Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]

[ymu]

Bollocks. Edie was very insistent that prostitution was normal. It may well be for her. It's not for others. I make no value judgements on that.

Are we supposed to treat everything some people say with kid gloves? How are we supposed to know what is ok to refer to and what isn't? If you don't want stuff referred to, don't post it on the internet.

Cunt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But surely men are under just as many assumptions? That they are strong, capable, breadwinners, fighters, unemotional, career driven, pissheads, brave etc etc. Are THEY oppressed?

Of course men are too, but the weight of oppression is very different - the weight of expectations are different. We've had a patriarchal society for at least 2,000 years now, and that means 2,000+ years of law and social convention valuing men over women, taking the man's part over the woman, and for most of those 2,000 years of women being legally viewed as a legally-owned chattel of their father, surviving male relative or husband.

 

[Blagsta]

Cunt.

Maybe you could engage with what I say?

 

[ymu]

When Edie claims that she isn't oppressed, she is jumped on for generalising her own feelings to a social group.

When Blagsta claims prostitution isn't normal, he means not normal for him because that's the important thing.

He's never wrong, you see. Even someone as gracious as Edie in accepting criticism must be mercilessly attacked in defence of Blagsta's overly fragile ego.

Cunt.

 

[Blagsta]

When Edie claims that she isn't oppressed, she is jumped on for generalising her own feelings to a social group.

When blagsta claims prostitution isn't normal, he means not normal for him because that's the important thing.

Cunt.

I didn't "jump" on Edie for anything. Try differentiating between posters?

 

[ymu]

Nah, you just joined in with the pack.

Cunt.

 

[Blagsta]

Nah, you just joined in with the pack.

Cunt.

Where?

 

[ViolentPanda]

There are undoubtedly gendered pressures on men, but in addition to the specific female oppressions listed by ymu, whenever this comparison thing comes up I wonder whether the pressures on men, the social stereotypes, are a bit more "active", i.e. men are expected to be individually and actively in control of their own destiny. Where with women, the pressures and expectations are more passive and other people focused. On the level of a whole gender, that leads to greater oppression in one direction compared to the other.

Hopefully that makes sense...

Total sense. It's the whole "woman as carer" schtick that's been used for millennia, and still gets rolled out, when actually we can be fairly sure, for example,, that female and child hunter-gatherers caught more of the game that went in the daily pot than the males, who hunted large game in a ritual rather than everyday manner.

 

[ymu]

Where?

You are so unaware of your role as oppressor?

Faux innocent cunt.

 

[Blagsta]

You are so unaware of your role as oppressor?

Faux innocent cunt.

What? You're one of the ones lecturing her about how she is wrong, yet I'm joining in with the pack?

I made no comment about her experience of oppression or otherwise. I made the point that our normality is subjective. You lectured her about how she's wrong, and I'm the oppressor? You're being mental.

 

[ymu]

You're so morally superior. Prostitution is not normal for you, so you are better than Edie. Because prostitution (the oldest profession) is not normal. In your morally superior and peculiarly semantic world.

Edie and I can disagree without attacking each other in shitty ways - and when we overstep the mark, we can apologise and still love each other. Because we're grown-up human beings who are secure enough to admit that we can get it wrong sometimes.

 

[revol68]

I think it's unfair to equate criticism of pricks who buy sex with criticism of sex workers.

I don't like the word normal though.

 

[revol68]

and by any statistical use of the term normal, prostitution isn't, which is not a value judgement on sex workers at all, though it might be of the clients.

 

[ddraig]

god sake ymu is it lonely up there on the oh so knowledgeable high horse?

 

[ymu]

It is.

 

[kabbes]

Forget prostitution, it's not the point of this debate at all.

As regards women scoring lower on maths tests if they are first reminded that they are a woman:

* thanks Stella for posting the study
* the "reminding" bit is called "priming" and is a common trick in psychological experiments. It demonstrates the multiplicity of personalities (for want of a better word) that we carry inside us
* specifically, it shows how internalised gender expectations are. Even women believe that women are worse at maths. This is true even when the experiment is carried out with *women who hold maths doctorates*. This belief is not a conscious, rationally held view. It is built into us, layered in with years and years and years of expectation, images, stories, media, jokes, converrsations and every other social structure.

