So if I said '[censored] OR GTFO', would that ruin things forever? What if I asked nicely in different fonts?

EDIT: Hahaha, female anatomy is censored!

But seriously, most y-chromosome impaired humans that I know care more about what others think of them rather than what they like. It takes some doing, some education and some gutso to overcome them but it can happen.

I can only speak of my perception from what I have seen. I retired from a factory that had over 5,500 employees. Women were unequivocally held to the same standard as men. There were highly motivated women and there were lazy women. There were highly motivated men and there were lazy men; and everybody with varying degrees of motivation, talent, and industrial education in between. There were women who were in management. There were engineers. There were women in skilled trades: electricians, machine repair, toolmakers, pipefitters, millwrights, and welders. Did they work harder to 'prove' themselves? I am sure some did when they were first starting out, but I can say without a doubt that there were experienced women who had the respect of their male peers.
The same dynamic exists with men. A man has to prove himself in an environment like that. You are expected to perform. You are expected to learn your job. If you don't, you get moved to another department.You are expected to come to work every day and put in a day's work.

There was no difference. There was no higher standard. Some might have felt that way, but I believe it was a matter of individual perception. Were there incidents of male bullying and sixual discrimination against women? I'm sure there was. Were there incidents of men bullying men? I'm sure there was.

There were some jobs running machines that women could not do because the parts were simply too heavy. All they had to do was say so. It was understood. The last thing that management wanted was to have somebody injured. There were an equal amount of jobs that most women could do.
There were some women that could do any job and work circles around most guys!
There were some guys who couldn't smack their ass with both hands!

If you ever wanted to see what could be called 'equality'....it was in that place.

The rest of society? I have no idea. I suppose it depends on what society you are specifically speaking of.
Hollywood? Fashion magazines and TV?....Pfft! They are such a small, albeit highly visible, part of western society...and I guess they do have a powerful influence....but it's an act, a facade. That's where the 'higher standard' is perpetrated, it seems. You need to get down where real people work and live. Generalities seem useless because there are so many different aspects, and even cultures....to consider.

I can only speak of what I've seen.

I think society has a role for women (and men of course, but this is just women for now) that society expects women to do. I think women should rightly do whatever they want (in a legal sense) and who cares what society thinks. Even in cases of it being employment. Society and I disagree on a lot of view points, so I could be biased.

I think there should be equality all over the board, and that women don't have to prove themselves. Because they don't. Sports, jobs, hobbies etc you name it. Even with American Football, if the woman knows the risks involved, the training involved and isn't going out just to prove something (and get hurt, even the men would if they did it without proper training), then they should play with the men (if they wanted to). Heck I've seen a few girls who could probably lay out some of those tough guys hahaha.

The media has really made the physical side of a "woman's role"..just horrible. I think a woman should act, dress, look how she wants..out to impress nobody, unless she wants to.

So to sum it up, society can eat a nail and every non-sheep can live how they want. With common sense of course, if any standard should be upheld by any person be they male or female, it's probably common sense.

I heard this song on the radio by Avril

So what if I go out on a Million Dates
I'd rather rage than sit around and wait all day
dont get me wrong I just need some time to play

lolololo

I'm sure that there are people who get mad at these lyrics being played on the radio and on tv, espescially with a female singing them..

Like with Britney Spears and If you Seek Amy.. the song with lyrics and video. I'm pretty sure if it was a guy instead of Britney Spears it would not been received the same way. Or mabey its just because of the people who control the media and have their big influences.

Funny... this is the same argument I read on my football board about black quarterbacks

... what can I say, I am sure no one needs dig too deep to find examples for and against. It is all situational. But anyway...

Wages
There are valid scenarios for non-equal pay for the same job.
In the US, most corporations have wage scales based on job function/title and geographical location. The range gets wider as the wage goes up. So, say you have 2 job openings for (let's call it) level-3 engineers, one in Los Angeles, CA and one in Jackson, Mississippi. The scale is, say $50,000-$60,000. If 2 people, regardless of gender, with the exact same qualifications, take the job, one in LA and one in Jackson, the person in LA will get paid more for the exact same job, closer to $60,000, based on where he lives, since the cost of living in LA is much higher than the cost of living in Jackson (In practice, the person in Jackson is probably going to be better off since the cost of living in Jackson is much lower than the cost of living in LA). The person in Jackson will probably get paid closer to $50,000. So same exact work, different pay.
Now, there are other factors that may influence pay, such as the company's urgency to hire someone at the time the job is posted. If the economy is on a recession, changes are there will be more candidates to choose from, so the offer will probably be in the lower end of the scale. During a boom, the candidate pool shrinks, so companies will try to lure candidates with higher salaries and perks. Again, another situation where people can get different pay for the exact same job, all perfectly acceptable, all perfectly legal.

