Feminism

[Naamah D.]

What are your thoughts on feminism? I'm kinda on the fence with be being considered a feminist.

 

Why I am

 

I certainly think that dressing feminine just for the sake of men isn't really necessary

Staying home and birthing babies isn't our job either. I don't want kids but the fact that some men expect women to sit at home and take care of children is not cool

 

Why I'm not

 

As women we ARE weaker. Unless you wanna be buff like He Man

 

But that's just my two cents.

[Otempora]

I think that being a feminist and being a strong woman are two different things.

 

I really respect strong women that don't put up disrespect or rudeness, know exactly what they want, and how to get it.

When I dress up I do it for myself; I agree that it isn't necessary to dress up and paint your face for a man. All the real men wouldn't think it was necessary either. I think it's a woman's choice to do all the things you suggested.

 

On the other hand, I think feminism is out of control when women get mad at a man holding the door for them, or pulling out a chair. I hold open the door regardless of what gender happens to be coming in behind me; it's just polite.

 

I don't necessarily agree with you that women are weaker. Certainly some women are weaker than some men and some men are weaker than some women. Your statement was an overgeneralization.

[Emily]

I believe in feminism to the extent of breaking down gender barriers and assignments. A woman's place is not just in the home, just as some men are stay at home dads. When I have a problem with is women or anyone else using the excuse of "women's rights" to justify or ignite behaviours or actions that have nothing to do with feminism or that one knows are detrimental to themselves.

 

Example 1: An accounting company's policy states they have to have an equal number of male to female workers, +/- 10%. They are interviewing for a position and currently have a ratio of 61 men to ever 39 women. Their workforce is therefore 61% men when their policy dictates it can be no more than 60%. During the hiring process, they hire 6 women and 1 man. 4 of the women were better qualified than all the male applicants, but the other 2 were the next best qualified of the women, whereas there were 3 more men that were ahead of them in terms of qualification. The women got the job because of the quota of women workers that needed to be hired to make the employee discrepancy within the 10% range to a 50/50 workforce. If companies are not allowed to ask for things such as religious affiliation or sexual preference on a resume, I think gender should also be excluded. Names and genders aren't necessary to gauge a person's level of competence. The same is true of ethnicity. You cannot have rules that make ratio-hiring mandatory because eventually, you would need to be hiring based on race instead of competency.

 

Example 2: (and one that is more relevant to younger people) A girl goes out dressed provocatively and somewhat inappropriately. She says it makes her feel confident and that it's her "right" as a woman to dress that way. She then complains about all the negative comments, both from other women and men. Is this fair? She knew how she was choosing to portray herself. If she didn't care, she wouldn't be complaining. She obviously did it for attention and used the feminism excuse to justify her behaviour.

 

As far s the holding a door open for someone, pulling out a chair and things like that, some of it's common courtesy and some of it is just passed down from another time. I hold the door open for people behind me when they're close enough that it's appropriate. If I see someone struggling with bags, male or female, I offer to help. Things like pulling out a chair are harmless. It's not an action that's meant to make you feel incompetent, it's simply a matter of respect. In my opinion, many do not truly understand real feminism and have turned it into an extreme and hateful association

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Feminism is fantastic.

 

Feminazism is not.

 

Worrying about equal numbers in every profession is ludicrous--yes, affirmative action like this is ludicrous. The vast majority of engineering majors are men--many more men choose the field than women. (I mean more men than women choose the field, not like they chose engineering over women...) Would it then make sense to say that your company hires a higher percentage of women than there actually are in the field? No way. Then a lot of qualified men would get cut.

 

The other side: If jobs have to have equal numbers of men and women, this goes for elementary school teachers too. This goes for nurses. We'd have to hire a lot more men in these fields. And you know what? I would be totally cool with hiring more men. Nursing in particular, I feel like it IS necessary to have more men than we have--as a woman, I'd rather have a female nurse because she has the same bits as I have. I feel like there are definitely men who feel the same way.

 

Anyway, the point is, as an econ major, I believe in hiring the most qualified people. If I were hired as a computer programmer simply because of affirmative action, I would bring the company down in a few months. (I don't think it would go that far, though, because there ARE very qualified women--but still, I believe in the MOST qualified one getting it.)

 

This is only a small issue, really. There are lots of things associated with feminism that are really overbearing or unfair to men. For example, in custody cases, the mother nearly always gets the kid, even if she really is proven to be an unfit parent. I know a guy who does not have custody of his kids despite the fact that the mother is homeless. (Despite his many, many alimony and child support payments to her, which she does not spend on the important things.) Heck, alimony in itself is unfair in nearly every case. In the end, I believe in equal OPPORTUNITIES for men and for women, and everyone being open to picking the most qualified people. From there, everyone makes the best choices for themselves.

 

I am not against women being housewives, but some "feminists" are. I am also not against men being housespouses. I am not against porn, but feminists say it is degrading to women. (And loads of it is...but come on, it's degrading to men in the same way.) I'm not against women being strippers. I am not even against prostitution--I am against anyone being forced into prostitution. To me, feminism is about opening doors, not closing the ones that lead to "bad" paths. I believe it is degrading to women to say they can't be trusted to make the best choices for themselves, so we have to take away the choices that some believe are bad.

[Jess Is Somewhere Else]

I want to have children when I'm older, but I would rather be a single parent. Thing is, this boy who likes me is disabled, so I don't know if he can have children, and if anything, I won't be able to leave him if we do get together because of his problem. I'll have to look after him more. But I'll dress how I like and not how anyone else likes, and I want to play music when I'm older, so I will do something rather than be at home doing housework. I have to do things like that now at home, wash the plates and stuff.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

As women we ARE weaker. Unless you wanna be buff like He Man

 

 

I didn't address this in my last post, but I should have.

 

The problem with statements like these: IN GENERAL, they are true. IN GENERAL, women are weaker than men. IN GENERAL, women are more emotional. IN GENERAL, women are better at working with kids than men are.

 

The problem is that people turn the general into the specific, and turn the specific into general as well. Some women are actually incredibly strong and can do more heavy lifting than a lot of men. Some men are incredibly weak and can't do heavy lifting, or else they have a disability and can't do the heavy lifting. So when you call out into the office, "Hey, can someone please change the water jug?" and a woman starts coming to help, some people will tell her to sit down and let a man do it.

 

Or else a man will not be allowed custody of his kids even if he is better for it.

 

Or else a girl is told by her principal that freshman aren't supposed to take biology...but he only told the girls this, because he assumed they would not be at the right level in math. This is EXACTLY what happened to me, and it completely screwed up my entire high school course timetable and prevented me from taking AP science classes. I had actually skipped a couple grades in math and sped through others, so I was WAY past the level you needed to be at for biology.

 

So you can't just make some kind of rule or assumption or anything. These WILL lead to negative consequences.

 

 

 

 

Now, specific to general:

 

If a white man steals something, then he is a thief. If a black man steals something, then all black people are thieves.

(Also, what's the deal with the fried chicken stereotype? Yes, black people like fried chicken. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING DELICIOUS. Everyone I know who's not a vegetarian loves it.)

If one man is terrible with directions, then he is terrible with directions. If one woman is terrible with directions, then all women are terrible with directions.

If one man is bad at math (like in the picture) then HE sucks at math. If one woman is bad at math, then all women suck at math.