How's *that* for oppression? Oppression of your own fucking psyche. At such a deep level that you don't even realise it's there. So deep that we are *shocked* when we find out the result of the experiment.

And then I got told that women aren't oppressed. Give me a fucking break.

 

[love detective]

As regards women scoring lower on maths tests if they are first reminded that they are a woman:

kabbes - i'm not sure if your description of those tests is accurate - from a brief scan of that paper the difference in results wasn't between

i) women doing a test and having to tick a box saying they are a woman, and
ii) women doing a test and not having to answer any gender questions

it was more a case of if they were told that the test they were doing had shown gender differences in the past in terms of outcome then those differing male/female outcomes were more likely to arise again than if they weren't told the results of previous tests in relation to gender differences

clearly this is still priming, but it's a bit different to what you describe - it's not some internal thing that says purely because i've reminded myself that i am a woman i will end up doing worse in this test than men of equivalent intelligence, but a response to a very specific of priming - which i would imagine may well arise if say two sets of men (or women) with different attributes done a test and they were primed with information that said one set of them usually did better or worse

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

kabbes - i'm not sure if your description of those tests is accurate - from a brief scan of that paper the difference in results wasn't between

i) women doing a test and having to tick a box saying they are a woman, and
ii) women doing a test and not having to answer any gender questions

it was more a case of if they were told that the test they were doing had shown gender differences in the past in terms of outcome then those differing male/female outcomes were more likely to arise again than if they weren't told the results of previous tests in relation to gender differences

clearly this is still priming, but it's a bit different to what you describe - it's not some internal thing that says purely because i've reminded myself that i am a woman i will end up doing worse in this test than men of equivalent intelligence, but a response to a very specific of priming - which i would imagine may well arise if say two sets of men (or women) with different attributes done a test and they were primed with information that said one set of them usually did better or worse

Did they do a set of tests where they told the men that men had previously done worse?

 

[love detective]

no that's the thing (or at least not from what i read about it) - would have thought that would have been the obvious thing to do though

so if they had, and men actually did worse in those tests then that would just show that this kind of priming can work in any direction with any set of people (and therefore not really related to the type of deep oppression that kabbes refers to above - not saying that that doesn't exist though)

but if they did do those tests and men didn't do worse - would that just mean that women are shite at maths?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

but if they did do those tests and men didn't do worse - would that just mean that women are shite at maths?

I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men.

It does seem odd that they wouldn't do the reverse as that would tell you a lot more about the experiment as you say.

 

[equationgirl]

<snip
What we have in this country, at least if you are white (Asian women get a shitter deal ime) is the remnants of sexism. A lot of income disparity comes from women taking career breaks to have and raise kids. Now, I'd like to see it made much easier for women to come back into the job market and earn as much as their male colleagues, but the fact is if you're working part time or haven't had as much experience as the man you are competing with, that aint gonna be the case. That is NOT oppression. To call that oppression is to downgrade the word.
<snip>

Some income disparity comes from career breaks, for sure, but does it make up the bulk of that disparity? Not in my mind. Not all women take career breaks for a start, not all women work part-time and many women are as or more experienced than their male counterparts. Yet women still earn, as kabbes pointed out, 1/5 less than a man doing the exact same job. Is this oppression? According to the wikipedia article on oppression, yes it is:
'Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.[1] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

 

[love detective]

I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men

yeah it was actually a joke

 

[frogwoman]

Ta. Worst of all when you find out its some of those you trusted that have been helping in the shafting

sorry to hear that mate x

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

yeah it was actually a joke

The internet does deadpan very well.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men.

It does seem odd that they wouldn't do the reverse as that would tell you a lot more about the experiment as you say.

I think that would say something about science, particularly social science, not being performed in an impartial, societal vacuum.

 

[equationgirl]

Ta. Worst of all when you find out its some of those you trusted that have been helping in the shafting

That sucks - a lot. It's amazing to find out who your real friends/supporters are when something like that happens.

I hope you are ok. Keep a diary of everything that happens (dates, times, facts).

 

[equationgirl]

Forget prostitution, it's not the point of this debate at all.

As regards women scoring lower on maths tests if they are first reminded that they are a woman:

* thanks Stella for posting the study
* the "reminding" bit is called "priming" and is a common trick in psychological experiments. It demonstrates the multiplicity of personalities (for want of a better word) that we carry inside us
* specifically, it shows how internalised gender expectations are. Even women believe that women are worse at maths. This is true even when the experiment is carried out with *women who hold maths doctorates*. This belief is not a conscious, rationally held view. It is built into us, layered in with years and years and years of expectation, images, stories, media, jokes, converrsations and every other social structure.

