually more competent parents or if it is a social construct in that women are taught the skills needed far more than men because of the assumption that it is 'womens work'.

Factor 1: They are taxing, but when it comes to women getting those positions again it comes down to the assumption that a mother won't be able to be a parent and work while a father can.

Factor 2 & 3: These are social constructs, family work is the mothers role while the father is bread winner. Women are expected to be nurturing and caring while men are expected to be competitive and heartless. It's a good example of why patriarchy hurts men even while it privileges them by limiting their role and responses. Often women feel they have HAVE to put family before career because their partner won't.


there is the argument again though, women should not be front line soldiers not because of fitness, but because the men wouldn't like it. Undoubtedly it would have an effect, but that is exactly the problem, women being denied something they can do because men don't want it. As far as board room evidence, EG cited the Norwegians, France have I think a 10% requirement, the UK has done some voluntary things, tried to encourage companies, with little success and are now looking at enforcing it. Or were, it was a labour initiative I think so the tories may have scrapped it.
Yup, it amounts to punishing women for the behaviour of men. Women can't be on the frontline even if they are good enough because men start acting unprofessionally. It's victim blaming.

[Denzark]

@ EG But if you are saying the companies can be more profitable with just 25% female boards and 2% female CEOs, why do they need more female CEOs? Unless the fact specifically prove that the increased profitability is down to those individual females - which what you have provided doesn't. Again, some of the studies provided at earlier links, refer to the fact it is WHITE males on the boards. You don't make a claim that other demographics should be represented (granted this is a feminism thread) but why should another demographic not receive a quota, but females should?

Also, as to women being told by society that they may not be stronger fitter etc - I thought this is a matter of fact not fiction? Do you support mixed olympic events where almost every single olympic record set by men is better (faster, longer, more weight etc) than the equivalent in the female grades?

@ Kirsten - the females in teeth arms is not merely because men wouldn't like it. We do lots of things we may not like in the military, ranging from shaving every day, to saluting people you think are coccks, to compulsory drugs test, to digging flood defences, to covering for striking lefty firemen, to picking up cow carcasses during foot and mouth, to getting out of our nice safe trench to go and bayonet someone who is trying to put little 7.62mm holes in your body - you get my point.

We do what we are told. The reason it is not seen as a good idea, is because of unit cohesion. When an office romance takes place, the jealousy doesn't potentially get people killed. I'm not on about people getting fragged - although that could happen. I'm on about seething resentment undermining morale - not something you roll 2d6 for - a precious, real thing that can make the difference between life and death. I'm on about the current thinking that blokes will carry on fighting when their mates are shot, but are much more likely to stop and try to give aid if they see a female shot down - even more likely if it is a girl friend.

[Kirsten]

that is still the same issue however, you could sum it up as 'women will come along and the men wont be able to help themselves and it is all the women's fault'. Out of curiosity when a man gets shot who does give them aid then? Are you all trained to ignore him?

[Chris*ta]

Aren't these similar to the arguments about not having gays and lesbians in the military? And just about every civilised country other than the US has been doing that for ages and not having problems.

You know, I refer to "civilised countries other than the US" so often that I want a word to refer to it. Not that I'm saying the US is uncivilised, it just seems that they have relatively little in common with, well, every other civilised country.

[Kirsten]

I am asking a serious question here. there was a documentary on last year, one of these where a camera crew follows soldiers on a patrol, in Afghanistan I think. They rest for the night in a building with huge high hedges all around it and not enough people watching the edges of the compound, a group of insurgents attack and a squaddie gets wounded. Four people carry him back inside, and stand around watching waiting to see what happens to their friend, and the officer had to order them twice to get back outside and get on with their jobs. I have never been in the military, no idea what it is like, but I would imagine concern for a friend is strong.

[eldargal]

I never said there should be more female CEOs, I said there needs to be more women on the boards to help breakdown the male dominated culture that prevents women from getting there in the first place. More female CEOs would be nice and will happen naturally as those barriers are broken down. But given the obscenely slow rate at which the proportion of women on boards is increasing (or not as the case may be) quotas are needed. Remember no one is talking about specific roles here. I'm not saying that if a company has 50% women on the board but a male CEO that is worse than 50% female with a female CEO. Both are fine so long as there is a culture that lets women reach their maximum potential.

Yes, men generally put in more muscle mass more easily but that is largely irrelevant. Women can still reach the standards required for front line work, but there is no incentive for them to do so because they will be barred from it regardless. It doesn't matter that some man may be stronger than you if you can still meet the minimum requirements.

What Kirsten said. It still amounts to men behaving unprofessionally because of women, not women behaving unprofessionally.

Aren't these similar to the arguments about not having gays and lesbians in the military? And just about every civilised country other than the US has been doing that for ages and not having problems.

You know, I refer to "civilised countries other than the US" so often that I want a word to refer to it. Not that I'm saying the US is uncivilised, it just seems that they have relatively little in common with, well, every other civilised country.

Yes indeed, the principle is the same. Gay men would damage unit cohesion and morale etc. by forming emotional attachments and confusing the straight men blahblah. Never any evidence and it has been strongly refuted. I've no doubt that the same will happen with women eventually. Israel seems to be doing it already.

[Chris*ta]

I believe there were similar arguments about harm to morale and unit cohesion about allowing blacks into formerly white units and no one would consider that a problem now.

It seems like these kinds of arguments, i.e. allowing some discriminated against group (women, black people, gays and lesbians) some right (voting, marriage, equal rights to work, military service) have been going on since the 1800s and no one really takes any notice of those that were decided more than a few decades in the past. And yet there needs to be a huge argument over each new one.

[Gotthammer]

Well, ya see, Chris*ta, most people are really stupid. I mean think of someone you would describe as being of average intelligence - half the population is dumber than them...

[Kirsten]

this is pretty bad, a Chinese city plans to fine women who have babies outside of marriage
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57587292/china-city-plans-to-fine-unmarried-women-for-having-babies/

[Wolfshade]

Well, ya see, Chris*ta, most people are really stupid. I mean think of someone you would describe as being of average intelligence - half the population is dumber than them...

That isn't necessarily true. Only if average is referring to a median and not a mean (and where the mean and median are co-incident).

[SeekingOne]

Factor 1: They are taxing, but when it comes to women getting those positions again it comes down to the assumption that a mother won't be able to be a parent and work while a father can.
IMHO, it's not quite that... In reality, a heavily over-working person is not able to be a good parent at the same time - it is true for both fathers and mothers alike. I actually believe that most people on all levels realize this, even though not all might admit it openly. So, IMO, it's rather the assumption that mother is overall more important to the family than father, and thus an over-working man unable to be a good father would be relatively less detrimental to the family and thus more 'normal' and 'acceptable' thing.

The difference is small, but it is there. And the reasons of it go deep to the stone-age principle of men being fundamentally more expendable - I think it was already mentioned before in these threads. Men are expendable, and thus they go out to hunt and fight risking themselves, while women, being fundamentally more valuable, look after children in relative safety. It has absolutely nothing to do with any gender being "better" than the other - it's a basic matter of survival of the species.

What we're dealing with now is, definitely, a social construct - but it has grown from those basic survival principles and that's why it's so persistent and doesn't go away so easily. In the modern society those principles have mutated almost beyond recognition, but they still can be recognized. In my view, the fact that men are more welcome in the over-strained senior positions is at least as much a sign of men still being 100% expendable as it is an 'advantage' (a questionable advantage, really). Hell, to me in long term it's almost as hazardous as frontline combat, lol


It's a good example of why patriarchy hurts men even while it privileges them by limiting their role and responses. Often women feel they have HAVE to put family before career because their partner won't.

This I agree with, absolutely.

[Denzark]

@ Christa - the arguments about mixed race units were totally different. Because at the time all society was segregated on lines of race. US probably more than ours. It was not based on physical differences and sexual relations, which is waht the argumenets of unit cohesion boil down to.

@ Kirsten - initial first aid is by your team buddies and a combat medic. But as you saw in the documentary, once the initial first aid is given you have to get on with your job. Current accepted thinking is as follows: Young men and women in hgihly stressful situations naturally gravitate together. Shagging happens. Those who don't get the shagging get jealous. Those who do don't. But if they see the object of their desires get hurt, this will have a more detriental effect than if you see your mate get hurt. if you research through wikipedia (I know, academic quality) on women in combat, you will see referenced a book on the psychology of combat, and it specifically states that original thinking from the Israelis was that men go to absolute pieces when they see a female colleague hurt. Clearly they have discounted that - but they are conscripts not volunteers - it is slightly more problematic and besides, we are more professional than them.


The argument that gays in the military shows unit cohesion would not be negatively effected by females in teeth arm units is irrelevant. Because most males in the teeth arms are hetero. So they don't have an object of desire to go to pieces over. I have no doubt that if a gay saw his lover shot his function would be impaired beyond that of seeing someone he was no attracted to shot. The Hetero males do not get jealous if the gay males are getting there ends away.

I have seen how badly shagging and affairs can affect the moral and therefore performance of a mixed unit, first hand. I have had 2 separate male Navy friends tell me that 'Stag' ships, ie those with all male populations, are happier places than those with a limited number of females. Whilst I acknowledge that some exceptional women can be fitter, faster, stronger than males, I disagree with the contention that all could potentially meet those standards, and that more would attempt to do so if there was no blanket ban. Quite simply, I would need to be convinced that a mixed teeth arm unit would be more militarily effective than an equivalent non-mixed unit, before I'd support a full mix - equality, when lives are at stake, can take a back seat.

As a final thought, I weigh 85kg, and probably carry at least another 20kg on a patrol - as a non-infantry officer. So, if you take that 20kg as an absolute minimum, add it on your weight, and then split say 100kg in 4 - to recreate the weight of carrying me, my body armour and helmet, on a stretcher - so an extra 45kg on top of your body weight, who do you think my Wife and Mother wants to be on one side of the stretcher carrying me at the jog for 2 miles in 45 degrees Afghan heat to a CASEVAC chopper - a strapping bloke or a female who got in to promote equality?

[eldargal]

The fact remains there were arguments against mixed raced regiments based on prejudice and anecdotal evidence that have now been utterly refuted. Ditto for homosexual soldiers. The same will happen for women eventually I've no doubt.

The argument against women still comes down to 'men lose professionalism if women are around, therefore women must be banned from doing something even if they are good enough'.

The argument against gays isn't irrelevant because it was exactly the same principle. It was felt that if soldiers couldn't be sure that their comrade in arms wasn't keen on shagging them that they would become suspicious and unit cohesion would break down. It's much the same, just replace homophobic tropes with sexist ones.

See above re: anecdotal evidence and victim blaming.