 

You see what I'm doing with this? I'm not being hypersensitive. It happens. Like here:

Woman guilty of trying to burn husband during nap

 

I made the mistake of reading the comments on this article (there are a lot fewer now--they must have deleted the older ones) and there were a lot of idiot comments. There were some that were idiot trolling political remarks, such as "she must have been a liberal, because liberals love to bring everyone else down so they can steal their money." There were a lot of comments about "Why didn't he leave her? It's his own fault!" This is sexist against men, really, because we wouldn't dare say that to a woman. There were some very well-spoken comments from some people explaining why he was forced to stay, because she easily could have destroyed his life and gotten HIM to look like an abusive murderer due to sexism against men. (And it is absolutely true that this happens.)

 

And then there were faaaaaaar too many: "This proves that women are just out to get your money. They are evil and soulless. This is what feminism does--it makes women rise up to murder their husbands." Many of them will quote statistics about how the murder rate by women has gone up as women have gained rights.

 

Yeah. Because ONE woman did that, ALL women do it. And oh, will you look at that? The murder rate by men has gone up too. It clearly must be because women have gotten so annoying with their feminism, that men have no choice but to kill them! Simple fact: men account for 91% of murders. That doesn't mean that men are murderers, so why does it mean that women are?

 

 

 

 

 

So, in the end, the consequences:

1) One woman does one thing wrong.

2) Some of the idiot men around her make fun of her, and say "Wow, girls suck at ___________."

3) Everyone hears the stereotype, and while they don't necessarily believe it, it implants into their minds until they notice every time anyone follows that stereotype.

4) The accomplishments of the women in that field are not noticed, but every time someone does something wrong, it is noticed.

5) The stereotype now has "evidence" of being true.

6) We have gone from specific to general.

7) Now that we have a generality, people go from general to specific.

8) One girl is awesome at something, but no one will even give her a chance at that something. No one will even notice her talents.

 

In a lot of ways, this is what happened to me. There's a stupid stereotype that women are bad at math...despite the fact that girls' math grades are higher and they perform better on standardized tests that are geared toward a style set for the usual "boys' mindset". (That is, the stereotype here is that boys, who are more impulsive and faster and think in black and white, do better on multiple choice.) Because of this stereotype, I didn't make it into the higher up math at the beginning even though my test scores were better, my speed was better, and my grades were better than anyone's. It wasn't until mid-fourth grade, when I had advanced MYSELF to algebraic thinking without ever being taught anything--I did it solely by critical thinking--that they finally put me in the higher math. Where I proceeded to blitz everyone in the class.

[Unstream]

I didn't address this in my last post, but I should have.

 

The problem with statements like these: IN GENERAL, they are true. IN GENERAL, women are weaker than men. IN GENERAL, women are more emotional. IN GENERAL, women are better at working with kids than men are.

 

The problem is that people turn the general into the specific, and turn the specific into general as well. Some women are actually incredibly strong and can do more heavy lifting than a lot of men. Some men are incredibly weak and can't do heavy lifting, or else they have a disability and can't do the heavy lifting. So when you call out into the office, "Hey, can someone please change the water jug?" and a woman starts coming to help, some people will tell her to sit down and let a man do it.

 

Or else a man will not be allowed custody of his kids even if he is better for it.

 

Or else a girl is told by her principal that freshman aren't supposed to take biology...but he only told the girls this, because he assumed they would not be at the right level in math. This is EXACTLY what happened to me, and it completely screwed up my entire high school course timetable and prevented me from taking AP science classes. I had actually skipped a couple grades in math and sped through others, so I was WAY past the level you needed to be at for biology.

 

So you can't just make some kind of rule or assumption or anything. These WILL lead to negative consequences.

 

If a white man steals something, then he is a thief. If a black man steals something, then all black people are thieves.

(Also, what's the deal with the fried chicken stereotype? Yes, black people like fried chicken. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING DELICIOUS. Everyone I know who's not a vegetarian loves it.)

If one man is terrible with directions, then he is terrible with directions. If one woman is terrible with directions, then all women are terrible with directions.

If one man is bad at math (like in the picture) then HE sucks at math. If one woman is bad at math, then all women suck at math.

 

You see what I'm doing with this? I'm not being hypersensitive. It happens. Like here:

Woman guilty of trying to burn husband during nap

 

I made the mistake of reading the comments on this article (there are a lot fewer now--they must have deleted the older ones) and there were a lot of idiot comments. There were some that were idiot trolling political remarks, such as "she must have been a liberal, because liberals love to bring everyone else down so they can steal their money." There were a lot of comments about "Why didn't he leave her? It's his own fault!" This is sexist against men, really, because we wouldn't dare say that to a woman. There were some very well-spoken comments from some people explaining why he was forced to stay, because she easily could have destroyed his life and gotten HIM to look like an abusive murderer due to sexism against men. (And it is absolutely true that this happens.)

 

And then there were faaaaaaar too many: "This proves that women are just out to get your money. They are evil and soulless. This is what feminism does--it makes women rise up to murder their husbands." Many of them will quote statistics about how the murder rate by women has gone up as women have gained rights.

 

Yeah. Because ONE woman did that, ALL women do it. And oh, will you look at that? The murder rate by men has gone up too. It clearly must be because women have gotten so annoying with their feminism, that men have no choice but to kill them! Simple fact: men account for 91% of murders. That doesn't mean that men are murderers, so why does it mean that women are?

 

So, in the end, the consequences:

1) One woman does one thing wrong.

2) Some of the idiot men around her make fun of her, and say "Wow, girls suck at ___________."

3) Everyone hears the stereotype, and while they don't necessarily believe it, it implants into their minds until they notice every time anyone follows that stereotype.

4) The accomplishments of the women in that field are not noticed, but every time someone does something wrong, it is noticed.

5) The stereotype now has "evidence" of being true.

6) We have gone from specific to general.

7) Now that we have a generality, people go from general to specific.

8) One girl is awesome at something, but no one will even give her a chance at that something. No one will even notice her talents.

 

In a lot of ways, this is what happened to me. There's a stupid stereotype that women are bad at math...despite the fact that girls' math grades are higher and they perform better on standardized tests that are geared toward a style set for the usual "boys' mindset". (That is, the stereotype here is that boys, who are more impulsive and faster and think in black and white, do better on multiple choice.) Because of this stereotype, I didn't make it into the higher up math at the beginning even though my test scores were better, my speed was better, and my grades were better than anyone's. It wasn't until mid-fourth grade, when I had advanced MYSELF to algebraic thinking without ever being taught anything--I did it solely by critical thinking--that they finally put me in the higher math. Where I proceeded to blitz everyone in the class.

I don't know. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure they're really problems nowadays. I know people make the "women are bad drivers" joke at my school, but the thing is, it's a joke, and nobody seriously believes it.

 

And I mean, there are plenty of sayings like that when it comes to both genders. Girls don't really have it any worse in my opinion.

