interesting story and not to be an asshole or anything i dont see how that story has anything to do with statistics?

"but you will see female ones doing a whole shitload of work that goes way beyond the definition of the job and so on."

you're saying women do a shitload of work that goes way beyond the definition of the job and so on.

and i haven't seen it

i am basically saying in general there are jobs that women usually get, usually associated with women: working in shops, receptions, maids, nannies, etc.

in my experience in the corporate world, what ive seen is women being mainly restricted to minor admin jobs and having to work twice as hard as men in order to gain any sort of promotion, and also being fired a lot more easily.

which statistics can support.

why, oh why, did I start this stupid thread?

I blame liquid marijuana, but it's still no excuse for triggering the war of the sexes.

I apologize to everybody, especially all of the women I've undoubtedly shown disrespect for/to. please come punish me for my sins (yours too if you'd like) at your leisure.

When I was doing my degree I worked for an office removals company. Some of the people I worked with were women and what I found was that a lot of the men, out of some kind of male pride, would insist that they did the heavier work. I'd also notice that a lot of them would try and lift heavier things on their own if a woman was around to watch, than if they were just around men. They'd then slate these same women off behind their back for not pulling their weight. I'm not saying that reflects what goes on elsewhere but I saw it a lot.

im enjoying the thread dead-air, it has developed into an interesting dicussion, so apologies are not required.

i believe you, i'm curious as to why you think that happens ? surely there must be restrictions against it so how come it happens? do you think it's because the administration thinks men are more capable or what? i can't see a reason so there's probably some bullshit going on

it reflects what we think deep down.
i never implied that women don't contribute to sexist behaviour, they do.

however, when we say "equality" we must think of biological differences as well. You can't just decide - for example - that in the name of "equality" women can't take maternity leave.

1- administration ARE men.
2- culture.
3- women are capable of getting pregnant, therefore, requiring maternity leave and becoming mothers, which administration thinks makes them focus in work less.
4- the general idea that women are less intelligent, focused and ambitious.
5- the general idea (in higher positions) that women are more moral and have more empathy, which sometimes clashes with the decisions required by these jobs. they think they lack agression.
6- men feel threatened and awkward having to treat them as equals instead of bossing them around.

thread was fine, some people here may not know your ex was a stripper, not understand your context, and people are quick to make moral condemnations on the interwebs, and political correctness is often a mask for puritanism.

i say congratulations on starting such a prolific thread, though the reading gets a bit heavy at times-- not heavy as in "difficult" but heavy as in "oh noes, i've read/heard this same tirade 1,000,000,000,000,000 times before". not to say there's not any truth in either side of the debate, it's just-- eh, let the kids sort it out for themselves, no harm in passionate discussion, even if passion is not sufficient for good discussion. have a beer & join in.

if on the other hand this is a ploy to get some girl to come & spank you i hope it works, you kinky bastard! have fun.

No, you missed my point. The women were accused of being lazy but what was happening was the guys were just showing off in front of them. I knew the man who ran the company and he said it was a tactic that was commonplace: that men work far harder in manual labour when they're around women, rather than women doing less. It's a male vanity thing. Some of the women I worked with were far stronger than a lot of the men, they were just sensible enough to let them get on with breaking their backs.

as far as administration being men that would be easy to change with some promotions, maternity leave makes sense but it's still weird they would rather promote other men. i guess in business they value people who have no life out of the company and getting pregnant would make it impossible for people to that

Top 10 Rich List

1 Warren Buffett

2 Carlos Slim Helu

3 Bill Gates

4 Lakshmi Mittal

5 Mukesh Ambani


6 Anil Ambani

7 Ingvar Kamprad

8 KP Singh

9 Oleg Deripaska

10 Karl Albrecht


all male

what a bunch of douchebags. of course if you're around a pretty girl you'll offer to carry the big load and impress her with your guns (that's what here in 'merica we call biceps). chivalry and male display are instinctual behaviors-- don't tell me you don't stand up straight from your usual paunch-forward slouch the moment an attractive woman walks into the room. oh yeah, inflate that chest. biology!