Final thought is silly.:p No one is arguing that physical standards should be relaxed, just like a male each female will have to prove she can meet the physical requirements. Just like not all men will meet those standards not all women will either. No issue here. That 'female who got in to promote equality' will be just as capable of carrying you as the 'strapping bloke'. If your wife and mother don't like it they need to stop being so close-minded.

Good article on the subject from the US:
Women on the frontline? Of Course (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/30/opinion/armour-women-in-combat)

Women have already proven we can handle ourselves on the front lines. And in recent times, even with the ban on women in combat in place, women have been POWs. The Lioness Program, the Marine Corps all-female search team, is an example of why we can't accomplish our front line missions without women. The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines.

The argument that women in combat will have a negative impact on unit cohesion and morale is the same argument that was used to keep blacks and gays out of the military. At what point do we bring a stop to these ridiculous arguments and address what really matters?

For those who are against women serving on the front line, know this: Opening up combat roles for women is merely formalizing the reality of what was already happening; it's just opening more roles and opportunities. The bottom line is if you can do the job, you should be out there doing it, whether you're a man or a woman.

So the US has apparently lifted the frontline ban on women (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html).

[eldargal]

Getting back to why patriarchy is also bad for men despite the privileged it brings, another article I spotted on CNN just now:

When mom earns more, it's tough on dad (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/30/opinion/drexler-women-breadwinners/index.html?iid=article_sidebar)

A new study by Pew Research Center finds that, more and more, married mothers are earning more than their husbands -- about 23%, up from 4% in 1960. That's nearly one in four families. And although men say they support equality, they are struggling with this new reality.

But the answer, of course, isn't for women to revert to their traditional roles of cooking, cleaning and tending to the children while the man of the house is off bringing home the bacon. As more and more women rise to powerful positions in the workplace, the incidence of female breadwinners will continue to grow.
Husbands of these wives who may be experiencing feelings of depression and low self-esteem would be wise to have an honest conversation with their spouse, and themselves, to find out what's really bothering them. Oftentimes, it may not be the fact that their spouse earns more, but that their spouse may have less time to spend at home, or may be neglecting other areas of the relationship.

I really would like it if we could get away from the gender quota thing now as it's been discussed enough and while important institutional sexism in senior management is far from the only challenge facing women today.

[SeekingOne]

no one really takes any notice of those that were decided more than a few decades in the past. And yet there needs to be a huge argument over each new one.

There's an old saying that goes like this: "All new ideas always struggle into our life in one and the same way: all those who oppose them gradually die out, and the new generations just take them for granted".

[Learn2Eel]

Isn't this a conversation about those exact ideas and their place in society? Again, the problem that all of these conversations come to is that when the 'progressive' idea is challenged, the challengers are anti-progress, in spite of their actual point.

I'm confused. Are we agreeing that women shouldn't be stereotyped? Because that sounds like the best outcome for everyone.


Would that be considered sexist? If yes, then in favour of which gender? Or would you simply argue that this statement is blatantly wrong? (I know at least one specific guy surely will, but what about others? :D)

Are you referring to me?

Personally, I feel that the "stone age" stereotypes - as well as the whole "men who stay at home are frowned upon" but not vice versa, as well as other stereotypes - are just an excuse for the mistreatment of women to continue. The inherent issue is not that most people actively perpetuate these stereotypes, it is that the stereotypes are so ingrained into modern society that the evolution of human/women's rights won't fix it any time soon. And really, it is just a sad reminder of how pitifully blind and immobile modern society is. Everyone talks about the evolution of technology and humans rights campaigns - i.e. racial equality - but arguably the largest societal issue, that of equality for women, is still left in the dark.

[Learn2Eel]

As a final thought, I weigh 85kg, and probably carry at least another 20kg on a patrol - as a non-infantry officer. So, if you take that 20kg as an absolute minimum, add it on your weight, and then split say 100kg in 4 - to recreate the weight of carrying me, my body armour and helmet, on a stretcher - so an extra 45kg on top of your body weight, who do you think my Wife and Mother wants to be on one side of the stretcher carrying me at the jog for 2 miles in 45 degrees Afghan heat to a CASEVAC chopper - a strapping bloke or a female who got in to promote equality?

There are a lot of things wrong with this post, but here are two specific examples;

1) Women are as capable physically as men. As eldargal points out, your point is superfluous as the same training/doctrines for physical demands apply to both men and women. The only reason that the perception of women being "weaker" than men exists is that the stereotypical role of women in society is to stay at home, even though it is a ludicrous notion as more and more men are doing the exact same thing. That businesses and the media constantly tell women - and men too - how to be physically to conform to their outdated notions of "what is right" is as big a stumbling block as the stereotype itself.

2) Your diction of a "strapping bloke or a female who got in to promote equality" doesn't really sit right, as your example could just as easily be reworded to "puny man who got in because of military connections or a woman who passed all her tests". I think you fail to realize that both men and women are bound by the same requirements in any job; in the case of the military, both have to conform to a required physical stature. The idea of "filling the quota" exists because of the bias towards men, even if they have the same or fewer qualifications than a woman. It is a redundant and pathetic attempt at satisfying the feminist movement, and all it actually does is perpetuate the sexism even further.

[Wolfshade]

I would disagree with Learn2Eel.
The fact of the matter is that there are several fundamental differences between the biology of men and women. Yes training can help in part, but there are things which you cannot over come through training.
Of course these are all "on a spectrum", there are men who show "women levels of aptitude" and vice versa.

So time for some generalisations, which I realise that you can find obvious counter examples, however.

Women tend to have better peripheral vision.
Men tend to have better spatial awareness.

[It has been suggested one reason for this is the different roles they played during evolution with men concentrating on one thing the hunt, with the women being on the look out in a more defensive action]

Men and women think differently, this is a result of women having higher trans-hemisphere connections. Consequently, men and women can make the same decision but a woman would have an emotional response to it to some degree. This different brain chemsitry is also evident as women are much better at performing a number of tasks simulateneously.

Women tend to have a higher % body fat.

This is not me saying that women are generally fatter, biologically speaking the extra % body fat is perferrable and is an advantage when pregnant.

Men tend to have larger denser bones.

Average height shows this to be the case, though whether this is evolutionary advantage (helping hunting and what not) or because they have first pick of the food so it is more of a casual relationship that is unclear.

Men tend to be physically superior. [While I dislike the term superior in this context, strictly speaking it is the best word to use, no offence intended].

We can see this in professional atheletes (I am excluding "sports stars" from this). Comparing men's and women's world records, I am unaware where a female equivalent is the same or in excess of the womens. Now there is an arguement that they do not have access to the same training facilities and what have you as men do, but I would say at the very top of their game that this is a moot point really.

In terms of having to have a certain level of phyisciality to be able to do a job, in those sorts of jobs there is a fitness test which sifts those capable from no so while a male collegue might be stronger it should not be detrimental to their ability to do the job.

[Learn2Eel]

I would disagree with Learn2Eel.
The fact of the matter is that there are several fundamental differences between the biology of men and women. Yes training can help in part, but there are things which you cannot over come through training.
Of course these are all "on a spectrum", there are men who show "women levels of aptitude" and vice versa.

So time for some generalisations, which I realise that you can find obvious counter examples, however.

Women tend to have better peripheral vision.
Men tend to have better spatial awareness.

[It has been suggested one reason for this is the different roles they played during evolution with men concentrating on one thing the hunt, with the women being on the look out in a more defensive action]

Men and women think differently, this is a result of women having higher trans-hemisphere connections. Consequently, men and women can make the same decision but a woman would have an emotional response to it to some degree. This different brain chemsitry is also evident as women are much better at performing a number of tasks simulateneously.

Women tend to have a higher % body fat.

This is not me saying that women are generally fatter, biologically speaking the extra % body fat is perferrable and is an advantage when pregnant.

Men tend to have larger denser bones.

Average height shows this to be the case, though whether this is evolutionary advantage (helping hunting and what not) or because they have first pick of the food so it is more of a casual relationship that is unclear.

Men tend to be physically superior. [While I dislike the term superior in this context, strictly speaking it is the best word to use, no offence intended].

We can see this in professional atheletes (I am excluding "sports stars" from this). Comparing men's and women's world records, I am unaware where a female equivalent is the same or in excess of the womens. Now there is an arguement that they do not have access to the same training facilities and what have you as men do, but I would say at the very top of their game that this is a moot point really.

In terms of having to have a certain level of phyisciality to be able to do a job, in those sorts of jobs there is a fitness test which sifts those capable from no so while a male collegue might be stronger it should not be detrimental to their ability to do the job.

So what part of all of this explains the bias towards men even if the men and women who apply have the same qualifications/aptitudes/physicality, which is what eldargal and myself were referring to? The reality is that if fifty people apply for the same military career, twenty five from each gender, all with basically the same qualifications, more men will be picked because of the ingrained "bias" (if you will) that men are more physically suited to work such as the army, when that simply is not the case. Or, rather, the "bias" should never come into play, particularly if the women actually have the qualifications to perform the role effectively. You can talk about what is more "likely" to be the case for either gender, but that doesn't mean those examples don't exist. There is no justification at all for the stance that military bodies take on this issue, as the people who are worthy to be selected should be selected; no ifs, no buts.

A question for you all; why is it that incredibly muscular men are somewhat common, but the same is not true with women? It might come as a surprise, but it actually has nothing to do with the "physical capabilities" inherent with being a man or woman.

Also, in regards to the sporting, that is because throughout the ages men have been seen as the physically dominant, and society has essentially ordered women to conform to set ideals of physicality and role. In the modern age, men's sports are the more popular not because they are necessarily the superior athletes, but because recognition of females doing stuff other than sitting at home is still yet to take hold in the deep roots of society.

[Wolfshade]

The part about men being able to make decisions without an emotional response?

Don't get me wrong I do not think gender or racial bias should occur, but stating that men and women have the same potential is misguided.

In resopnse to your direct question, ones ability to put on extereme muscle mass is important and that cannot be devoleved from such a discussion. I have never really considered the reasons why, but we can trott out the lack of role modles, society bias towards what is to be expected etc.

A comparison between the London 2012 Atheletics some of these are hardly "popular" (when compared with say football) and with modern countries having equivalent male and female training programmes. In every event the male gold winning time/distance is quicker/further than the female. The two exceptions are the 110m hurdles, and this is because men race 110m and women 100, and the discus and there the weight of the discuss is lighter (similiarly the hammer and shot).

[Kirsten]

is there a point to discussing physiological differences between top end male and female athletes?

[Wolfshade]

Illustrating that it is a fallacy to assume that they have equal physicality (or potential) while trying not to sound like I am being disparaging/dismissive/sexist...

[eldargal]

The part about men being able to make decisions without an emotional response?.
Which is a myth in itself. Ignoring the fact that men are just as emotional as men just trained by society to be less demonstrative (which is highly unhealthy) modern psychological theory suggests that all our decisions are emotional responses even when we think we are being rational. The idea that women are emotional and men are not is one of the oldest and most erroneous of misogynist stereotypes in our society. Ironically there is considerable evidence that men are far more emotional about relationships and cope much more poorly than women when a relationship fails.