 

Just that there seem to be a lot wrong with what you're saying, and you're making quite a few jumps in terms of these consequences. I mean, girls that are really good at math are known to be really good at math. I know who all of the smartest girls in my calculus class are, and I usually go to them for help. I don't think stereotypes are effective in overshadowing a person's personal achievement, especially if you know the person personally. I understand how stereotypes can be reinforced through reading something like a newspaper, but never from actually seeing it with a person you know in real life. And so I don't think there's ever a moment when a girl is really awesome at something, but people don't give her a chance. At least that doesn't happen with girls any more than it does with guys. And you might say it's because I'm a guy, so I don't notice things, but I do. I know so many successful girls that are way smarter and way more talented than I am. And I'm not the only one who notices their talents. And what happened to you with biology wouldn't happen here at my school. I don't know what happened there, but our principal would probably get fired for something like that.

 

And also, you can't take those comments at the bottom of the articles to heart. I almost never read comments. There are too many trolls like that who just say terrible things to annoy people. They don't actually support what they're saying, they're just trying to garner attention for themselves. And I don't think xkcd is necessarily a reliable source for social criticism either; it is meant to be a comedic webcomic after all.

 

Sorry, I'm really ramble-y this post. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.

[Vivies]

I don't know. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure they're really problems nowadays. I know people make the "women are bad drivers" joke at my school, but the thing is, it's a joke, and nobody seriously believes it.

 

And I mean, there are plenty of sayings like that when it comes to both genders. Girls don't really have it any worse in my opinion.

 

Just that there seem to be a lot wrong with what you're saying, and you're making quite a few jumps in terms of these consequences. I mean, girls that are really good at math are known to be really good at math. I know who all of the smartest girls in my calculus class are, and I usually go to them for help. I don't think stereotypes are effective in overshadowing a person's personal achievement, especially if you know the person personally. I understand how stereotypes can be reinforced through reading something like a newspaper, but never from actually seeing it with a person you know in real life. And so I don't think there's ever a moment when a girl is really awesome at something, but people don't give her a chance. At least that doesn't happen with girls any more than it does with guys. And you might say it's because I'm a guy, so I don't notice things, but I do. I know so many successful girls that are way smarter and way more talented than I am. And I'm not the only one who notices their talents. And what happened to you with biology wouldn't happen here at my school. I don't know what happened there, but our principal would probably get fired for something like that.

 

And also, you can't take those comments at the bottom of the articles to heart. I almost never read comments. There are too many trolls like that who just say terrible things to annoy people. They don't actually support what they're saying, they're just trying to garner attention for themselves. And I don't think xkcd is necessarily a reliable source for social criticism either; it is meant to be a comedic webcomic after all.

 

Sorry, I'm really ramble-y this post. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.

 

 

I have to disagree, completely. They very much are problems. Because a woman's achievements are always quantified by the fact that she's a woman. What she wears will always be mentioned. How she looks will always be mentioned.

 

And because you are a guy, no, you wouldn't know. You can't understand on the same level as a woman. You do not get the overt and subtle slights. You have been conditioned differently. It's a totally different world.

 

And I really resent the "feminazi" tag. Referring to any group of people besides Nazis as Nazis is so incredibly offensive, demeaning and ridiculous. What in the world does a group of people fighting for equal rights and the desire to be seen as humans have to do with a bunch of murderers?

[Yuika]

I have to disagree, completely. They very much are problems. Because a woman's achievements are always quantified by the fact that she's a woman. What she wears will always be mentioned. How she looks will always be mentioned.

 

And because you are a guy, no, you wouldn't know. You can't understand on the same level as a woman. You do not get the overt and subtle slights. You have been conditioned differently. It's a totally different world.

 

And I really resent the "feminazi" tag. Referring to any group of people besides Nazis as Nazis is so incredibly offensive, demeaning and ridiculous. What in the world does a group of people fighting for equal rights and the desire to be seen as humans have to do with a bunch of murderers?

I do mostly agree with the first paragraph, in that phrases like "for a girl/woman" are common. However, as for appearances, I would like to point out that a lot of women enjoy being on display in that way. And most of the time, men are also judged by their appearance. Male eating disorders and social disorders stemming from this fact are a real thing.

 

I believe the "feminazi" label generally goes to women who believe women are better than men, like female chauvinists. Personally, I don't like to call myself a feminist, because I just want equality (and no, we're not there yet). I know that this is what most feminists want, but there are some who give the rest a bad name. I guess I feel somewhat removed from the whole thing because I'm too young to have lived through any real prejudice due to my gender, or how I was raised around very unprejudiced people.

[Jess Is Somewhere Else]

I know a lot about this from reading books set in the past. I hate how men thought of women as just things that look good, like dolls.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Just that there seem to be a lot wrong with what you're saying, and you're making quite a few jumps in terms of these consequences. I mean, girls that are really good at math are known to be really good at math.

 

No, I'm talking from personal experience. I just described to you how I had to complete every math problem in less than half the time it took everyone else just to be considered for a special math class--one I was excluded from at first despite the fact that I was better than everyone else. The jumps in terms of these consequences ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

And so I don't think there's ever a moment when a girl is really awesome at something, but people don't give her a chance.

 

So you completely ignored my entire story...?

 

Plus the fact that my entire scientific career was cut short by one principal who told girls not to take biology freshman year. It made it impossible for me ever to take AP Chemistry, a class I really wanted. Didn't I mention that story?

 

Really, you think there is NEVER a moment when a girl is really awesome at something but people don't give her a chance? That's two stories I just gave you, and those are just for me. Who knows how many there are from others?

[Yuika]

No, I'm talking from personal experience. I just described to you how I had to complete every math problem in less than half the time it took everyone else just to be considered for a special math class--one I was excluded from at first despite the fact that I was better than everyone else. The jumps in terms of these consequences ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

 

 

So you completely ignored my entire story...?

 

Plus the fact that my entire scientific career was cut short by one principal who told girls not to take biology freshman year. It made it impossible for me ever to take AP Chemistry, a class I really wanted. Didn't I mention that story?

 

Really, you think there is NEVER a moment when a girl is really awesome at something but people don't give her a chance? That's two stories I just gave you, and those are just for me. Who knows how many there are from others?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you from a previous generation or a country other than the US? (I don't think anyone would argue against there still being sexism in other countries.) Those stories are things that would be thrown into the local (and possibly national) media if they happened today in the US. The only time I could even imagine this occurring in the present is in a very rural area.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you from a previous generation or a country other than the US? (I don't think anyone would argue against there still being sexism in other countries.) Those stories are things that would be thrown into the local (and possibly national) media if they happened today in the US. The only time I could even imagine this occurring in the present is in a very rural area.

 

No, I'm not. I'm only 24, and this was in California--and not a rural part of California, either, a part where many people with Ph.Ds live. The problem is that this isn't overt sexism: it's hidden sexism that people don't even realize they're doing. The same thing happens all the time with racism.

 

Things like this happen all the time--if they don't happen to you, then you don't notice them. It would only make news if they actually made a rule that says girls are not allowed to do this. If it's subjective at all, they can argue that they had other reasons, even though they didn't. I also didn't make a big stink about it because I was brought up not to complain.

[Vivies]

No, I'm not. I'm only 24, and this was in California--and not a rural part of California, either, a part where many people with Ph.Ds live. The problem is that this isn't overt sexism: it's hidden sexism that people don't even realize they're doing. The same thing happens all the time with racism.

 

Things like this happen all the time--if they don't happen to you, then you don't notice them. It would only make news if they actually made a rule that says girls are not allowed to do this. If it's subjective at all, they can argue that they had other reasons, even though they didn't. I also didn't make a big stink about it because I was brought up not to complain.