but TO BITCH ABOUT IT is a complete load of ass. i pity the low-testosterone fools. j'accuse! or something.

yes thats why i said culture plays a major role.
men like to feel "manly" around women, and women like to feel "protected" by men.

who me? cry and act self pitious in order to get women to hurt me more? c'mon I didn't even offer to tip this time. though I'm always negotiable, of course.

culture or genes? humanities types tend to dismiss the fact that our brains are hardwired to do a lot of stuff.

i'm not saying this applies to 100% of the population or if you don't you're a sick deviant-- i'm saying that the species has developed behaviors for millions of years and reading books won't so readily change that.

ha ha, well, you know there are always the nurse types! they like that stuff.

gotta run but feel no guilt from your thread man. it's all good.

I guess, in the end, the biggest reason is that men feel threatened by women. I recently read that the women with the most education, money and power are the ones that can't get married, they claim men can't deal with being with women that they see as "superior", they want to feel "needed".

I also think that society in general fears changing the order of things, sort of like "what would women do if they had more power?", we don't know what the world would be like, so it is a scary change.

i just have seen your edits.

4. when i was in school the female students always got the best grades and were in the most clubs,favored by the teachers etc. i've never actually heard someone say any of that, maybe they think it secretly, it never crossed my mind that women aren't smart,but i'm not smart so i wouldn't notice even if it were true :p
5.maybe in higher positions that's the attitude,i don't know, but i think most men are well aware that women are capable of pure and absolute evil
6.yeah probably

Yeah, that's obviously true, although in this instance I don't think the women wanted or liked to feel protected by the men, they were just sensible enough to play along with their game. Some of them wouldn't, and even tried to out muscle these men, which just led to this quite funny escalation of two sides trying to lift more chairs than the next.

Needless to say I'd spend the entire day moving table lamps from one office to the other and sneaking out for cigarettes with all the other sensible ones.

Male pride is one thing, but I've yet to meet a woman who's seduced by a guy doubled up from a slipped disc.

yeah, but where will you be when it gets pulled out in a job interview in seven years?

yes. you are right.
there are certain biological differences but at this point we can't determine what is what. like you said, there are thousands of years of behaviour and you can't just let go of it. It means the changes will take time.

this. gender is a heavily conditioned force. we can't really what is pure biology and what has been naturalized. the way we read/are taught science is completely scripted in our own narratives.

also, the pull between pregnancy and the work force is huge for many women.

it is. i have a difficult time finding a job everytime because of my age and the fact that i have no children: they always think i might, they always think I want to. In every single job interview I have been in the last 10 years they have asked me about my plans with children, and all the times I actually GOT the job was after assuring them I had no plans to have children, and implying I was on birth control.

when i apply for freelance stuff, without the binding contract, they come easy.

One of my friends says she's sterile in every job interview (she is), not to anyone's surprise, she gets a job way quicker than the rest of us.

I have to say, a large part of my problem with this topic is how easy it is to isolate a position and defend it, regardless of context. I think the fact that there's lots of people talking at cross-purposes (of which I'm one, and being one now) is a large part of the problem - the notion of gender is hard-coded to the idea of identity.

I entirely agree with Ms Fiend's point above about gender being heavily conditioned - this isn't the same as saying you can eschew biology, but performative gender roles are certainly something that can be resisted. I really loathe !£"$%'s point about genetics and biology - not that I consider this a criticism of him, I just think it's very dangerous to be so prescriptive. I don't think it's that far-fetched to say that you can just as easily say men act like weightlifters 'because of testosterone' as you can say that some men are rapists for the same reason. The point being not that biology isn't a part of identity, but I don't think it forms a rationale, or defining epistemic.