The differences between male and female athletes has actually narrowed over the past century which suggests that much of it may be social than inherently physiological. It is also worth noting that the size and muscle mass of Western men has increased dramatically over the past two hundred years. There was a study which found that women on average had 50% less upper body muscle mass than men but similar lower body mass which could be explained by the fact that the most popular forms of exercise among women tend to be lower body focuses and that a muscule upper body is considered unattractive.

Point is, this is a very complex issue and all that matters is this:

If a woman can meet the physical requirements for a task or occupation she should not be prevented from doing it because she is a woman.

The issue isn't the idea that there are no physical differences between men and women but that the diversity in the genders and between them is so extreme that barring either half the population from something where one can have an objective measure is absurd. A lot of men will never be able to meet the physical requirements for frontline service either but we don't go generalizing about the whole gender.

[Wolfshade]

If a woman can meet the physical requirements for a task or occupation she should not be prevented from doing it because she is a woman.

Exactly.

I am unsure that I would agree with you but the neuirological papers I am recalling are over a decade old now so their might be some changes. I don't tend to keep up-to-date with my nueroscience reading. Though the practicing psychologists I know tend to come down on acknowledging this difference as a consequence of brain structure.

[eldargal]

Here is an article on the subject (http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making). There are many more, it's well accepted. People who have suffered brain damage that prevent them having emotions have immense trouble making any decisions at all, even choosing what to have for dinner. It's very interesting but it does put a nail in the coffin of the myth that men make rational decisions and women make emotional ones. That is jsut pure, sexist bullsh!t.

[Wolfshade]

That's hardly a journal article mind.

[eldargal]

Nope, I just picked it 'cos it gives an overview. As I said there are heaps of articles out there, it's generally accepted by the neuroscience/psychological communities.

[Wolfshade]

Also are you claiming that it is sexist because I am suggesting the notion, however it had been my wife who suggested it would you have said she was?

[eldargal]

The idea itself, that women make emotional decisions and men do not, is sexist because it is absolutely untrue but is used to discriminate against women. Everyone makes emotional decisions. It doesn't matter who suggests it, it is a widespread myth. It doesn't make either of you sexist for saying it, it just makes you wrong.:p

[Wolfshade]

Fair enough.

I think all rational people should agree that candidate selection should be independent on sex/religion/orientation.
Unfortunately we know that that is not the case, the various reports on gnder pay equality show this. Improvements are being made and the fact that we can have debates about such things and alternate views and opinions are considered, rather than just being dismissed out of hand are steps forwards.

[Kirsten]

Illustrating that it is a fallacy to assume that they have equal physicality (or potential) while trying not to sound like I am being disparaging/dismissive/sexist...

for what though? I am not currently planning on running the men's hundred metres. nobody is claiming that men and women at the peak of their physical abilities are equal, that does not mean that they can't be equal in plenty of other physically demanding roles.

[Wolfshade]

for what though? I am not currently planning on running the men's hundred metres. nobody is claiming that men and women at the peak of their physical abilities are equal, that does not mean that they can't be equal in plenty of other physically demanding roles.

Reductio ad absurdum

[Kirsten]

Reductio ad absurdum

what about it? I have no idea what you are trying to get at with this conversation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10091382/Omid-Djalili-Im-taking-on-the-Iranian-government-on-behalf-of-women.-Its-nutty.html
Omid Djalili talking about feminism, among other things

[Wolfshade]

If you had read that which I had wrote you would have seen that I said:

"In terms of having to have a certain level of phyisciality to be able to do a job, in those sorts of jobs there is a fitness test which sifts those capable from no so while a male collegue might be stronger it should not be detrimental to their ability to do the job. "

To be more verbose, if there is a physical requirement to perform a job, then as long as applicants are able to achieve the required benchmark then whether they "just pass" or "pass with flying colours" would not affect their ability to perform their tasks. That there should be no descrimination in those roles where the requirements are passed.

The argument was that men and women had the same physically is patently untrue demonstrated rather tourtously by myself. Therefore arguemnts constructed on this are absurd. We are different, both between the sexes and within ourselves. None of us are equal to each other. But, that does not mean that anyone should be treated differently, no. We should all be treated equally, regardless of what makes us different, in fact despite or because we are all unequal and different.

[Kirsten]

that certainly was rather torturous and I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make? everybody knows there are physical differences and nobody is trying to claim that physical requirements for a role be relaxed.

[eldargal]

It is also debatable as to how much of the physical differences in regards to strength are nurture rather than nature. As I said men have increased in size and muscle mass considerably over the past century and the gap between top athletes is diminishing.

[Earl Harbinger]

The Pentagon has struck down the ban on women in combat positions, whether or not we'll ever actually see signigicant numbers of women in combat units remains to be seen. Women should absolutely be allowed to enlist and pursue the same jobs but just because women are allowed in combat doesn't mean there will be a large number of women who want to be in combat or a large number of women who can pass through the required training schools. 20 years from now there could very well still be only men serving in Marine rifle companies even though the job is available to women and it wouldn't be due to sexism. If the process isn't sexist then the outcome can't be sexist.


USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/marine-corps-women-combat/1873753/)

WASHINGTON — In his first interview since the Pentagon opened ground combat jobs to women, the commandant of the Marine Corps said some occupations may ultimately remain closed if only a small number qualify.

The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. "We can't afford to lower standards," he said. "We can't make adjustments on what's required on the battlefield.

"That's not why America has a Marine Corps," he said.

The Marine Corps, like the Army, is reviewing the physical and other standards required for direct combat fields that had previously been closed to female servicemembers.
The Pentagon last week ordered that the services provide the opportunity for women to enter all fields, including infantry, tanks, artillery and other combat arms.

The entire process could take years as the services develop and validate "gender neutral" standards. The secretary of Defense would have to approve any fields that remain closed to women.

"If the numbers are so small with regards to qualification, then there very may well be (job fields) that remain closed," Amos said. "Those will be few and far between."

Deploying only one or two female servicemembers in a unit, for example, would make it difficult for the women to succeed. "You want to have assimilation … so our females can mentor one another," Amos said.

Each of the previously closed fields will likely have its own set of requirements.

Some are easily quantifiable. For example, men and women wanting to serve on a tank crew would need to be able to lift a tank round, which weighs more than 40 pounds, and load it into the main gun. Other standards may be more difficult to quantify.

Amos said he is confident that the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC), a mentally and physically grueling 13-week course, is an accurate measure of what it takes to successfully lead a rifle platoon in combat.

"There's no intention on my part of changing anything within the IOC curriculum," Amos said. The course has drawn attention because last year the Marine Corps began admitting women on an experimental basis.

The first two women admitted did not complete the course. Two more volunteers are expected to begin the course next month.

The infantry school for enlisted Marines, however, is being looked at closely to determine whether the standards are a good measurement of the physical and mental requirements of a Marine infantryman.

Once the standards and requirements among all specialties are codified they could then be incorporated into screening tests and specialty schools. The Marine Corps has more than 30 fields that are currently closed to women.

"This is not writing standards now in an effort to exclude females," Amos said. "This is writing and developing standards that quite frankly should have been developed years ago and have not been."

Amos said the Marine Corps will ensure that the opportunities are opened up without adjusting requirements.

"We've got too much combat experience for me to even suggest lowering the standards," Amos said. "So I'm not going to do it."

The Pentagon order will mark a change for all the services, but particularly for the Marine Corps, a lean expeditionary force that is organized and built around the infantry. The Marine Corps has the smallest percentage of women in its ranks.

Amos said the elite service is serious about opening opportunities for women.

"This isn't a subtle way of saying, 'OK, we're going to have standards and so we're going to exclude our women.' It's actually just the opposite."

[Chris*ta]

If the process isn't sexist then the outcome can't be sexist.

That's not necessarily true. The Australian Fire Brigade used to have a test, where an applicant had to lift a 44 gallon drum up the side of a building (on a rope) and then reach over the balcony railing and pull it onto the balcony.

This first part was quite easy for reasonably strong women, however the second is only really possible if you're quite tall and so have long arms; i.e. it (almost entirely) excluded women.

So, although the test wasn't actually sexist, (i.e. they didn't ask to look at the applicant's bits) it did result in sexist hiring (i.e. women were barely allowed into the Fire Service).

This test was later removed, I believe.

[Denzark]

There are a few things I must respectfully take issue with here:


The fact remains there were arguments against mixed raced regiments based on prejudice and anecdotal evidence that have now been utterly refuted. Ditto for homosexual soldiers. The same will happen for women eventually I've no doubt.

I do agree that arguments against mix race regiments and homosexual soldiers were indeed prejudice and maybe just maybe anecdotal evidence. I do not agree that the arguments against women in Close Combat units (for the un-knowing civvies, this doesn't mean what it does in 40K - it means combat done up close as opposed to at artillery range, for example) are such, I have personal experience of commanding male and females on operations and know how they interact. I also think the physical arguments that Wolfy alludes to later are based on science.

The argument against women still comes down to 'men lose professionalism if women are around, therefore women must be banned from doing something even if they are good enough'.

Do you know how prejudiced this sounds? Funnily enough it takes 2 to tango, or do you think all the sexual related issues falling out from males and females in close confines in the military, will be forced on the innocent little sisterhood? I have personally witnessed more females try to use their wiles to get by in the military, than I have uber fit women who could be in the infantry. Perhaps you have not seen this week's news reports of unprofessional behaviour by female conscripts in Israel?

The argument against gays isn't irrelevant because it was exactly the same principle. It was felt that if soldiers couldn't be sure that their comrade in arms wasn't keen on shagging them that they would become suspicious and unit cohesion would break down. It's much the same, just replace homophobic tropes with sexist ones.

The gay argument was based on prejudice, not factual evidence cross related from the behaviours witnessed by senior officers in non-infantry units. There are also far less homsexuals per head of population so the potential scale of problem is less

See above re: anecdotal evidence and victim blaming.

Final thought is silly.:p

No its not, its one of the many upon which your legally elected defence ministers made a decision to not allow females in the infantry at the last review.

No one is arguing that physical standards should be relaxed, just like a male each female will have to prove she can meet the physical requirements. Just like not all men will meet those standards not all women will either. No issue here. That 'female who got in to promote equality' will be just as capable of carrying you as the 'strapping bloke'. If your wife and mother don't like it they need to stop being so close-minded.

As a service wife, my mother followed my old man around the mob and was shot at in the Greek/Turkish war in Cyprus. My wife has served a tour in Iraq - but before that she was in an infantry only platoon in UOTC, as the Platoon Commander. This was only allowed as UOTCs have no liability to deploy to war. So she knows what is expected of infantry and doesn't back females being allowed in for real. Both ladies are capable of making a more balanced judgement on this issue than any of the Armchair Generalettes on here!