 

This a million times over. A MILLION TRILLION TIMES OVER!

 

You may not even realize the things you are being excluded from, just based on being a woman. But the fact that women are conditioned to behave in an inferior way, to not question authority or power--which is usually held by men--is proof positive that sexism is still a problem.

 

A woman liking short skirts, pink, dishwashing, dolls, frills and ruffles is not a problem. A woman enjoying her body and sexuality and having confidence in her looks is not a problem. The problem lies in that perception that all women like that. That all women only like that. That any and all women who like these things are inferior/less intelligent/less reliable/less capable, etc.

 

It happens everyday. It's not a thing of the past. Just because someone might not recognize or choose to acknowledge it, doesn't mean that it's not occurring. And let's not even get into internalized misogyny. It's just a Divide and Conquer strategy. Pit women against other women so other people can keep their hands clean.

[Unstream]

Ooh, so much to respond to. Best get started.

 

I have to disagree, completely. They very much are problems. Because a woman's achievements are always quantified by the fact that she's a woman. What she wears will always be mentioned. How she looks will always be mentioned.

How is that true? If a woman won a Nobel prize, that fact that she's a woman chances nothing. Nor a woman who becomes CEO of a company. Or a woman who develops the cure for an infectious disease. Their achievements are no less great just because they're women.

 

I know a lot about this from reading books set in the past. I hate how men thought of women as just things that look good, like dolls.

But that's the thing, it's all set in the past. Things have changed so much in the past 50 years...in the past 10 years even.

 

No, I'm talking from personal experience. I just described to you how I had to complete every math problem in less than half the time it took everyone else just to be considered for a special math class--one I was excluded from at first despite the fact that I was better than everyone else. The jumps in terms of these consequences ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

So you completely ignored my entire story...?

 

Plus the fact that my entire scientific career was cut short by one principal who told girls not to take biology freshman year. It made it impossible for me ever to take AP Chemistry, a class I really wanted. Didn't I mention that story?

 

Really, you think there is NEVER a moment when a girl is really awesome at something but people don't give her a chance? That's two stories I just gave you, and those are just for me. Who knows how many there are from others?

Well here's your problem. You went from specific to general. And then you went from general to specific. (See what I'm doing here? :P)

 

Just because you experienced this isolated situation does not mean it happens everywhere. You took your situation and applied it everywhere else in the world.

 

Like here at my school, in Lancaster, Amish county (doesn't get more rural than that), we have tests to get you into higher math/science classes. Pass with a certain percent, you move on; if you don't, you stay at your level. Gender plays no role whatsoever.

 

And your whole entire scientific career? Don't you think your exaggerating? Like a career rests on whether or not you take AP Chem during high school.

 

No, I'm not. I'm only 24, and this was in California--and not a rural part of California, either, a part where many people with Ph.Ds live. The problem is that this isn't overt sexism: it's hidden sexism that people don't even realize they're doing. The same thing happens all the time with racism.

 

Things like this happen all the time--if they don't happen to you, then you don't notice them. It would only make news if they actually made a rule that says girls are not allowed to do this. If it's subjective at all, they can argue that they had other reasons, even though they didn't. I also didn't make a big stink about it because I was brought up not to complain.

Once again, don't know what was going on with you, but it'd never happen at my school. Maybe they did have other reasons. Did they let a guy who performed worse than you move on to the higher level course? Because if not, it might not be based on gender.

 

This a million times over. A MILLION TRILLION TIMES OVER!

 

You may not even realize the things you are being excluded from, just based on being a woman. But the fact that women are conditioned to behave in an inferior way, to not question authority or power--which is usually held by men--is proof positive that sexism is still a problem.

 

A woman liking short skirts, pink, dishwashing, dolls, frills and ruffles is not a problem. A woman enjoying her body and sexuality and having confidence in her looks is not a problem. The problem lies in that perception that all women like that. That all women only like that. That any and all women who like these things are inferior/less intelligent/less reliable/less capable, etc.

 

It happens everyday. It's not a thing of the past. Just because someone might not recognize or choose to acknowledge it, doesn't mean that it's not occurring. And let's not even get into internalized misogyny. It's just a Divide and Conquer strategy. Pit women against other women so other people can keep their hands clean.

First off, I don't get the women are less intelligent thing. I swear all throughout elementary school boys were always considered the stupid ones who'd never sit still and horse around all the time, whereas the girls were always the well-mannered, educated ones.

 

And women don't hold the place of less capable, reliable, or intelligent in this world. After all, guys are the ones you can't trust when two people go out on a date. I mean, even Harry Potter emulates that with the fact that guys can't enter the girls dorms, but girls can enter the guy's dorms.

 

And there are stereotypes towards men too, like that we're all into sports, sex, and money and nothing else. And that we're all boneheads that can't really think deeply.

 

Plus, to assume that all guys are misogynist makes you no better than the guys that actually are. And assuming that every disadvantage you have is based on gender is just a safety blanket. Assuming that you have it harder in this world just because you're female is just a way of shying away from the truth.

 

Internalized misogyny is a strategy by men to tear women apart while not getting their hands dirty? Um, I'm pretty sure the genders aren't at war. I'm pretty sure that we're not trying to destroy all women.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Well here's your problem. You went from specific to general. And then you went from general to specific. (See what I'm doing here? :P)

 

Just because you experienced this isolated situation does not mean it happens everywhere. You took your situation and applied it everywhere else in the world.

 

No, I didn't. You said that it "never" happens. I disproved "never". I chose only to tell the stories I know best (my own) but trust me, it DOES happen everywhere--every country, every state, and even every city. If I told you every story I know from other people, I could go on for days, but I don't like to give secondhand stories because I'm not the right person for that. The fact that it happened once, however, proves that you lied when you said it never happens. Yes, you used the word "never". "Never" means that there is not a single instance. ONE INSTANCE proves it wrong.

 

And your whole entire scientific career? Don't you think your exaggerating? Like a career rests on whether or not you take AP Chem during high school.

Nope, I'm not exaggerating. Because the principal did that, I was a year behind in science when I should have been able to be ahead. It made it impossible to go into a scientific major because I hadn't taken the prerequisites. I also couldn't take any of the SAT IIs in science subjects, as an added bonus.

 

Once again, don't know what was going on with you, but it'd never happen at my school. Maybe they did have other reasons. Did they let a guy who performed worse than you move on to the higher level course? Because if not, it might not be based on gender.

 

Okay, really, every one of your questions could be answered if you read what I said. Yes, they let guys who performed worse than me move on to the higher level courses, both in math and in science. In fact, in math I performed better than ALL the guys. On tests, on timing, on math games, on everything. As I said before. I was ABSOLUTELY THE BEST. That means that if any guys at all were in this higher level math, then yes, they let guys in who performed worse. Please read what I said. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it before you will actually understand.

 

And there are stereotypes towards men too, like that we're all into sports, sex, and money and nothing else. And that we're all boneheads that can't really think deeply.

Trust me, I know. You have no idea how much work I have done trying to fight stereotypes against men. Did you know I advocate for male rape victims and domestic violence victims? But the fact that this happens does not make stereotypes/violence toward women okay. I never said that guys have it better. I just said that these things happen. I wish you knew how many men I have encouraged to go into nursing, too.