I think what I was getting at earlier, and what wellcharge has articulated is that the massive male-centric bias in the upper echelons of pay is bound to impute a massive male-centric skew on general talk of pay; I'm keen to dismiss using this information because we're talking about less than 1% of the population's problems, which run far deeper than 'misogyny' and into a criticism of vulgar capitalism (which I've no real interest in right now). This is an entirely different trajectory to what Ms's Knox and Fiend are getting at, which is more to do with a sense of 'what roles women play' in an international marketplace that stretches beyond the 'developed' world.

So, basically, I'm saying that it's much more complicated than isolating one point; I personally have a lot of sympathy with the problems of talking about this subject, and I don't think it gets solved by pointing to one small part of a very large and diffuse problem.

Which is sort of a non-point, but there you go.

I agree with Glice when he implied that people tend to base their opinions on the "develop western" world. Reason why I always need some data to reflect upon. Amnisty International is a good source for numbers, in case anyone is looking.

I can't really base my opinions in what I have personally experienced only. I haven't experienced domestic violence, I haven't been raped. According to statistics, that makes me the LUCKY half of females. So things aren't always what they seem to be on the surface, it's all way more complex than that.

I have heard people say there is no reason for "feminism" in the developed world, since there are women in many positions of power. To me that is the equivalent of saying that because Obama is president there is no racism anymore.

I liked this thread better when it was about boobies...


I'm pretty sure that, at least in the US, that is totally illegal. And that's kind of the root problem with the continuation of female oppression in the workplace--no one does (can do/will do) anything about it.

Do they know its a question they can't ask? Did you?

If you did know, did you report it? To who?

Of course, you want the job so you don't want to rock the boat. Or you don't want to seem whiney. Or 'it really doesn't matter'

When we do stand up for some right, we get labled a trouble maker. If you live in a small community, good luck getting a job after that.

My ex-wife got fired in a very discriminatory manner and she went to the state EEOC and got nowhere--impossible to prove. I was trying to tell her to go to the NRLB but she didn't. Dunno if that would have gotten her any further. (They didn't tell her that her real job title was 'scapegoat')

then there is the OTHER side of it, where women with children get off early from work, women with children take days off cuz their kid is sick. women with children get first option to opt out of any overtime. I have seen it. it happens.
not a universal of course, but there are perks tooo. Most women with kid I have ever worked for have admitted that they take days off pretending their kid is sick.

suuuure.

let a guy try that and yr boss will fucking chew you out a new shithole.

Again, I can't help but feel that what's being discussed is sometimes a broader critique of vulgar capitalism, and moronic bureaucracy, than it is 'feminism'; I'm not saying 'everyone OT', but what you're describing there Rob is a different problem than gender bias in society.

I've been in the situation you're describing above, and I've pushed for similar dispensations as women in that situation; I'm lucky enough to be articulate, to the point where I can throw what amount to empty threats at a manager and rely upon his not knowing precisely what I'm talking about but feeling threatened. This does sound a bit 'I'm fucking great', but it's actually down to the fact that the structure of most bureaucracies isn't based upon superior knowledge but structural sinecures; rarely do people know what they're actually doing. Unfortunately, another consequence of this same structure is precisely what we're criticising - individuals tend to refer back to a perceived status quo, which is where prejudices broader than racism or sexism (etc) begin to disrupt things.

fucking A I fully agree.

it was mor specific to bias in the workplace

gender bias in society comes straight down from patriarchal religions in my mind.

First, of course asking directly and denying a job is illegal. However, this is why they have invented those "where do you see yourself in ten years" and psychological tests for. You have to pretend you are not being asked directly, the same way they pretend they are not asking. Do not underestimate their ability to get round any formal "legal" problems. I know this because I worked directly with CEOs of huge companies. Your chances of proving there was discriminating behaviour are small, and that filing and complaining might "spread" and make it difficult to get another position.