I would disagree with Learn2Eel.
The fact of the matter is that there are several fundamental differences between the biology of men and women. Yes training can help in part, but there are things which you cannot over come through training.
Of course these are all "on a spectrum", there are men who show "women levels of aptitude" and vice versa.

So time for some generalisations, which I realise that you can find obvious counter examples, however.

Women tend to have better peripheral vision.
Men tend to have better spatial awareness.


Women tend to have a higher % body fat.

This is not me saying that women are generally fatter, biologically speaking the extra % body fat is perferrable and is an advantage when pregnant.

Men tend to have larger denser bones.

Average height shows this to be the case, though whether this is evolutionary advantage (helping hunting and what not) or because they have first pick of the food so it is more of a casual relationship that is unclear.


Wolfy - this is the science. In UK Military women do press ups on their knees, not unsupported like us. Allegedly 'man' press ups place too much strain on something 'internal' (I thought it was womb, I can't be arsed to google it). No matter how you cut it, the majority of the female race are physically weaker - I can't think of any other way to put it, and I don't less of them for it.


Clearly the specific issue of front line service is contentious - I'm not sure I like the idea of women being discouraged from trying to be physically sufficient for such duties because they can't, so let them in to fix it - what about if enough women get themselves to the standard to make it worthwhile - that's a better idea.

I do understand the US have allowed women into direct combat roles - I note the first 3 officer candidates into USMC officer school for infantry, have failed to pass out. I also notice the US military, with its strange 'honour codes' of non-fraternisation to try and stop young fit men and women doing what comes naturally to them, have a much higher rate of sexual assaults than we do in BritMil. Is this unrelated? Methinks not.

You think maybe we should follow the Israeli example - what their human rights behaviour - easy to find reports of female soldiers posing in front of Palestinean detainees - something deeply offensive to them.

No, I don't think other military examples should be followed, thanks muchly, they are (with notable lapses) less professional than ours in the UK (biased opinion fo sho - and I like working with our allies).

[Kirsten]

No matter how you cut it, the majority of the female race are physically weaker - I can't think of any other way to put it, and I don't less of them for it.

that is a meaningless comment however. you can just as easily say 'the majority of servicemen are stronger than non-servicemen.' you can find any number of women physically capable of being in the military. being weaker than a male makes no difference so long as they pass the test set.

[wayne williams]

As to the fate comment, I agree the sentence is not a good one. What they mean is that privilege is about being born with certain passive benefits others lack. The most obvious is that as a white male no one will ever doubt your competence because of who you are. In contrast women, particularly attractive women, are often assumed to be stupid or incompetent simply because they are women. I experience this personally every day.

in reply to this i would just like to add somthing .

i am a male nurse who works with people with learning disabillites i am also a white male ( so lucky me lol ) and as a minority in this mainly female run and staffed occupation i have come across the sentiment that. i cant really be good at what i do becouse i am a man . on many occasions even had a line manager say to my face that men do not belong in care work. a male colleague a rare thing in itself would love to specalise and work with young children but because of attitudes he has decided he will not try to move on to childrens services.

the point i am trying to make although badly is that white males have there competancy challanged based on there age sex and colour a great deal . usually by women its just not comented on , or if it is it is to make the man look incompetent or whinging.

ps in no way am i comparing what i have come up against as equal to millenia of male sexism towards women.

[bfmusashi]

IDK about that, in my experience of pregnancy the majority are unplanned.

For real. Babies have no respect for birth control.
Oh, and I don't know about other militaries, but in the US you just have to be able to run a certain distance within a certain time to be considered fit. Upper arm strength means nothing unless they're hauling the support weapon.

[Denzark]

For real. Babies have no respect for birth control.
Oh, and I don't know about other militaries, but in the US you just have to be able to run a certain distance within a certain time to be considered fit. Upper arm strength means nothing unless they're hauling the support weapon.

Upper arm strength might mean nothing although ironically a mixed gym on tour will normally have a majority of US pumping severe iron in the weights bay, and a lot of rangey brits doing miles of cardio. Core/Upper body strength is everything in the infantry of every western/NATO style military that by its nature, carries everything you need to fight, on your own 2 feet.

@ Kirsten the reason Wolfy picked you up on top class athletes earlier, is because we are talking about INFANTRY in particular. This is not easy. men in non-infantry units would find it difficult without a beat-up period to get that level of fitness, for women in general they would need to be absolutely exceptional specimens. hence the allusion to top athletes.

I doubt anybody (I certainly am not) from within the military would state no women that ever have, do or will lived are capable of meeting infantry standards of fitness. It is just so rare, that the potential benefits of allowing this exception are far outweighed by the potential pitfalls, based on experience and science.



I mean lets be straight, not one of the ladies arguing in favour of it here have said 'Here is my scientifically based argument proving that women should be able to compete equally with men for infantry posts because it will leave the military better'. What you are saying is that such an allowance would be better for feminism.

Well I'm sorry feminism, the infantry is in the business of killing HM's enemies. Unless any proposed change to anything at all, makes them better at that, then it is not worth even considering - nothing argued so far has indicated that it would improve them.

[bfmusashi]

They pump iron so they can carve dongs into walls more effectively. I'm so proud of them. ;_;

[YorkNecromancer]

Unrelated to the above points, but worth considering, is this document I have just found.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=psychdiss&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dconfronting%2520sexism%2520workds %26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CEkQFjAC%26url%3 Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%252Fcgi %252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1035%2526cont ext%253Dpsychdiss%26ei%3DuMsGUYvMGcbL0AH6YA%26usg% 3DAFQjCNGbYEl1MIeUeipqBVe97kyXRWwjzQ%26bvm%3Dbv.41 524429%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22confronting%20sexism%20wo rkds%22

Be warned: it's a proper thesis of 160 pages, but very, very relevant.

[Mr Mystery]

Speaking of sexism.... I keep getting ads for 'Cougar Life'.... Seems to suggest older women are easier.

Any ideas on how to get shot of those ads? And the 'buy-a-bride' ones?

[Kirsten]

@ Kirsten the reason Wolfy picked you up on top class athletes earlier, is because we are talking about INFANTRY in particular. This is not easy. men in non-infantry units would find it difficult without a beat-up period to get that level of fitness, for women in general they would need to be absolutely exceptional specimens. hence the allusion to top athletes.

I doubt anybody (I certainly am not) from within the military would state no women that ever have, do or will lived are capable of meeting infantry standards of fitness. It is just so rare, that the potential benefits of allowing this exception are far outweighed by the potential pitfalls, based on experience and science.



I mean lets be straight, not one of the ladies arguing in favour of it here have said 'Here is my scientifically based argument proving that women should be able to compete equally with men for infantry posts because it will leave the military better'. What you are saying is that such an allowance would be better for feminism.

Well I'm sorry feminism, the infantry is in the business of killing HM's enemies. Unless any proposed change to anything at all, makes them better at that, then it is not worth even considering - nothing argued so far has indicated that it would improve them.

there was nothing to 'pick me up on' I was trying to find out what his point was. the first question I have, how does the military compare to professional athletes? I get the impression people are assuming the military is the absolute physical peak, yet the training is not as intensive as a professional athlete goes through. Looking at the requirements to join for example on the MOD's own website, I can't do the press ups certainly, but sit ups and beep test I did way beyond the men's level there at school. similarly, looking at the run for juniors, which is what I was when I last timed myself for a run :p 1.5 miles, 14 minutes, I was about 12 minutes.

I am by no means looking down on the armed forces or the standards of anybody serving, but the stated entry level fitness is nothing special, most people can achieve that with a little effort. Once in, how much does it increase for a serving soldier?
I have not actually expressed an opinion as to whether it should or should not happen, I have merely been trying to point out that the fitness points raised are not necessarily an issue. Given the fact that the US is now allowing women in front line rolls, which is not a decision taken lightly, let's all see how that turns out, and whether it does damage the abilities of troops.

also the stated aim of the army is not technically killing people, don't think they would put that on the website :p. As a piece of irrelevant but interesting information, the units doing best in Iraq post gulf war round 2, were the TA. reason being a lot of them are police or emergency personal in their day jobs, and they adapted much better to peace keeping missions.

[Denzark]

there was nothing to 'pick me up on' I was trying to find out what his point was. the first question I have, how does the military compare to professional athletes? I get the impression people are assuming the military is the absolute physical peak, yet the training is not as intensive as a professional athlete goes through. Looking at the requirements to join for example on the MOD's own website, I can't do the press ups certainly, but sit ups and beep test I did way beyond the men's level there at school. similarly, looking at the run for juniors, which is what I was when I last timed myself for a run :p 1.5 miles, 14 minutes, I was about 12 minutes.

I am by no means looking down on the armed forces or the standards of anybody serving, but the stated entry level fitness is nothing special, most people can achieve that with a little effort. Once in, how much does it increase for a serving soldier?
I have not actually expressed an opinion as to whether it should or should not happen, I have merely been trying to point out that the fitness points raised are not necessarily an issue. Given the fact that the US is now allowing women in front line rolls, which is not a decision taken lightly, let's all see how that turns out, and whether it does damage the abilities of troops.

also the stated aim of the army is not technically killing people, don't think they would put that on the website :p. As a piece of irrelevant but interesting information, the units doing best in Iraq post gulf war round 2, were the TA. reason being a lot of them are police or emergency personal in their day jobs, and they adapted much better to peace keeping missions.

Kirsten, I used 'picked you up on' to mean - mentioned in the course of this mass debate. Not to assume he was particularly taking you to task - although I considered his point vis women athletes trumped what you were saying;)

Anyhoo, as a reminder, I am talking here specifically about INFANTRY soldiers. Those who start the fight 6-300m away and get up close and kill you with a sharp pointy thing. You are right, initial entry requirements are not that special although compared to average society it is beyond the capabilities of a large percentage. The infantry requirements is massively beyond that and in terms of females, you would need to be so far beyond the norm so as to merit comparison with top athletes. Your Heather Stanning, gold medallist, Royal Artillery, could probably do it.

To talk a bit more abut the infantry mission, it certainly used to be: Close with and kill the enemy (sometimes paired with in all weather in all terrain). This is the doctrinal version, not the fluffy recruiting website version. 'Close with' means get there of your own means, ie on foot - get right up to them, and destroy them is self explanatory.

the infantry mile and a half (which is done after a half mile squadded run) time is 9:30. That is the limit, they consider you a right pie eater if you come in around that. It is not so much the runs (btw my school bleep test was different to the one we use) as the weight carrying exercises - 8 miles in boots with 40kg+ in 1:45 to 1:55. Also a 20-miler in boots with 20kg, can't remember the time limit.