 

However, I'd like to point out that while I have done my best to destroy stereotypes against men, it tends to be men who perpetrate them. Who beats up boys if they wear pink or join a musical? Who peer pressures their friends into having intercourse before they are ready? That's why a lot of the work I have done has been to change men's perceptions of gender as well as encouraging them to be who THEY want to be. I also help female victims try to understand that they need better men in their life so their perception of men isn't completely destroyed...and then I get the two together. AWWW, YEEEAH.

 

Plus, to assume that all guys are misogynist makes you no better than the guys that actually are. And assuming that every disadvantage you have is based on gender is just a safety blanket. Assuming that you have it harder in this world just because you're female is just a way of shying away from the truth.

 

No one in here EVER said "all guys are misogynist"--not me, not Vivies, not anyone. Some are, of course. And some women want to put men in gas chambers--that's why I use the word "feminazi". And who said that ANYONE in here assumes every disadvantage is based on gender? Did you know I'm disabled? Now THAT'S a disadvantage, especially in a city where they have stairs leading into every single building.

 

All I did was tell you how there were some things that pushed me down when I should have been brought up. No, not all men are misogynist--a male friend of mine, actually, is the biggest feminist I know, and he's amazing. I'm really not sure how you read ANY of the stuff you said in here but failed to read some of the most basic things I said. Perhaps due to some negative perceptions you already have, you are remembering things that haven't been said because you assume they are there...? I'm just suggesting one plausible theory; please prove me wrong.

[Unstream]

All I did was tell you how there were some things that pushed me down when I should have been brought up. No, not all men are misogynist--a male friend of mine, actually, is the biggest feminist I know, and he's amazing. I'm really not sure how you read ANY of the stuff you said in here but failed to read some of the most basic things I said. Perhaps due to some negative perceptions you already have, you are remembering things that haven't been said because you assume they are there...? I'm just suggesting one plausible theory; please prove me wrong.

Okay, I'm going to establish that yes, I did read your post. Here's your story:

 

Or else a girl is told by her principal that freshman aren't supposed to take biology...but he only told the girls this, because he assumed they would not be at the right level in math. This is EXACTLY what happened to me, and it completely screwed up my entire high school course timetable and prevented me from taking AP science classes. I had actually skipped a couple grades in math and sped through others, so I was WAY past the level you needed to be at for biology.

 

In a lot of ways, this is what happened to me. There's a stupid stereotype that women are bad at math...despite the fact that girls' math grades are higher and they perform better on standardized tests that are geared toward a style set for the usual "boys' mindset". (That is, the stereotype here is that boys, who are more impulsive and faster and think in black and white, do better on multiple choice.) Because of this stereotype, I didn't make it into the higher up math at the beginning even though my test scores were better, my speed was better, and my grades were better than anyone's. It wasn't until mid-fourth grade, when I had advanced MYSELF to algebraic thinking without ever being taught anything--I did it solely by critical thinking--that they finally put me in the higher math. Where I proceeded to blitz everyone in the class.

So did you say if anybody else moved on? Nope. What if it wasn't just girls, but that nobody could move on? That it just wasn't a thing your school did, and your gender had no part in it? You didn't answer those questions, so I had to ask.

 

No, I didn't. You said that it "never" happens. I disproved "never". I chose only to tell the stories I know best (my own) but trust me, it DOES happen everywhere--every country, every state, and even every city. If I told you every story I know from other people, I could go on for days, but I don't like to give secondhand stories because I'm not the right person for that. The fact that it happened once, however, proves that you lied when you said it never happens. Yes, you used the word "never". "Never" means that there is not a single instance. ONE INSTANCE proves it wrong.

Um, just like to point out, I never used the word never, not even in what you quoted. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that it's extremely uncommon.

Please read what I said. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it before you will actually understand.

 

Nope, I'm not exaggerating. Because the principal did that, I was a year behind in science when I should have been able to be ahead. It made it impossible to go into a scientific major because I hadn't taken the prerequisites. I also couldn't take any of the SAT IIs in science subjects, as an added bonus.

Just like to point out I took SAT IIs after having taken only honors level science courses. I got a 740 in physics and a 720 in chem. And I know plenty of people who took science majors without taking AP sciences. Pretty much anybody who's in an intro science class in college did.

 

However, I'd like to point out that while I have done my best to destroy stereotypes against men, it tends to be men who perpetrate them. Who beats up boys if they wear pink or join a musical? Who peer pressures their friends into having intercourse before they are ready? That's why a lot of the work I have done has been to change men's perceptions of gender as well as encouraging them to be who THEY want to be. I also help female victims try to understand that they need better men in their life so their perception of men isn't completely destroyed...and then I get the two together. AWWW, YEEEAH.

Well the fact that you're only mentioning how women are slighted against and how it's caused my men seems a bit biased. And it's not only men who perpetuate stereotypes. I know there's a lot of pressure in my high school for girls to dress up in order to appease other girls. I can't tell you how many times I've walked passed a few girls talking, and I overhear them saying something like, "Did you see what she was wearing? Oh my god, who would wear those shoes with that dress?"

 

No one in here EVER said "all guys are misogynist"--not me, not Vivies, not anyone. Some are, of course. And some women want to put men in gas chambers--that's why I use the word "feminazi". And who said that ANYONE in here assumes every disadvantage is based on gender? Did you know I'm disabled? Now THAT'S a disadvantage, especially in a city where they have stairs leading into every single building.

Was I responding to you with that? Nope. My point was women are just as viable in holding a position of authority or power nowadays, and that their gender puts them at no disadvantage.

 

I'm really not sure how you read ANY of the stuff you said in here but failed to read some of the most basic things I said. Perhaps due to some negative perceptions you already have, you are remembering things that haven't been said because you assume they are there...? I'm just suggesting one plausible theory; please prove me wrong.

I'm really not sure how you read ANY of the stuff you said in here but failed to read some of the most basic things I said. Perhaps due to some negative perceptions you already have, you are remembering things that haven't been said because you assume they are there...? I'm just suggesting one plausible theory; please prove me wrong.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

And so I don't think there's ever a moment when a girl is really awesome at something, but people don't give her a chance.

 

Oops, I'm sorry, you're right. You didn't say "never". You said "not ever". You "don't think there's ever a moment" despite the fact that I gave you two moments that you completely ignored.

 

Excuse me for misquoting. See, to me, "not ever" is the same thing as "never".

[Unstream]

Oops, I'm sorry, you're right. You didn't say "never". You said "not ever". You "don't think there's ever a moment" despite the fact that I gave you two moments that you completely ignored.

 

Excuse me for misquoting. See, to me, "not ever" is the same thing as "never".

Yeah, I am right. Way to take something out of context and then apply it to another quote. What I said when I said that was that somebody would notice a girl who's really talented at something. Not that everybody would notice that girl, but that somebody would.

 

So I'll simplify it.

What I said: Somebody is bound to notice a girl who's really talented.

What you think I said: There are never any situations in which a girl is passed up an opportunity because of her gender.

See, what I'm saying is that somebody notices. I also said that those situations are extremely rare. You somehow combined my two statements together. And by extremely rare, I mean that it might not have even been the case for you. It's not the principal's fault that you didn't push to get into high level courses. What if you'd gotten your parents to complain? What if you talked to your guidance counselor? What if you talked to your math teachers? If you were truly as brilliant as you claim to be, you definitely could have gotten them to advocate for you.