Another thing, women with small children are more likely to leave work early, ot to take sick days off because of young kids. There are many things you could argue there. The way I have seen, they are forced to make up for it. What I have seen is that once they start doing that their chances of not being promoted or being on the list for the next "cut" when they are "downsizing" is higher.

But, above all, to me the real question is: why are the mothers taking days off and leaving early? why aren't them sharing that burden equally with the fathers?

Well, it very much depends what you mean by patriarchial religions; actually, it doesn't, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My point being that the situation of 'religion' is equally as complex as the construction of gender; religion 'discriminates against women' is as much of a truism as 'all men are rapists'. There are thousands upon thousands of venerated women in most churches, and the history of women's writing is nothing in the west without the church. That's not to exonerate religion of its role, but it is definitely to posit a much more complex situation than you're positing.

get back to me when the catholics, the baptists, the pentecostals, the adventists, and the muslims begin treating women as equal to men.

a male god produces male priests produces male domination. it is what it is.

sure "some" women are venerated by the church, but that is a drop in the bucket.

look, I really think we need to get this thread back to boobies

however, it was not religion to create misogyny, it was misogyny to create those dogmas in religion.

I thinkthe question should be: why is it expected that the woman will take the time off and leave early to attend to the kids?

many men do the same thing, a blanket indictment of them is not possible, but why is it expected that the woman is the one who will take the mothering role?

maybe because they are the mother?

I truly think that biologcally, the mother, by virtue of having nourished and carried the child for 9 months inside her, as well as the nursing that ussually takes place for months or years afterwards, either develops, or has ingrained in her brain, nurturing skills which men have to work harder at to be as good at, or even to develop. this is not a bias, just an idea about the issue.

males are very superfluous to the cycle of life. we only are required, by nature, to inseminate. physically, a child does not need a male to survive. A mogther however, with her milk, is the very core of survival for infants and babies.

This is a bit off topic but there have been recemnt studies done that show how women are attarcted to burly, manly, alpha-type males BEFORE they get opregnant, for there are physical clues/markers which show that a strong healthy robust male will have strong sperm and therefore strong healthy chuildren, but these same studies show that AFTER a woman has given birth, their instincts change to be attracted more to the kind, gentler, emotinally nourishing males, as opposed to the lumbering oaf male.
that is funny to me.

they say it helps explain why many women can feel these seemingly irrational feelings of disgust at the man they fell in love with, once they had their first child. they find him repulsive an dwant a nurturer instead of a protector/provider/fuck machine.

weird huh?

of course there is biology in everything, but glice has said before not EVERYTHING can be explained or carried out that way.

depression, agression, betrayal, promiscuity, etc etc. all have biological explanations, yet in a "civilized" society we don't take those as excuses. They simply don't explain everything, there are so many factors to analyse, culturally, environmentally, and even biologically to extents that we don't fully comprehend yet.

so why shouldn't the male participate more actively in the role of raising a child? - saying that because "he just isn't that way" is a cop out.

i thought the liquid marijuana would be more damning. o well. never run for office and quit working for the man.

that's a bit of an outdated assumption dear, i know plenty of males who raise children. friend of mine has 5 kids (one his, 4 adopted), his wife is the main breadwinner and he does the children police. ok, enough with the anecdotal evidence-- more and more, because of socioeconomic changes (i even consider economy as much more impactful than "culture"), male parents are taking up greater roles in child rearing. of course some people try to naturalize their choices by saying "oh, i'ts in my genes not to give a shit". well to an extent that is true-- but only to an extent.

of course not all is explained by biology-- only maybe about 90%. economy & class provides 9% and the 1% extra is where we can alter course, more or less, provided we are aware and not completely plastered or numbed out with pills and tv.

1% with compound interest can accumulate to a whole lot in time. but let's not dream that we can reeducate the human population to be holy saints within the space of a generation. mao tried, and look what happened.

hell yeah that's a cop out.