With regards to the TA in Iraq, there were little to no whole TA units drafted. The vast majority of units have a mix of up to 20% reservists with some specialist units (medical mostly) having a higher proportion. Whilst an individual may have made good press for recruiting into the TA by saying their civvy job made them boss at 'peace keeping', I am not aware of any units who specifically performed better. The purpose of an army after all, is not killing people - but it ain't peacekeeping either.

I do not think you are looking down on anybody and haven't taken your points as that, your idea that we should wait and see how fighting ladies goes with the yanks is eminently sensible.

[Kirsten]

I will try and find the article about the TA, it referenced the American national guard types too for a similar reason. the official reason in these places often are peace keeping, and that is something that women could potentially do very. we did the proper beep test at school, as in the one used for people like the police, not some soft namby pamby one :p I did 15 personally. try a few miles with a two ton bull, much harder than those soft army exercises, farmer put you all to shame :p

[eldargal]

As a service wife, my mother followed my old man around the mob and was shot at in the Greek/Turkish war in Cyprus. My wife has served a tour in Iraq - but before that she was in an infantry only platoon in UOTC, as the Platoon Commander. This was only allowed as UOTCs have no liability to deploy to war. So she knows what is expected of infantry and doesn't back females being allowed in for real. Both ladies are capable of making a more balanced judgement on this issue than any of the Armchair Generalettes on here!
Yet they are still close minded and are quite wrong as both the Israeli and now American experience seems to indicate. I'm not going to get into a 'whose family has the most military history' match with you on the internet Denzark, if only cos it's vulgar and you would lose.:p Suffice to say I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance.
I'm not trying to be rude about your women folk but prejudice is prejudice, just because they grew up in a military culture that was and prejudiced against women doesn't mean by virtue of being women they will be immune to that.

Looking at the physical requirements (http://www.army.mod.uk/join/). I can match all of them. In fact some of them are quite moderate compared to what I do for fun with things like historical reenactment. I've lifted up joust targets that way around 45kg and put them hooks 1.5m high and I routinely carry a couple of kegs or cauldrons beetween 18 and 23kgs considerable distances. The running I'm not so sure about, it's been a while since I timed myself but I'd be surprised if I didn't meet the requirements. Last time I did a Beep test it was 12.?/ or 12.? I forget, it was ten years ago or more. Press ups and sit ups I would meet or exceed the male requirement

All because I do things which keep me fit and trim but also require strength, like running around in 30kgs of steel plate swinging pieces of metal. I'd be surprised if more women couldn't meet those standards if they engaged in more physical activities rather just relying on treadmills, running and exercises bikes to keep fit. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Psychosplodge]

Speaking of sexism.... I keep getting ads for 'Cougar Life'.... Seems to suggest older women are easier.

Any ideas on how to get shot of those ads? And the 'buy-a-bride' ones?


Download firefox, then go to add-ons and add ad-block plus

[Chris*ta]

Download firefox, then go to add-ons and add ad-block plus

Buy one of those brides? Once the internet gets wind of your change in status, you're bound to start getting a hole different set of adds :p

[Denzark]

Yet they are still close minded and are quite wrong as both the Israeli and now American experience seems to indicate.

I think it would be fairer to say the jury is still out, the US experience isn't actually experience because the ban has only just been lifted, there haven't been female infantry boots on the ground - I also highlight that on any number of performance indicators, I consider the UK military to be more professional and effective than both these nations - again I cite the higher proportion of sexual assault cases in the US military.

I'm not going to get into a 'whose family has the most military history' match with you on the internet Denzark, if only cos it's vulgar and you would lose.:p

I'm not sure it is and I'm not sure I would, but then no one knows who is who on here - you could be the 48yo male Dave, bald with rolls of fat on the back of the neck, that I fantasise about you being. I on the other hand, rather than being the commissioned officer with relevant recent ops experience I claim to be, could actually be a wheel chair bound pygmy tribeswoman from the Amazonian rainforests

Suffice to say I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance.

I'm not trying to willy waggle or anything here, but people's direct experience and knowledge of something is relevant in assessing their ability to make balanced or sensible judgements about this. This is why expert witnesses are used in court. I wouldn't try to claim a better level of knowledge than you in whatever your D-Phil is, for example.

I'm not trying to be rude about your women folk but prejudice is prejudice, just because they grew up in a military culture that was and prejudiced against women doesn't mean by virtue of being women they will be immune to that.

I fully concede to this argument. Ironically, it is based on your prejudiced assumption that they are closed minded, as a direct result of being exposed to the military.;)

Looking at the physical requirements (http://www.army.mod.uk/join/). I can match all of them. In fact some of them are quite moderate compared to what I do for fun with things like historical reenactment. I've lifted up joust targets that way around 45kg and put them hooks 1.5m high and I routinely carry a couple of kegs or cauldrons beetween 18 and 23kgs considerable distances. The running I'm not so sure about, it's been a while since I timed myself but I'd be surprised if I didn't meet the requirements. Last time I did a Beep test it was 12.?/ or 12.? I forget, it was ten years ago or more. Press ups and sit ups I would meet or exceed the male requirement

All because I do things which keep me fit and trim but also require strength, like running around in 30kgs of steel plate swinging pieces of metal. I'd be surprised if more women couldn't meet those standards if they engaged in more physical activities rather just relying on treadmills, running and exercises bikes to keep fit. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Thing being you are by all accounts quite a tall female who has inoculated yourself to this - the carriage of weight is hugely pertinent in this argument. I would say that you are actually exceptional physically if you can manage any time/distance with 30kgs on.

Actually, I think I will check out as this stage of the debate (not cos I think I'm losing!!!) because there are wider feminist issues meriting discussing here and I don't want military issues to hog the limelight. The lines between 'Military' - there is some 10% currently in BritMil who are all successful to a lesser or greater degree - and Infantry, are blurred here.

At the end of the day, no one has put forward a cohesive science based argument for females to be allowed into the Infantry in UK military. Quite simply, it would advance the cause of feminism for sure, but no one has claimed any discernible military benefits. These are the only reason to make changes to Infantry processes - military benefit. The US example is cited - but their rules of interaction between the sexes are different to ours and, I contend strongly, are the reason for the higher level of sexual assault in the US military. I also note 3 out of 3 female candidates for USMC infantry officer training, have failed. EG quoted a study showing (conclusively?) that females on a board can increase productivity/profitability/ability to deal with a crisis. The are no such examples that an infantry unit would be more effective purely by adding females, until the Israeli or US experiment provides such, my opinion will respectfully stay the same and we must agree to disagree.

[eldargal]

Yep, we could both be lying about who we are and lying about being a serviceman isn't exactly unprecedented.:p But I don't doubt that you are who you say you are, no evidence to the contrary and the ridiculous paranoia displayed by some people on the internet is foolish. Unless you stand to physically lose from it, just take people at their word and be done with it.

I am unusually tall it's true.

Fair enough, I'd agree it's too soon to say conclusively but I have no doubt that like most prejudices this one will disappear over time. It is worth noting the US lifted the ban because the reality was there were already female front line troops. I would say that no one has put forward scientific evidence that women would be detrimental to the military either, it is anecdotal. So even if it does only advance womens rights and not the military if it isn't objectively detrimental where is the harm?;)

[Kirsten]

might not for everybody the following article I warn you, it is about the taboo of women and masturbation, don't read it at work

http://mbhahn.sharedby.co/share/Dp6JVT

[bfmusashi]

The mascot is the thing of nightmares.

[Deadlift]

The mascot is the thing of nightmares.

I thought it was a Kingdom Death model card :)

[eldargal]

might not for everybody the following article I warn you, it is about the taboo of women and masturbation, don't read it at work

http://mbhahn.sharedby.co/share/Dp6JVT
Nice. Also long overdue. It's ridiculous that boys can talk about it but the moment a woman mentions it's like all sound has been sucked from teh room. Then you start getting propositioned because obviously if you pleasure yourself you must be desperate for sex...

[Deadlift]

Nice. Also long overdue. It's ridiculous that boys can talk about it but the moment a woman mentions it's like all sound has been sucked from teh room. Then you start getting propositioned because obviously if you pleasure yourself you must be desperate for sex...

Boys don't talk about it. Maybe it's a generational thing but it wasn't ever brought up when I was a teen.

[eldargal]

I see a lot of references and allusions to it online. I'm not saying you chat about it constantly or anything but it is much more acceptable for a boy to make references to it or admit to doing it than a girl.

[Deadlift]

Yeah I guess your right, your able to look at it from a girls perspective which I obviously would struggle with.

[Kirsten]

this is pretty awful, a man in texas has been acquitted after he shot and killed a prostitute when he paid her and she then wouldn't sleep with him.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/06/texas-jury-says-its-cool-to-murder-prostitutes-for-not-having-sex-with-you/

[eldargal]

Disgusting.

Basically, you’re seeing the same problem that you see with “stand your ground” laws and other such laws that give people broad rights to shoot outside of immediate self-defense. It turns shooting cases into situations where the jury just basically rules in favor of the person who has higher social status. “White man” outranks “Hispanic prostitute”, and so shooting her is rendered legal, as long as you can cough up the thinnest of justifications. But if you’re a black woman who doesn’t even hurt someone while firing a gun in actual self-defense, too bad for you (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/05/2108171/florida-judge-rejected-stand-your-ground-defense-for-black-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-during-domestic-violence/?mobile=nc)! These laws are custom made to be exploited for racist and sexist ends.
So basically it is a case of White Men can shoot whoever the **** they want and women and minorities just have to deal with it.

[Nabterayl]

That's ... kind of a distastefully imprecise article. "But apparently, the jury disagreed and thought that giving a man a right to tell a woman that her options are rape or death is A-OK with them" doesn't sound like what the jury thought. It sounds like the jury thought that giving a man a right to tell a woman that her options are return the money or death is A-OK with them.

I agree with the article that in a black market transaction you get what you get. I agree that laws concerning the private use of force tend not to be enforced equally. I agree that, on a moral level, it's disgusting and reprehensible to shoot somebody for wanting to keep your money and not have illegal sex with you. But it drives me insane when even reporters can't get their legal facts right.

[eldargal]

Except he couldn't claim is money back, she fulfilled the agreement to spend time with him, she just didn't fulfill his expectation of sexual intercourse.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, I get that. And I suppose that may have been what the author was getting at. I didn't get a "The jury didn't understand the law here" vibe from the article, though.

[eldargal]

I think they understood that the law a get out of jail free card for white men when faced with violence committed against someone who isn't a white male...

[Kirsten]

this may have been posted already but still...

http://www.moronail.net/img/14796_defining-a-slut

[Earl Harbinger]

I think they understood that the law a get out of jail free card for white men when faced with violence committed against someone who isn't a white male...