 

I mean, maybe you didn't tell the whole story yet. But what if you'd been more assertive?

 

So yeah, thanks for misquoting me and picking out single sentences out of context. Now, care to respond to the rest of my post?

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Yeah, I am right. Way to take something out of context and then apply it to another quote. What I said when I said that was that somebody would notice a girl who's really talented at something. Not that everybody would notice that girl, but that somebody would.

 

So I'll simplify it.

What I said: Somebody is bound to notice a girl who's really talented.

What you think I said: There are never any situations in which a girl is passed up an opportunity because of her gender.

See, what I'm saying is that somebody notices. I also said that those situations are extremely rare. You somehow combined my two statements together. And by extremely rare, I mean that it might not have even been the case for you. It's not the principal's fault that you didn't push to get into high level courses. What if you'd gotten your parents to complain? What if you talked to your guidance counselor? What if you talked to your math teachers? If you were truly as brilliant as you claim to be, you definitely could have gotten them to advocate for you.

 

I mean, maybe you didn't tell the whole story yet. But what if you'd been more assertive?

 

So yeah, thanks for misquoting me and picking out single sentences out of context. Now, care to respond to the rest of my post?

 

I'm sorry, but you absolutely did not say that. There is no reason to tell me that I'm wrong when I simply interpreted your sentence as it was worded. The fact remains that I was at all times referring to what you said there, and I DID tell the stories before you said that sentence. You did not say that somebody would notice a girl who's really talented. You said exactly what I said--I used an exact quote. So I don't really see how I was wrong to think that you said what you said. Maybe you MEANT that somebody would notice, but you said that she would be given a chance. There is a huge difference. A lot of people noticed I was the best in the class. Everyone knew it. So why was I not given a chance until more than halfway through the school year?

 

The math thing? I was a fourth grader. Yeah, sorry I wasn't a more assertive FOURTH GRADER.

 

The science thing? He told me freshmen weren't supposed to take biology. I didn't find out until it was way too late that he was lying to me. I found out when I talked to other girls that the same thing happened to them. It was way too late for anybody to advocate for us.

 

There, those are the stories. So it happens. Please stop trying to downplay it. It IS a big deal, and it really did disadvantage me. Yet you earlier told me I was exaggerating about it. Really? No, I wasn't fired from a job for being a woman; no, I wasn't sexually harassed. That doesn't make it any less harmful.

 

The reason I chose not to reply to the rest of what you said was because there were parts where you weren't contradicting me in the least; why should I bother? Apparently, I misunderstood you on something (because of your wording) and apparently, you misunderstood me on pretty much everything. But I suppose I'll go back to it now.

 

 

So did you say if anybody else moved on? Nope. What if it wasn't just girls, but that nobody could move on? That it just wasn't a thing your school did, and your gender had no part in it? You didn't answer those questions, so I had to ask.

I'm sorry I didn't explain this. I genuinely thought there was no way it could be misinterpreted, seeing as how I said that there WAS a higher level of math. The higher level of math wouldn't exist if nobody was in it. So yes, the school advanced six boys to this higher level, despite the fact that my scores beat every single one of them, as did my speed.

 

Um, just like to point out, I never used the word never, not even in what you quoted. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that it's extremely uncommon.

Please read what I said. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it before you will actually understand.

Okay, maybe you decided to reword it later, but as I said before, you DID say that you didn't think it ever happened. Honestly, the fact that you said that after I had just said that it happened really did anger me. It was as though you had just told me I was lying, or I wasn't to be taken seriously. I really wish you had thought about your word choice. That's why the words stuck with me. You may have meant something else, but you didn't SAY something else. I didn't take it out of context; it is a full sentence that stands on its own with no questions. "Out of context" refers to sentences like "Oh, man, I really hate those!" being quoted as you hating women when you happened to be talking about fractions.

 

Just like to point out I took SAT IIs after having taken only honors level science courses. I got a 740 in physics and a 720 in chem. And I know plenty of people who took science majors without taking AP sciences. Pretty much anybody who's in an intro science class in college did.

That's nice. My school doesn't have honors level science courses. They only have the entry level stuff that you don't learn enough in. I couldn't have gotten 500 on the tests after the crap I took in high school.

 

Well the fact that you're only mentioning how women are slighted against and how it's caused my men seems a bit biased. And it's not only men who perpetuate stereotypes. I know there's a lot of pressure in my high school for girls to dress up in order to appease other girls. I can't tell you how many times I've walked passed a few girls talking, and I overhear them saying something like, "Did you see what she was wearing? Oh my god, who would wear those shoes with that dress?"

I also haven't mentioned how Irish people are slighted. You know why? Because it's not the topic at hand. We can start talking about sexism against men if you like--I have a LOT to say on the subject, because it infuriates me. I said it TENDS to be caused by men--I say this in my experience trying to reverse the effects of sexism. Actually, funny thing, I never said that sexism against women was caused by men, just sexism against men tends to be. The shoes and dress thing doesn't really perpetuate a stereotype, so I'm not sure what's going on there. Is it just that clothes are what make the woman, and these girls were reinforcing that? I do hate that. Women can be vicious.

 

Was I responding to you with that? Nope. My point was women are just as viable in holding a position of authority or power nowadays, and that their gender puts them at no disadvantage.

You were not responding to me with that; you were responding to Vivies--at least there was a quote there. Which is why I said that no one here mentioned it. If no one here has mentioned it, then you shouldn't be saying "Plus, to assume that all guys are misogynist makes you no better than the guys that actually are." Nobody assumed that; that's all I said. So why are you implying that we did by even entering that in to the conversation?

 

If our gender did not put us at a disadvantage for positions of power, then there would be equal numbers of men and women in Congress. It's not like I believe in affirmative action; I believe that we need to encourage everyone to succeed in every endeavor they wish. Just because it's POSSIBLE for women to be in positions of power doesn't mean we have equal chances at it. Just to point out--notice that most teachers are female, yet most principals are male. Most librarians are female, and yet a disproportionate number of head librarians are male. Even in areas where women dominate, men lead. Minor cues in society enforce this; people don't even think about it when they teach girls different things. They teach boys different things. They teach boys that they have to fight, fight, fight to win. They teach boys that working with kids is not okay. They teach boys that power is better than helping people, but girls are taught otherwise. That's why I'm so impressed when men go into "feminine" careers--careers that are not paid well, so there is no incentive.

 

 

 

Look, I am sorry if I read one thing you said and blew it out of proportion. Honestly, that one thing you said really riled me. Even if you didn't mean it the way you said it (please stop denying that you DID say it the way you did--the exact quote is impossible to interpret the way you said) it was an incredibly ignorant statement. It is a statement that denies that women ever face any problems. It is a statement that shows you don't really understand the concept of hidden sexism. Maybe now you do, but it seems like you are still trying to defend the hidden sexism by saying it's not as bad as it seems.

[Unstream]

I dunno, I'm going to back up the claim that that the quote is out of context, especially of the sentence after it:

And so I don't think there's ever a moment when a girl is really awesome at something, but people don't give her a chance. At least that doesn't happen with girls any more than it does with guys.

 

Focusing on one line in a paragraph is definitely taking something out of context. You need to read before and after it.

 

Okay, I have a couple pet peeves.

1) When women complain how much harder they have it in this world due to their gender because of men. While that might've been true 50 years ago, I think it's in large part no longer the case.