Looks
The fact is, both men and women have their own standards for different situations, not only for the opposite six, but same six as well. And by looks, I am including body language here, not just the "picture looks".
For example, a short, balding man, with a pot belly and average clothes walks into a bar. Not many women are going to look his way. I dare say no one will. I also dare add, because he's short, balding, and fat, his body language may reflect a lack of self confidence because he doesn't look like the image of a good-looking man.
Now, a short woman with a pot belly and average clothes walks into a bar. Guys will look, and talk to her. Of course, if the guy is short, balding, has a pot belly and average clothes, she's probably not going to want to talk to him.

The post about being accepted as a "real gamer', think about this: overall, at first look, men tend to immediately accept tall, physically strong men as leaders, whereas short, average-built men have to prove themselves (as in, they will get questioned as to their ability to lead) before they are accepted as leaders. Now, the tall, well-built man may turn up a sissy and the short, average-built man may turn up to be a Man's Man, but the initial reaction to looks doesn't reflect that.

Heck, we think we are better men than the next guy because our pencses are bigger...

One thing I never understood about people, men and women alike, is the desire to be accepted where they are not wanted, given they have other, similar options. Take for example the Augusta golf club, which doesn't accept female members, and some women's groups are all up in arms about it. Now, there's absolutely nothing really special about Augusta other than its lore, it is simply a golf club, with golf courses, grass, sand, pine trees; there's nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees everyone playing golf in Augusta, which is a private club and therefore can select its members any which way it wants to. The question I ask myself is, with so many rich women who paly golf, can't you get together and build a golf club exclusively for women?

After the rant, bottom line is, being gender, race, religion, etc, one can always find examples of how one group has it harder or better than the other.

Why can't there be men only gyms? Are there? Would it be sixist? I've only seen women only gyms or co-ed gyms.

I hardly think a womans intelligence has ever been judged by her "briast size". That's the most laughable and absurd thing I think have ever heard in my entire life. That makes absolutely no sense, and being someone involved in the media, I have to say I've never heard that before. That's ridiculous.

There is a reason women-only gyms exist, and it is again to do with a long history of emotional/societal threat. Many women feel threatened in such a situation because it has been culturally drummed into their heads that if their bodies have many imperfections, they will be ridiculed and ostracised. It's not hard to imagine why such people would feel safer in an environment which is mostly removed from sixual judgement.


Your privilege is showing like a pair of skidmarked underthings.

Same here, I've never heard that one before.

That excludes equality between races and sixual orientations, though, which I believe are linked issues. I don't believe you can end discrimination by focusing solely on promoting one group of people. I would suggest the term "humanist", but it is already taken. :shrug:

Yep. Another thing to consdier is that the issues of race, sixual orientation, and gender intersect to create new issues. For example, a Black woman's challenges are not necessarily embodied by the feminist movement (which has focused more on the issues of the white woman) nor are they necessarily emobodied by traditional advocacy for racial equality. (For the sake of contrast, we can think of it as male oriented)

Related .pdf: http://aapf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Demarginalizing-the-Intersection-of-Race-and-six.pdf

I think that would be fair to say, which is obviously a less than desirable thing, but there you have it. :shrug:

Please give me an example, any example, of an instance where a womans intelligence was actually determined by her "briast size". That is absurd.

Yet another depressingly common misconception. Why on earth should being a feminist mean I don't care, or campaign for, the rights of any other oppressed group? In what way does one cancel out the other? Why should all diverse, complicated issues be necessarily homogenised into one generic concept, when it is far more effective to tackle each issued area on the merits of its own details?

It also amazes me (or doesn't, sadly, when I think of it) why it is only feminism that gets this corker trotted out against it. When was the last time you saw someone accuse an anti-racist of not looking after the rights of women as well as race issues? I expect the answer is never.