No that is a gross misrepresentation of the Texas law. The purpose of the stand your ground/castle doctrine laws is to enable citizens to stand up to criminals. The intention of this specific law was to allow citizens to defend themselves against nighttime thefts, muggings, home invasion, carjacking etc. it eliminates any duty to retreat and allows people to go through the escalation of force up to and including lethal force to defend their property. Granted the prosecution is likely correct that the legislators never intended the law to cover reneging on supposed prostitution but the woman had no legal right to that guy's $150 and he had the legal right to defend his property. By refusing to just give back the $150 the woman initiated a confrontation that unfortunately ultimately led to her death.


Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.

That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme.

The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php#ixzz2VSgh87A9

[Kirsten]

that may well be so, it sure as hell doesn't entitle you to shoot a woman just because you feel you haven't gotten your money's worth.

[Earl Harbinger]

that may well be so, it sure as hell doesn't entitle you to shoot a woman just because you feel you haven't gotten your money's worth.

It entitles you to protect your personal property from theft with lethal force if required and that is why the jury acquitted him.

You and I make a $150 bet on a Manchester United match here on BOLS and I lose. That night you come to my home and take $150 out of my wallet. I ask you to give it back and you refuse. As the confrontation continues I'm allowed by Texas law to use lethal force to protect my property. The mere fact that we agreed to an illegal wager online doesn't give you a lawful right to my $150. Even if such an agreement were legally binding my refusal to pay doesn't make your theft lawful. If you believe I am legally obligated to pay you $150 the proper avenue to pursue payment is through the courts not to just take my money.

[eldargal]

Except in practise it lets white men shoot women and ethnic groups with impunity. It is actually being investigated on those very grounds (http://www.mediaite.com/online/civil-rights-commission-to-investigate-stand-your-ground-laws-for-possible-racial-bias/). Also that analogy is rubbish. She didn't steal from him, he paid her to spend time with him with the expectation of sex. She didn't have sex with him, he shot her. She didn't steal from him she failed to meet his expectation, that is all. It would be like you making that bet with Kirsten, then going around to her house demanding money and shooting her when she didn't pay.

Anyway, just heard about 'Lewis' Law':

Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism
It's funny 'cos it's true.:rolleyes: Also tragic.

[Nabterayl]

I think Eldargal covered this in a prior page. Even the original article shows an inkling of understanding.

The miscarriage of justice in that case was not that a man shot a woman, or that a john shot a prostitute, or that a jury acquitted a man of shooting a woman or a prostitute despite the fact that he did in fact shoot a woman and a prostitute. The miscarriage of justice is in the characterization of the contract and the shooter's belief that the only way to recover his money was the immediate use of deadly force. As the article points out, the only enforceable contract between shooter and victim was to spend time - which, as far as we know, the victim was still willing to do. The reality probably was that both shooter and victim expected their encounter to include sex, but Texas law doesn't care about that. Texas law does not recognize such a thing as a contract for sex.

The victim was willing to perform her part of the contract. The shooter, due to extracontractual considerations, wanted to repudiate the contract. Absent a specific provision to the contrary, that's totally fine - both parties can go their ways and the contractor is paid for however much work she actually performed. Let's assume that's the situation. Let's further assume that the victim, having been paid up front, is currently in possession of money she has not earned and the shooter is not willing to let her earn. She doesn't want to give back this unearned money.

At this point the victim is unjustly enriched. Because she has possession of unearned money in the form of bank notes (i.e., paper bills), she is in possession of tangible, movable property; because she is unjustly enriched thereby, her possesion is unlawful. Texas law permits the lawful owner of that property to use deadly force in its recovery if he reasonably believes the force is necessary to recover the property if he uses deadly force immediately, and either (i) he reasonably believes the victim had no claim of right to that property, or (ii) the victim acquired it by force, threat, or fraud.

And that's really the problem. A person might reasonably believe that the victim had no right to keep that unearned money. A reasonable person would not believe that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to recover it.

[eldargal]

Could she really be considered to have been unjustly enriched when the agreement included no explicit sex for money arrangement? As far as I can see she did exactly what she agreed to do. A law that lets someone kill someone because they 'believe' that someone had no right to something is utterly abhorrent as far as I'm concerned. Belief is not reality.

http://media.moronail.net/images/stories/dg_pictures/1111/3BDF03C67937-1.jpg
Love it.

[Kirsten]

The miscarriage of justice in that case was not that a man shot a woman, or that a john shot a prostitute, or that a jury acquitted a man of shooting a woman or a prostitute despite the fact that he did in fact shoot a woman and a prostitute.

dress it up however you like, that is exactly the problem however. He paid her to spend time with him, she did so and took his money. technically she is not unjustly enriched, she has done what was agreed. If I give you something freely I don't get to shoot you because I have changed my mind. 'The shooter is not willing to let her earn' If I pay you to clean my windows, and then refuse to let you actually do the job, I am being an idiot. The article says she wanted to give the money to someone else, at no point does it suggest she wasn't going to come back and do whatever they tacitly understood to be taking place. He has shot someone without any right at all, you can't dress it up in semantics to ever make it ok to shoot someone for $150 when they haven't even done anything wrong.

let's face it the real issue here is a texan jury terrified of what the implications might be if they found him guilty, that it might impact on their right to carry guns and shoot people. Paranoi about obama taking their guns away, and the precedent set by a man being found guilty, heaven forbid, for shooting someone.

[Earl Harbinger]

Could she really be considered to have been unjustly enriched when the agreement included no explicit sex for money arrangement? As far as I can see she did exactly what she agreed to do. A law that lets someone kill someone because they 'believe' that someone had no right to something is utterly abhorrent as far as I'm concerned. Belief is not reality.

http://media.moronail.net/images/stories/dg_pictures/1111/3BDF03C67937-1.jpg
Love it.

So her belief that she's entitled to it is valid but his belief that she isn't, isn't? If you offer to sell somebody something on Craigslist, you meet up with them to do the transaction and the other party believes they've been misled you don't get to just take their money because you believe you've earned it. Again there are proper legal avenues one can pursue to redress the grievance of a broken contract but simply seizing the money you feel entitled to against the protestations of the other party is not one of them. That has always been considered theft.

Re: Slut
Not sure when promiscuity became something to aspire to or when lowering standards of behavior became empowering.

[eldargal]

There was no belief, to get around the illegality of prostitution to agreement is to spend time with the client with sex implied but not stated. She wasn't advertising sex on Craiglist, if she had she would have been arrested for prostitution. She offered companionship with a wink wink, nudge nudge approach to sex. Thank you for making my point. If he felt she had broken teh contract he should have used the proper legal avenues, not murdered her in cold blood. He should be facing the death penalty not being acquitted. See above re: white men free to murder women and minorities.

Lipstick feminists in particular seek to reclaim the word slut from misogynist men who throw it at women like it is some kind of gross act of immorality while craving sex themselves. Women are held to a separate, hypocritical standard of sexual morality by men which the above image neatly encapsulates. 'Lowering standrds' isanother sexist little trope, it is always women who get promiscuity thrown in their face but not men.

[Earl Harbinger]

dress it up however you like, that is exactly the problem however. He paid her to spend time with him, she did so and took his money. technically she is not unjustly enriched, she has done what was agreed. If I give you something freely I don't get to shoot you because I have changed my mind. 'The shooter is not willing to let her earn' If I pay you to clean my windows, and then refuse to let you actually do the job, I am being an idiot. The article says she wanted to give the money to someone else, at no point does it suggest she wasn't going to come back and do whatever they tacitly understood to be taking place. He has shot someone without any right at all, you can't dress it up in semantics to ever make it ok to shoot someone for $150 when they haven't even done anything wrong.

let's face it the real issue here is a texan jury terrified of what the implications might be if they found him guilty, that it might impact on their right to carry guns and shoot people. Paranoi about obama taking their guns away, and the precedent set by a man being found guilty, heaven forbid, for shooting someone.

No, there was no miscarriage of justice here. There was a trial, evidence was introduced, testimony was given, arguments from the prosecution and defense were heard, a jury of 12 of the accused peers deliberated for two days and rendered their verdict. That is justice. Just because the outcome is in contrast to your personal beliefs or politics doesn't make it a miscarriage of justice; that's a rather myopic view of justice.

Why do you guys feel so strongly that she clearly didn't advertise herself as a prostitute? Do you know the content of the Craigslist ad? Obviously there was some correspondence between the two to set up the rendezvous, do you know the content of that correspondence? And again, regardless of the terms of whatever agreement for services there was or wasn't you still can't take somebody else's money against their will, that's theft.

Stealing $150 isn't doing nothing wrong. It's legal in Texas to use lethal force to stop somebody from stealing from you or your neighbor. Don't steal from people in Texas. It's not about guns or Obama, it's about the people of Texas making the choice to empower themselves to use lethal force to combat people who are committing crimes.

[eldargal]

Sorry but you are deluding yourself. These laws are actually being investigated for racial bias for gods sake. A woman in Florida just got 20 years for shooting a warning shot at her husband in her own home despite using this same defense. Anotehr white man got away with murdeering a 17 year old black boy. Now you're trying to argue that literally getting away with murder over 150USD isn't a miscarriage of justice. It is, it is the very epitome of a miscarriage of justice especially when women can't use the same defense for firing a ****** warning shot. This man should be facing the death penalty for murder not getting away with nothing, not to mention the fact he was the one who hired a prostitute in a state where it was illegal. Everything about this case screams 'white men are allowed to kill women and minorities'. It is despicable.

[Earl Harbinger]

There was no belief, to get around the illegality of prostitution to agreement is to spend time with the client with sex implied but not stated. She wasn't advertising sex on Craiglist, if she had she would have been arrested for prostitution. She offered companionship with a wink wink, nudge nudge approach to sex. Thank you for making my point. If he felt she had broken teh contract he should have used the proper legal avenues, not murdered her in cold blood. He should be facing the death penalty not being acquitted. See above re: white men free to murder women and minorities.

Lipstick feminists in particular seek to reclaim the word slut from misogynist men who throw it at women like it is some kind of gross act of immorality while craving sex themselves. Women are held to a separate, hypocritical standard of sexual morality by men which the above image neatly encapsulates. 'Lowering standrds' isanother sexist little trope, it is always women who get promiscuity thrown in their face but not men.

You're still overlooking the fact that it's his money not her money. When he refuses to pay/asks for the money back the onus is on her not to steal it and when she chooses to do so it allows him to defend his property with lethal force under Texas law. This law has nothing to do with white men oppressing people, it's part of the legal fallout of the Joe Horn case where Joe shot 2 burglars who had just robbed his neighbor's house. There was some confusion over the legalities so more laws were passed to clarify the intent of the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in Texas.