2) When people point at external causes as a root of their misfortunes. Yes, sometimes that's the case, but I'll only accept it if their statement is completely objective (i.e. I dislike when people say something like "Oh, I didn't get accepted into Princeton. Well, it must be God telling me not to go there," because it denies the truth that they didn't make the cut. Or something like "I failed calculus because my teacher sucked," because it blames the teacher when the person had many options to improve their situation, like getting a tutor or asking for help. Something like "My running career was ruined because I was hit by a car and lost both my legs," is okay.)

 

So you see why your statements and such bother me a little. You've sort of combined the two.

And I do think it's an exaggeration to say that a whole entire career was tanked just because of that, because if you really wanted it, you could have pursued it on your own. Private schools or self-study could have easily prepared you for those SAT IIs and AP tests.

 

And I guess it's hard to relate, because I've had female principals for the past 6 years. And our librarian heads are all female too. Even the head of our school board is female. And it's different with politics, if you're looking at presidential candidates. Hilary Clinton was close, but I think she was the only really viable candidate so far. I mean, Bachmann and Palin are both idiots (sorry if there are any supporters, but come on, they're not very bright). I just think that the number of women vs the number of men that run for office in all of Congress is disproportional as well. I mean, the political club at my school has 18 guys and just one girl. Maybe guys are just more inherently interested in politics?

I'm not really sure. It'd be interesting to see the number of women vs the number of men who run for office.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I dunno, I'm going to back up the claim that that the quote is out of context, especially of the sentence after it:

 

 

Focusing on one line in a paragraph is definitely taking something out of context. You need to read before and after it.

 

Okay, I have a couple pet peeves.

1) When women complain how much harder they have it in this world due to their gender because of men. While that might've been true 50 years ago, I think it's in large part no longer the case.

2) When people point at external causes as a root of their misfortunes. Yes, sometimes that's the case, but I'll only accept it if their statement is completely objective (i.e. I dislike when people say something like "Oh, I didn't get accepted into Princeton. Well, it must be God telling me not to go there," because it denies the truth that they didn't make the cut. Or something like "I failed calculus because my teacher sucked," because it blames the teacher when the person had many options to improve their situation, like getting a tutor or asking for help. Something like "My running career was ruined because I was hit by a car and lost both my legs," is okay.)

 

So you see why your statements and such bother me a little. You've sort of combined the two.

And I do think it's an exaggeration to say that a whole entire career was tanked just because of that, because if you really wanted it, you could have pursued it on your own. Private schools or self-study could have easily prepared you for those SAT IIs and AP tests.

 

And I guess it's hard to relate, because I've had female principals for the past 6 years. And our librarian heads are all female too. Even the head of our school board is female. And it's different with politics, if you're looking at presidential candidates. Hilary Clinton was close, but I think she was the only really viable candidate so far. I mean, Bachmann and Palin are both idiots (sorry if there are any supporters, but come on, they're not very bright). I just think that the number of women vs the number of men that run for office in all of Congress is disproportional as well. I mean, the political club at my school has 18 guys and just one girl. Maybe guys are just more inherently interested in politics?

I'm not really sure. It'd be interesting to see the number of women vs the number of men who run for office.

 

I think it's safe to say that your statements bother me much more, because you are saying that I am bothering you by stating the truth. Women DO have a harder time in many things due to gender. That's what I keep telling you: women have to work twice as hard to overcome gender bias to allow them to be in positions of power, and even then it doesn't work. Look at Michelle Obama: she worked way harder than Barack ever did, she came from humble beginnings, she has loads of education under her belt, and yet here she is, expected to be a fashion icon rather than being appreciated for her brains. Look at Hillary Clinton: similarly, she is highly educated, but people decide that her looks are more important. So where are the women in positions of power who are respected?

 

It should not bother you that we acknowledge a problem. Yes, it IS a problem. It stuns me that you still fail to see that there is a problem after all the evidence I have provided. After many, many women have provided it. You are suggesting we NOT acknowledge the problem and solve the problem through other means. That is merely putting a bandage over the wound without even cleaning it. Yes, I could have PAID MONEY THAT I DIDN'T HAVE to take special classes outside of school. I could have gotten a tutor and paid tons of money. Wait, no, I couldn't, because I didn't have money. I refused to let this idiocy ruin my life: I went into math, and if I do say so myself, I'm awesome at it. I don't complain about this on a regular basis. That does not mean, however, that I will not acknowledge a problem and do my best to fix it. And if an external cause DID cause the problems, you bet I'm not going to blame myself. Why are you trying to tell me that I have blamed an external force when I should have done something? There was nothing I could do to change my schedule once my principal screwed it up.

 

Maybe "in large part" it's no longer the case. But things still happen. A lot of things still happen. As a guy, you don't see it. And that's fine--as a woman, I don't see a lot of the things that guys face, although I think I see a lot more than most women do. But when you try to tell me that I'm making all this up, that women have it just fine and are equal to men, you're ignoring a major problem.

 

And you have the nerve to tell me it's your "pet peeve" that women acknowledge a truth they are trying to fix.

 

One of my pet peeves is people who think they know what other people are going through better than the people who actually have to go through it. The people who try to tell those people it's THEIR fault for their misfortunes.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Let me acknowledge one more part that you said: "I mean, the political club at my school has 18 guys and just one girl. Maybe guys are just more inherently interested in politics?"

No. No, no, no. Remember how we keep talking about "internalized misogyny"? Well, I don't like that term: I prefer "hidden sexism": this acknowledges the fact that it's harmful to women AND men, not just to women. As I keep saying, boys and girls are raised differently. Parents do it. Teachers do it. Society does it. It's not an inherent thing: it's a thing caused by differences in raising kids. Boys are raised to be impulsive, speedy, etc. They are raised to want power. They are raised to fight for it. Even if you don't see it, there are social cues everywhere. Girls are raised to be more cautious. They are raised to work hard behind the scenes. I hate the word "subservient" but they do tend to be raised to be (bleargh) subservient. THAT'S why there are so few women in politics.

[Yuika]

Just pointing something out. Yes, there are still instances of, "You can't do this. This is a boy thing." But the same thing happens to men. "You can't do this. This is a girl thing." Women are still "allowed" to be housewives, but when men do it they're lazy and unemployed; just an example. I don't think anyone's arguing that sexism doesn't exist--more that it's not as wide-spread as you seem to be implying. Men and women will always be different; we're wired and built differently on a genetic level. /shrug

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Just pointing something out. Yes, there are still instances of, "You can't do this. This is a boy thing." But the same thing happens to men. "You can't do this. This is a girl thing." Women are still "allowed" to be housewives, but when men do it they're lazy and unemployed; just an example. I don't think anyone's arguing that sexism doesn't exist--more that it's not as wide-spread as you seem to be implying. Men and women will always be different; we're wired and built differently on a genetic level. /shrug

 

Actually, if you read everything I've said, you'll see I addressed that multiple times. I hate the sexism against men. I could add several horrible things that are far worse than what you're talking about, even: women getting custody of their kids when the men deserved it far more (one woman is HOMELESS but insisted on custody and somehow got it; the man has to pay child support but doesn't get custody), women falsely accusing men of rape simply because the man turned her down or for whatever reason (far too many reasons), women raping men and then the case getting laughed at/thrown out because apparently you can't rape men...it makes my blood boil.