I could give you dozens of examples from my own experience, but truly, what would be the point? You clearly reject the idea that this issue even exists, which makes me disinclined to trot my life out for you to peruse. Tell me honestly - I am truly interested to know - if I did, would you even merit those examples? Or even believe them? Would your first thought be that I was "overly sensitive"? I'm not being sarcastic here; I'd like to know your first, honest reaction.

I think she means it is an inverse relationship, where busty women are assumed to be stupid, which is something I have seen myself. But you are correct that the idea is absurd, and is usually put forth by immature idiots.



It doesn't automatically mean you don't, but it doesn't automatically mean you do, either. Which is where the problem start.

Also, feminism is also a homogenised generic concepts, so.......



In terms of race, no, you rarely see that, but the movement for equality among sixual orientations has all sorts of gender issues. So, you are right, some work needs to be done there, just not in the direction you seem to be suggesting.

It's similar to the "blonde" thing where they're frequently regarded as dumb. The larger stereotype is that "attractive" women, in this case blondes with big chests, are just handed everything in life and never have to work or learn to do anything themselves, passing through life based on their looks instead of any other merits. There's also the image of the "shallow ditz" stereotype being heavily associated with implants. While the blonde part of that is more openly depicted, the idea of women with large briasts being stupid is very much alive. I see it quite frequently.

I am making the statements I am for a reason. In my entire life of 22 years of age (Yeah, I know I'm not that old) I have never once heard an instance where a womans intellectual capacity was determined..by her briast? I'm sorry, but that just sounds simply..I don't even know the word to say for what that is. It's stupid. Silly. It doesn't make sense. briast != brain? What? When did that happen? Did I miss something in anatomy class? Do the briast house intelligence?

If you tell me, I'll believe you, but I have to admit, it still sounds absurd whether you can or not. Because it is.

In the case of the issues that northwind listed, its because gender, sixual orientation, and race are related and tackling each issue by itself ignores the people who have to deal with both issues. Check the .pdf I linked to earlier. It's a good read.

You can't honestly believe that people would be that venal and stupid? Hey, we have someone who isn't jaded! We need an emergency optimectomy here, stat!

Ok, let me get this straight. Are you assuming this prejudice is coming from a biological standpoint? That we are suggesting people actually make scientific calculations on womens brain vs briast sizes? Because if so... you kinda got the wrong idea. HIlariously so. I'm not sure how anyone could go down this path, but anyway - we're talking about ingrained, often-unnoticed cultural reactions to women of various appearances. For example, a busty blonde is almost garuanteed to get called a bimbo at some point, regardless of her intellect. We're on the same page here, right? Anyone? Bueller?


Thanks for the pdf. I think we have slightly crossed wires here, though - in no way do I think these issues are unrelated, or ahould be viewed as such. What I mean is that the "why can't we just call it equality" argument is usually never put forward in discussions of, for example, race. That says something about how people view feminism. sixual orientation/gender issues I'll give you, but they have strong links to feminism anyway. To sum up: I don't think they are separate, nor should be viewed as such; I simply get tired of people dismissing feminism using this argument.

NB: I don't mean I think you were dismissing it, Northwind, and actually I kind of jumped on you there, so I apologise. Sometimes it's hard to recognise your allies.

Indeed, it's not based on a direct calculation...and yet, I've had people accuse me of being various sixualities based on my body type, so it's not like even that is too stupid for people to do.

[generically silly tone] U must be some sort of robot-loving, foruum-marryin hippie! [/generically silly tone]

Well, I wasn't looking at it from that standpoint because I'm not that ignorant. But I supposed some people are.
I understand that people make generalized assumptions based on appearance. But, are we really going to pretend like it's just woman? The Body builder that is "dumb as a sack of bricks"? The "Dumb Jock" who can't get past Geometry class? The Star athlete that girls these days try these days try to take advantage of to further tighten their grasp on their oh-so-important popularity among school girls?
C'mon. Lets not be one sided.

I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that someone has tried it. After all, there was all that nonsense that black people were inferior because of the relation of their eyes to their noses, and forehead lengths, or some such. Can't remember the name of it at the moment.



No problem.

Yes, let's not. I'm not sure the excruciating irony of that one will stick on you, though.