The idea that the law is a free pass for white people to kill nonwhites is demonstrably false. The laws specifically stipulate that there must be criminal behavior in order to justify lethal force. It is a fact, as per the statistics published by the FBI/Dept of Justice that nonwhites commit more crimes than whites. Therefore when laws are enacted that allow citizens to use lethal force against criminals the majority of those criminals won't be white, that's not prejudice that's just math.

I'm not sure why you think that men get a free pass on bad behavior. Men are held accountable it's just usually by women not other men. Men with bad reputations face consequences for it. There were plenty of times when I was in college where frat brothers would get angry about the difficulty of attracting people, especially girls, to their parties due to the horrible reputation of some of the other frat brothers. Word gets out when selfish players unabashedly chase women without giving them the respect and courtesy they're due. This is especially true in school settings where the social circles are smaller than in the wider world. The story of the womanizer facing his comeuppance has been a mainstay plotline in movies, tv, books, etc since before I was alive. Granted men typically don't devote a lot time to discussing relationships, feelings, etc. at least that's been my experience, but that's just another example of how the sexes are different. It's also been my experience that us men outgrow the high fives for getting laid mentality by the time we are in our mid-late twenties; that's usually the age when you start to feel left out or like a loser if you don't have a serious relationship because your friends start getting married.

[Chris*ta]

The onus is not on her to steal the money. The money was hers, the result of a legal transaction, legally concluded.

He then decided that, although it would be criminal for her to do this, she had in fact agreed to have sex with him, although (presumably) she had not discussed this.

At the very least, he should go to jail for soliciting a prostitute. (This comment is (largely) facetious.)

Ultimately though, this law is conceptually flawed. It allows anyone to (quite literally) become judge, jury and executioner of any thief, through half of the day. Killing a person is not morally justified to undo a crime of property under any circumstances. This particular case is particularly egregious though, as he has left her with the following options a) dying b) committing the crime of prostitution c) having sex against her will (i.e. being raped).

I'm not sure how you can argue that this law is ok, but especially in this example.

[Kirsten]

You're still overlooking the fact that it's his money not her money. When he refuses to pay/asks for the money back the onus is on her not to steal it and when she chooses to do so it allows him to defend his property with lethal force under Texas law.

no, you are over looking the fact. he hired her for companionship, that is what actually happened. whether sex was implied or not is circumstantial. "He believed sex was included in the fee" that is his problem. "she left, saying she had to give the money to her driver" nothing to say she wasn't coming back and possibly having sex. If you buy a product or a service, you get an invoice and/or receipt that gives you a measure of protection against being cheated. if you do a deal with somebody with neither of those things, you are an idiot and if you lose the money, tough. However in this instance he did get what was explicitly being provided, and he may well have gotten what he thought he was entitled to had he not shot her. He gave her the money for her time, it is no lnoger his money, it is her money. he has murdered her and stolen $150.

[Earl Harbinger]

Sorry but you are deluding yourself. These laws are actually being investigated for racial bias for gods sake. A woman in Florida just got 20 years for shooting a warning shot at her husband in her own home despite using this same defense. Anotehr white man got away with murdeering a 17 year old black boy. Now you're trying to argue that literally getting away with murder over 150USD isn't a miscarriage of justice. It is, it is the very epitome of a miscarriage of justice especially when women can't use the same defense for firing a ****** warning shot. This man should be facing the death penalty for murder not getting away with nothing, not to mention the fact he was the one who hired a prostitute in a state where it was illegal. Everything about this case screams 'white men are allowed to kill women and minorities'. It is despicable.

Warning shots are illegal and rightfully so they're irresponsibly stupid. For self defense shootings your attacker has to pose a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm/death in which case you need to be shooting at him/her not firing warning shots. If the threat isn't great enough to require you to shoot to kill you don't have legal justification to shoot at all. Warning shots are dangerous, you are legally responsible for every round you send downrange, there is no reason to shoot at anything other than the threat.

The Trayvon Martin case is justifiable self defense. It's also a case of a Hispanic male shooting a black teenager not a white man. George Zimmerman wasn't initially charged with any wrongdoing because the evidence supports self defense. It was only after intense political pressure that a new prosecutor was appointed, who's overcharged Zimmerman who is likely to be acquitted. If you initiate a conversation with a stranger you see walking in your housing complex late at night that doesn't give that person the right to knock you down and start beating your head against the sidewalk. You have the right to self defense when you're attacked and when somebody is trying to beat you to death you can legally draw your pistol and shoot him. You seem to be relying on some pretty heavily slanted news sources.

[eldargal]

They spent time together, which is what he paid for. She earnt the money. Prostitution is illegal so sex could not be included in what passed for a contract, it was implied. This woman was murdered because a white man didn't get the sex he believed she owed him but was not contractually obligated to provide. He murdered a woman while pressuring her to break the law, in fact.
I know an American girl who prostituted herself through university, in order to get away with it sex was never mentioned. Ever. You were on a date, spending time with each other. That's all. They paid for a date, they got a date. That was the contract. This man was effectively coercing her into sex. I'll admit the issue of whether she should have had sex with him given the expectation is a murky one but then this problem could be avoided if Texas dropped its archaic and ridiculous anti-prostitution laws. but god forbid women be able to make a profit from mens sex drives.

Right, of course. Man murders prostitute with gun and gets acquittal, woman gets 20 years because firing a gun into a wall in her own home to scare off her violent husband is unsafe. no that isn't completely ****** up at all.

[Nabterayl]

I'm perfectly aware that the real-world point of the arrangement was sex, but if I give you money to perform an unlawful act and you don't perform it, I have no remedy at law - to put it in the terms of the Texas statutes, you do not unlawfully possess my money despite the fact that you have not done what you were given money to do.

The unjust enrichment question, obviously, is dependent upon the details of the actual contract - and I'm afraid I don't know what sort of legal details are typical here. Let's say she was paid $150 up front, but the actual contract was for her to receive $15 for each tenth of an hour she spent with him. Half an hour in, he decides (in reality because she won't agree to the sex he wants, but legally for no cognizable reason at all) that he wants to repudiate the contract. She is entitled to keep $75, but must return the other $75 - even though she is willing to perform her end of the deal, she can't, and hasn't earned it. If she does not return it, she's in breach of contract - though I certainly don't think a person who believes that he must use deadly force to recover that property believes so reasonably, which the Texas statute requires.

Now, depending on how sophisticated the contract is, she might be entitled to keep the whole $75. It's not uncommon in other analogous situations for there to be some sort of no-refunds clause, and that's perfectly okay. For instance, the contract might have said that she's entitled to the whole $150 as long as her non-performance is due to no misfeasance on her part, or that no refunds will be given without at least 24 hours' notice of cancellation, or both. I have no idea if theirs did, or what typical escort contracts provide, but the basic case is that an hourly contractor has to return unearned wages even if her inability to complete the contract is not her fault.

[Kirsten]

Right, of course. Man murders prostitute with gun and gets acquittal, woman gets 20 years because firing a gun into a wall in her own home to scare off her violent husband is unsafe. no that isn't completely ****** up at all.

what are you talking about EG? how dare she not kill somebody

[Earl Harbinger]

no, you are over looking the fact. he hired her for companionship, that is what actually happened. whether sex was implied or not is circumstantial. "He believed sex was included in the fee" that is his problem. "she left, saying she had to give the money to her driver" nothing to say she wasn't coming back and possibly having sex. If you buy a product or a service, you get an invoice and/or receipt that gives you a measure of protection against being cheated. if you do a deal with somebody with neither of those things, you are an idiot and if you lose the money, tough. However in this instance he did get what was explicitly being provided, and he may well have gotten what he thought he was entitled to had he not shot her. He gave her the money for her time, it is no lnoger his money, it is her money. he has murdered her and stolen $150.

The laws of Texas and a jury of his peers disagree, he shot a thief who was stealing his money. There was no transaction, lawful or otherwise, only a miscommunication. You cannot take somebody's money/property against their will that is theft. When he found out/realized what exactly the transaction was going to be he did not want to complete it, that's his choice, she is not entitled to his money. If, via Craigslist, you agree to buy something from me, we meet up and when you see the item in person you decide you don't want to buy it afterall, I don't have the right to take your money and say tough luck on you. That's theft and in Texas you can use lethal force to stop it.

[Kirsten]

the jury of his peers are morons and the law is bull****. there was no thief and no theft. he got what he paid for, I am not sure why you keep harping on about theft. If, via craigslist, I agree to buy something from you and do so, I do not get to change my mind and keep the item and get my money back.

[Chris*ta]

The big problem with this law is that it makes it pathetically easy to commit murder and get away with it.

I don't like you very much, so I find you in the street and shoot you in the back of the head. I then plant a knife in your hand and my wallet in your pocket.

I call the police and tell them how you mugged me and then I had to shoot you to recover my stolen property. They then congratulate me on my close observance of the law and excellent shooting.

Yay for me! I wait for the bravery medals and TV interviews to start rolling in.

[eldargal]

She took nothing, he gave her money for a service she provided and then tried to take it back because of his belief he was entitled to more. The fact that the law acquitted him is precisely why this is a travesty of justice. He committed murder and should be facing the death penalty. It's almost certain he would be if he were black. Just because institutional prejudice lets him off doesn't mean the law is right in this case.

[Earl Harbinger]

They spent time together, which is what he paid for. She earnt the money. Prostitution is illegal so sex could not be included in what passed for a contract, it was implied. This woman was murdered because a white man didn't get the sex he believed she owed him but was not contractually obligated to provide. He murdered a woman while pressuring her to break the law, in fact.
I know an American girl who prostituted herself through university, in order to get away with it sex was never mentioned. Ever. You were on a date, spending time with each other. That's all. They paid for a date, they got a date. That was the contract. This man was effectively coercing her into sex. I'll admit the issue of whether she should have had sex with him given the expectation is a murky one but then this problem could be avoided if Texas dropped its archaic and ridiculous anti-prostitution laws. but god forbid women be able to make a profit from mens sex drives.

Right, of course. Man murders prostitute with gun and gets acquittal, woman gets 20 years because firing a gun into a wall in her own home to scare off her violent husband is unsafe. no that isn't completely ****** up at all.

It makes perfect sense. Warning shots are illegal. A male veteran in Oregon recently fired a warning shot during an attempted break in to his house, he got charged with a crime and his rifle was confiscated. He didn't harm anyone, but warning shots are illegal. It is a popular misconception that warning shots are a good move but ignorance is no defense for law breaking.


Vice-President Joe Biden recently advised that when confronted with a trespasser at your home, just shoot through the back door. Apparently that’s not allowed in Medford, Ore.

Military veteran Corey Thompson heard someone trying to break into his home on Sunday, grabbed his AR-15 and told the intruder to stop, according to KDRV 12.

When officers responded to a report of a disturbance at the scene, they heard the gunshot and the would-be intruder Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was running toward the parking lot.

“When I’m dealt with a stressful situation, being a veteran from Iraq and the Afghanistan war, it’s natural,” Thompson said. “I just jump into combat mode. I told him I’m going to give you a warning shot.”