 

That doesn't mean that when we see sexism against women, we simply ignore it. Sexism IS as widespread as I am telling you. It can happen anywhere, and has happened anywhere. A lot of people don't see it--that's why I keep bringing up hidden sexism, and why I keep stressing that it is as harmful to both men and women. I could tell you story after story of bad things happening to women in states all over the USA, although funnily enough, the cases I know the best are in states where they are supposed to be the most inclusive. (This is because I have only lived in the most inclusive states.) Friend of mine works in a battered women's shelter--and trust me, the men who come stalking the women out there are misogynist. I know several incredibly talented women who have tried to make it big in the theater world, but they were asked for a "private audition" if you know what I mean, and so they didn't make it big because they have morals.

 

I'm not saying it happens every day in every city, but it CAN happen anywhere, and it DOES happen more you would think. Regardless, the part that I am shocked I have to respond to is the sentiment expressed earlier that "it bothers me when women complain about how their gender has held them back." Even if you don't think it happens often, it DOES happen, and we have a right to acknowledge it when it does. Saying that there are ways around it, so stop complaining, is saying that women shouldn't address the problem and should instead find ways around it. Yes, you should do your best to succeed despite hindrances, but there shouldn't be a need. If there is a problem, you find the root of it and you solve that. If you instead prune branches, you find the tree growing and strengthening.

 

Yet for some reason, I was told in this thread that it "bothers" someone that I am acknowledging the problem. And that is simply not okay. My bringing up a situation that actually happened and using it as an example should not bother anyone--unless that person truly believes that women have no right to complain about the problems they face. A misogynist principle in itself.

 

 

 

 

Now, if we COULD move on to talking about sexism against men, ohhh, boy, I have a lot to say about it. Actually, it's one of my strongest beliefs that if we solve the problem of sexism/double standards/stereotypes against men, then we'll have solved 99% of the problems resulting from sexism against women.

[Unstream]

I think it's safe to say that your statements bother me much more, because you are saying that I am bothering you by stating the truth. Women DO have a harder time in many things due to gender. That's what I keep telling you: women have to work twice as hard to overcome gender bias to allow them to be in positions of power, and even then it doesn't work. Look at Michelle Obama: she worked way harder than Barack ever did, she came from humble beginnings, she has loads of education under her belt, and yet here she is, expected to be a fashion icon rather than being appreciated for her brains. Look at Hillary Clinton: similarly, she is highly educated, but people decide that her looks are more important. So where are the women in positions of power who are respected?

 

It should not bother you that we acknowledge a problem. Yes, it IS a problem. It stuns me that you still fail to see that there is a problem after all the evidence I have provided. After many, many women have provided it. You are suggesting we NOT acknowledge the problem and solve the problem through other means. That is merely putting a bandage over the wound without even cleaning it. Yes, I could have PAID MONEY THAT I DIDN'T HAVE to take special classes outside of school. I could have gotten a tutor and paid tons of money. Wait, no, I couldn't, because I didn't have money. I refused to let this idiocy ruin my life: I went into math, and if I do say so myself, I'm awesome at it. I don't complain about this on a regular basis. That does not mean, however, that I will not acknowledge a problem and do my best to fix it. And if an external cause DID cause the problems, you bet I'm not going to blame myself. Why are you trying to tell me that I have blamed an external force when I should have done something? There was nothing I could do to change my schedule once my principal screwed it up.

 

Maybe "in large part" it's no longer the case. But things still happen. A lot of things still happen. As a guy, you don't see it. And that's fine--as a woman, I don't see a lot of the things that guys face, although I think I see a lot more than most women do. But when you try to tell me that I'm making all this up, that women have it just fine and are equal to men, you're ignoring a major problem.

 

And you have the nerve to tell me it's your "pet peeve" that women acknowledge a truth they are trying to fix.

 

One of my pet peeves is people who think they know what other people are going through better than the people who actually have to go through it. The people who try to tell those people it's THEIR fault for their misfortunes.

 

EDIT: Let me acknowledge one more part that you said: "I mean, the political club at my school has 18 guys and just one girl. Maybe guys are just more inherently interested in politics?"

No. No, no, no. Remember how we keep talking about "internalized misogyny"? Well, I don't like that term: I prefer "hidden sexism": this acknowledges the fact that it's harmful to women AND men, not just to women. As I keep saying, boys and girls are raised differently. Parents do it. Teachers do it. Society does it. It's not an inherent thing: it's a thing caused by differences in raising kids. Boys are raised to be impulsive, speedy, etc. They are raised to want power. They are raised to fight for it. Even if you don't see it, there are social cues everywhere. Girls are raised to be more cautious. They are raised to work hard behind the scenes. I hate the word "subservient" but they do tend to be raised to be (bleargh) subservient. THAT'S why there are so few women in politics.

Well I'm not sure women have to work twice as hard to get positions of power. I don't believe Michelle works harder than Obama, but Obama's actually doing a lot behind the scenes (Link here to see some of what Obama has done that nobody knows about. Be warned though, there's some profane language in the website name.) And I don't know if people see her as a fashion statement. I have never heard that anywhere; if you can show me an article or something that'd be great. And I don't think Hilary was passed up because of her looks either. After all, Obama is black. Wouldn't there be stereotypes against him as well?

 

I'm just looking at the numbers. Here are the Democratic nominees:

Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York

John Edwards, former U.S. Senator from North Carolina

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico

Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio

Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware

Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska

Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator from Connecticut

Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa

Evan Bayh, former Governor and U.S. Senator from Indiana

 

And then the Republican nominees:

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas

Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee

Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City

Alan Keyes, former U.S. ECOSOC Ambassador from Maryland

Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado

John H. Cox, Businessman from Illinois

Ray McKinney, Mechanical services manager from Georgia

Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas

Tommy Thompson, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from Wisconsin

Jim Gilmore, former Governor of Virginia

 

So out of those 24 nominees, there was 1 woman. I'm saying that if more women ran, then we'd be more likely to see a woman in office.

 

Now, you might be right with the girls being raised differently thing, but I think hormones also have a play in this. Testosterone tends to make guys more aggressive, and we tend to get more of that. So I think to say it's based entirely on social cues is false, although I agree it probably does play a part.

 

However, I think you've misunderstood me again. I don't mind the acknowledgement of problems, but I think to place blame on one gender is erroneous. I think to place blame on your principal for not taking biology is wrong.

 

I also think citing gender discrimination as the primary cause of misfortune is also false, because I don't think it plays as much a role anymore. Now I'm not burying my head in the sand and saying that it doesn't happen at all. I'm just saying it's getting rarer and rarer, and there are plenty of workarounds now. I mean, it's like saying the reason I didn't go to college was because I couldn't afford it. But there are plenty of things I could have done. I could've applied for scholarships, gotten loans, and held fundraisers. It bothers me when there are options, but people don't act on them and instead choose to complain.

 

Sorry, I probably should have clarified.

 

And I don't want you to get me wrong. I'm not saying that you're making this up. Just that the blame can't go entirely on the principal.

 

And that's sexist, saying I don't understand because I'm a guy :P

I don't know. I think I know more than the average guy because I spend most of my time with girls.

 

And I think it's important to note that women and men are inherently different. We have different hormones coursing through our bodies and that plays a large part in how we act, not just social cues.