How's *that* for oppression? Oppression of your own fucking psyche. At such a deep level that you don't even realise it's there. So deep that we are *shocked* when we find out the result of the experiment.

And then I got told that women aren't oppressed. Give me a fucking break.

Fuck. I have a PhD in mathematics. I know I'm good at maths. It's scary that even though I work hard against gender expectations it could still not be enough to overcome what's built into my psyche.

 

[Blagsta]

You're so morally superior. Prostitution is not normal for you, so you are better than Edie. Because prostitution (the oldest profession) is not normal. In your morally superior and peculiarly semantic world.

Edie and I can disagree without attacking each other in shitty ways - and when we overstep the mark, we can apologise and still love each other. Because we're grown-up human beings who are secure enough to admit that we can get it wrong sometimes.

Wow, you are projecting so much of your own shit here. Take a fucking break from urban or something.

 

[Citizen66]

Edie and I can disagree without attacking each other in shitty ways - and when we overstep the mark, we can apologise and still love each other. Because we're grown-up human beings who are secure enough to admit that we can get it wrong sometimes.

Which of you does the apologising?

 

[emanymton]

Originally by Peggy McIntosh I believe, I have a few little problems with it, but mostly accurate I think

I can be confident that my fellow workers won't think I got my job because I used my sexuality - even though that might be true.
If I'm ever promoted, again it's not often regarded as because of my gender. Though that I got the promotion in the first place is usually because of my gender, as people of my gender hold most positions of power.
I don’t have to face the daily possibility of street harassment simply because of my gender from people of the opposite gender.
I don't face comments on the size of my balls in the street on a daily basis.
People of the opposite gender don't tend to talk to my crotch.
If I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in general public spaces.
I am not warned that any subsequent attack may be viewed as my fault.
If I am ever violently attacked I am not usually blamed as encouraging such violence.
If I am a victim of such violence I will not have to face interrogation about my past and present relationships, lifestyle and dress, concepts of morality, in police stations and courts and be prompted to believe this was a contributory factor.
If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting even if I'm marginally competent.
If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
I can be sure the media, law and all institutions will 90% of the time work in my favour due to my gender and the positions of power/influence my sex holds within such institutions.
If I fail in my job I can feel sure this won't be seen as against my sex's capabilities.
I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organisation the person is, the surer I can be.
As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring active/talented/capable heroes of my own sex.
As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
As an adult it is likely I’ll speak more and be heard most in group situations.
The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
Problems for my own gender don’t have the same historical, cultural, economic, social institutionalised weight of misandry behind them.
Usually and historically in any comparable job I’ll get paid more for it than someone of the opposite sex.
I’m not encouraged by society, the media, the law, pornography to view my gender as an object for the use and gratification of the opposite gender.I do not therefore have to deal with the aftermath of this belief on a daily basis.
With members of the opposite gender I’ll be listened to and given automatic authority.
Although fashion of body shapes does have an effect on me, I do not have the same pressures from childhood through adulthood, to have an ever changing specific body-shape, wear make up and be judged solely on how I look. My wardrobe and grooming can be very cheap and consume little time/effort and I will still look acceptably presentable because of this. I don’t have to put much effort into how I look because it’s my personality that counts.
I can tell people what to do with no fear of being called a nag.
I can be loud/aggressive with no fear of being viewed as a bitch.
If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision, I will never be viewed as a slut or whore. I will be patted on the back for my sexual conquests and often congratulated for my dismissal and lack of respect for people of the opposite gender.
If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be raped or killed by a female partner, date, neighbour, female friend or female stranger.
If I have a female partner, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. In terms of household tasks and/or child rearing most career sacrifices will be expected to be hers. Most sacrifices for my own work, hobbies, leisure time,pub, activism, health activities, will be hers almost without thought.
Time for myself is not viewed as selfishness but my right. She will do the bulk of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
God in most major religions, is usually pictured as being the same sex as me.
My gender is by far least likely to be trafficked, raped, suffer domestic violence, partner homicide, sexual violence, sexual harrassment.........
I have the privilege of being unaware of these privileges………..