But according to the police, “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.” Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said the suspect was walking away.

KDRV 12 reported that Thompson was charged with “Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Menacing and Reckless Endangering.”

“I can see where they’re coming from, with those kinds of ordinances and stuff,” Thompson said. “I understand yes, I did discharge my weapon but I was careful not to fire it at any body’s residence. It was at the ground specifically.”

The police confiscated Thompson’s firearm as they said it was used in the commission of a crime, but if Thompson is found not guilty, he will get it back.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/30/veterans-ar-15-confiscated-after-attempted-break-in-at-his-home-73203

[Kirsten]

and there you have the madness of law. warning somebody off is a big no no. letting them enter your property and then killing them, much more reasonable.

[eldargal]

It makes perfect sense. Warning shots are illegal. A male veteran in Oregon recently fired a warning shot during an attempted break in to his house, he got charged with a crime and his rifle was confiscated. He didn't harm anyone, but warning shots are illegal. It is a popular misconception that warning shots are a good move but ignorance is no defense for law breaking.

But I bet he wasn't given 20 years for aggravated assault like the black woman was. It also makes a mockery of the whole 'guns keep you safe thing' when women are throw in prison for decades for using a firearm to defend their children.

and there you have the madness of law. warning somebody off is a big no no. letting them enter your property and then killing them, much more reasonable.
This.

[Earl Harbinger]

She took nothing, he gave her money for a service she provided and then tried to take it back because of his belief he was entitled to more. The fact that the law acquitted him is precisely why this is a travesty of justice. He committed murder and should be facing the death penalty. It's almost certain he would be if he were black. Just because institutional prejudice lets him off doesn't mean the law is right in this case.

Wow. That's a really twisted worldview you've got there. You do realize that it's 2013 here in the USA right? It seems like you might think life over here is one big episode from an early season of Mad Men. Whether the man was white or black the law would still be the law. These laws are passed in dozens of states by legislatures and governors who are not all white males. Stop seeing a prejudiced white man hiding behind every tree and shrubbery plotting to oppress you.

[Earl Harbinger]

But I bet he wasn't given 20 years for aggravated assault like the black woman was.

This.

His trial isn't over. He's also in a different jurisdiction with slightly different circumstances.

The law makes perfect sense. It's a rational restriction on how and why you can lawfully discharge a firearm.

[eldargal]

Wow. That's a really twisted worldview you've got there. You do realize that it's 2013 here in the USA right? It seems like you might think life over here is one big episode from an early season of Mad Men. Whether the man was white or black the law would still be the law. These laws are passed in dozens of states by legislatures and governors who are not all white males. Stop seeing a prejudiced white man hiding behind every tree and shrubbery plotting to oppress you.
Really? I'm the one with a twisted worldview for thinking it is not ok to get away with murdering a prostitute over one hundred and fifty dollars?:rolleyes:

His trial isn't over. He's also in a different jurisdiction with slightly different circumstances.

The law makes perfect sense. It's a rational restriction on how and why you can lawfully discharge a firearm.
Right, he wasn't a black woman defending her children from an abusive, violent father.

So it's fine to discharge a firearm into a prostitute but bad to discharge one into a wall? Yes that makes perfect sense.

[Chris*ta]

The big problem with this law is that it makes it pathetically easy to commit murder and get away with it.

I don't like you very much, so I find you in the street and shoot you in the back of the head. I then plant a knife in your hand and my wallet in your pocket.

I call the police and tell them how you mugged me and then I had to shoot you to recover my stolen property. They then congratulate me on my close observance of the law and excellent shooting.

Yay for me! I wait for the bravery medals and TV interviews to start rolling in.

So, Earl, thoughts? Because this law enables this scenario very easily. What is to stop me from murdering everyone I don't like?

[Earl Harbinger]

I'm perfectly aware that the real-world point of the arrangement was sex, but if I give you money to perform an unlawful act and you don't perform it, I have no remedy at law - to put it in the terms of the Texas statutes, you do not unlawfully possess my money despite the fact that you have not done what you were given money to do.

The unjust enrichment question, obviously, is dependent upon the details of the actual contract - and I'm afraid I don't know what sort of legal details are typical here. Let's say she was paid $150 up front, but the actual contract was for her to receive $15 for each tenth of an hour she spent with him. Half an hour in, he decides (in reality because she won't agree to the sex he wants, but legally for no cognizable reason at all) that he wants to repudiate the contract. She is entitled to keep $75, but must return the other $75 - even though she is willing to perform her end of the deal, she can't, and hasn't earned it. If she does not return it, she's in breach of contract - though I certainly don't think a person who believes that he must use deadly force to recover that property believes so reasonably, which the Texas statute requires.

Now, depending on how sophisticated the contract is, she might be entitled to keep the whole $75. It's not uncommon in other analogous situations for there to be some sort of no-refunds clause, and that's perfectly okay. For instance, the contract might have said that she's entitled to the whole $150 as long as her non-performance is due to no misfeasance on her part, or that no refunds will be given without at least 24 hours' notice of cancellation, or both. I have no idea if theirs did, or what typical escort contracts provide, but the basic case is that an hourly contractor has to return unearned wages even if her inability to complete the contract is not her fault.

So responding to an ad on Craigslist creates a legally binding contract under which I'm lawfully obligated to make payment for goods/services without having the option of changing my mind? That would never hold up in court. It's not some ironclad contract, it's internet correspondence. If I respond to an ad that offers a service for $150 and then upon meeting decide that I don't want to purchase the service and/or want to negotiate the price I can. You seem to be ascribing an awful lot of legal significance to internet want ads.

[Kirsten]

Earl you are ignoring, over and over again, the very simple fact that he got what he paid for.

[eldargal]

As horrifying as this insight into the US justice system has been I don't want a single topic to dominate the feminist topic for too long so let's try and wrap it up fairly soon please.

[Earl Harbinger]

Except in practise it lets white men shoot women and ethnic groups with impunity. It is actually being investigated on those very grounds (http://www.mediaite.com/online/civil-rights-commission-to-investigate-stand-your-ground-laws-for-possible-racial-bias/). Also that analogy is rubbish. She didn't steal from him, he paid her to spend time with him with the expectation of sex. She didn't have sex with him, he shot her. She didn't steal from him she failed to meet his expectation, that is all. It would be like you making that bet with Kirsten, then going around to her house demanding money and shooting her when she didn't pay.

Anyway, just heard about 'Lewis' Law':

It's funny 'cos it's true.:rolleyes: Also tragic.

23 states have stand your ground laws and 19 states have castle doctrine laws. That's 42 states out of 50; 84% of the country amounting to hundreds of millions of people. They are not all racist sexist white men, their state govts are not exclusively white males. A large majority of the country allows citizens to defend themselves with lethal force from criminals either in their homes or anywhere. These are not racist or sexist laws they are laws that empower citizens to stand up to criminals. Given that the majority of crime is committed by nonwhites it is wholly unsurprising that a majority of the people who get shot under the applicable laws are not white. That correlation makes perfect sense.

The US Commission on Civil Rights is an obscure federal commission with no real power. They can investigate all they want, none of those 42 states are afraid of getting a sternly worded letter from a federal bureaucrat. Maybe the USCCR will issue a recommendation to Congress that might see a few hours of coverage on cable news networks on a slow news day before becoming completely irrelevant.

[Nabterayl]

So responding to an ad on Craigslist creates a legally binding contract under which I'm lawfully obligated to make payment for goods/services without having the option of changing my mind? That would never hold up in court. It's not some ironclad contract, it's internet correspondence. If I respond to an ad that offers a service for $150 and then upon meeting decide that I don't want to purchase the service and/or want to negotiate the price I can. You seem to be ascribing an awful lot of legal significance to internet want ads.
You can recite the elements of a contract as well as I can, I'm sure; I'm sure your law school was no worse than mine. Responding to an internet ad can be, and in this case almost undoubtedly was, a valid and enforceable contract.

That said, of course you can change your mind. That's what I meant to indicate when I said (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=316165&viewfull=1#post316165), "The shooter ... wanted to repudiate the contract. Absent a specific provision to the contrary, that's totally fine." Absent a contractual provision to the contrary, you can show up, decide you don't want to go out with this girl after all, and keep your money.

What you cannot do (absent a contractual provision to the contrary) is show up, spend an hour with the girl, decide you don't want to be out with her after all, and keep all of your money. She spent an hour with you as agreed; you owe her an hour's worth of money.

What she cannot do (absent a contractual provision to the contrary) is only spend an hour with you and keep four hours' worth of money, even if she's willing to spend the full four hours with you. Naturally this puts the hourly contractor in a bit of a pickle, be she an escort or a house painter, for which reason canny contractors usually do include a contractual provision to the contrary. But I have no idea whether or not this particular contractor did so.

[Earl Harbinger]

Earl you are ignoring, over and over again, the very simple fact that he got what he paid for.

No he didn't. Turns out he didn't want what she was really selling. He had no legal obligation to buy it so he didn't. She had no right to his money at that point so she was stealing and he had the right to defend his property.

[Kirsten]

yes but he decided that after twenty minutes, she is entitled to money. you seem to struggle with this very simple concept

[eldargal]

Yep, it's a bit like demanding a refund at a restaurant because you decided you didn't want a dish after you'd eaten a third of it then shooting the waitress dead when she refuses. He paid this woman to spend time with him, she did so, he wanted to have sex, she didn't*, he shot her. She fulfilled the contact as it was laid out in the ad, time for money. She may not have fulfilled his expectations but that is another matter entirely.

*Rather, he assumed she didn't because she attempted to leave to give the money to her pimp. A pimp who probably should be charged with criminal negligence given that they are supposed to protect their girls from violent clients.

[Earl Harbinger]

yes but he decided that after twenty minutes, she is entitled to money. you seem to struggle with this very simple concept

They meet, there is a few minutes of small talk, she asks for the money, he gives it to her under the expectation that she'll have sex with him, she refuses to have sex with him, he asks for his money back, that's only a few minutes of time, that doesn't entitle her to the whole $150. Now they are arguing over the money, she wants to keep all of it even though after a few minutes it was clear that he didn't understand the transaction terms and no longer wanted to participate. You can't count the time they spend fighting over the money as time she spent fulfilling a contract. If, as soon as you explain the full terms of the contract, I change my mind about wanting to purchase your services that doesn't count as triggering my acceptance of the contract. As the fight escalated and she demonstrated that she was determined to leave with the full $150 she was clearly stealing money from him so he stopped the theft with lethal force. Unless they agreed beforehand that the contract consisted of meeting up and arguing over terms I can't see how that 20 minutes qualifies as the fulfillment of anything.

[Kirsten]

your lack of regard for life is really just absolutely astonishing, it really is time to change the subject.