The destructiveness of sexism

[Nithavela]

okay. thanks again. i have deleted it.

(wasn't really complaining - just not sure of whether flaming on certain groups is allowed, as some flaming seems to be tolerated, from what i see). are ua moderatr btw?

No, Im just a long time user that knows something about the rules (mostly by breaking them and getting a warning).

When something appears to be tolerated, its mostly because nobody reported it. When nobody reports something that could be seen as flaming, the moderators mostly ignore it. On the flipside, if a thread generates to many reports, the moderators lock down the thread and go through it with a fine comb, deleting any offending posts and issuing warnings as they see appropriate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

-I agree with the Bible and say women should not preach in the church so you can't lose what you never had. The word of God is not up for debate.

That's what American slaveholders said about their slaves. They also were wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have heard the charges made by Bekkilyn before,just haven't seen them substantiated.

A 'concept' or idea is not proof. It could be the result of planned false rhetoric and propaganda.If white or male privilege is real people can point out clear examples.

To speak to your points,although they are lacking specific detail for us to look at:

-Gender quotas in universities are aimed to boost female intake.And it worked! Now more women are entering further education than men.
-Illegal to deny promotion based on gender so if you could prove your lack of progress in the workplace was gender discrimination you could be compensated. My guess is you were not as managers and employers are familiar with the backlash of bad practice like this.
-Pay gap! we could argue this one all day but I will say I genuinely don't think a pay gap exists. Again it's illegal to directly pay someone less because of their sex.And anyway,people should be rewarded on merit and capability,not just because 'i'm female I deserve that too' I think people should get what they're worth.
-I agree with the Bible and say women should not preach in the church so you can't lose what you never had. The word of God is not up for debate.
-Well parenting is personal choice. If you and I don't agree what the role of mother and father,man and women is to be....who is right?
-I agree safety is in decline. See my posts in the ''should Christians carry guns'' thread arguing passionately for gun ownership. As state defence continues to crumble and aggressors like Muslim men increase in numbers in Christian countries safety for women will steadily worsen.

You really are a walking and talking cliché. And not the good kind.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So here's what happens. Someone treats you in an illegal and discriminatory manner. And you have to weigh up:
- what avenues you have and what it will cost to fight it
- how likely you are to win
- what the likely outcome is going to be (ie. will you actually get the job, the promotion, whatever, at the end of it)
- and whether you are going to be okay if you don't win.

There's one case in particular where the situation was very clear (they gave me their reasons in writing!), and my analysis of the above four points has me unwilling to take on a legal fight, even though the preliminary advice I have is that I would almost certainly win. I don't have a bank account deep enough for the fight.

And even if you fight it and win... what then?
The court "orders" your employer to give you that promotion / job?

You will be so loved on the workfloor!
You'll be that b*ch that got X fired or who got a promotion / job through court order.

All you will be gaining, is having to work in a toxic environment where managers / superiors with grudges will be luring for the first mistake you make, just so they can jump on it and get the satisfaction of firing you.

I'm an employer. I'm a nice guy and try to do right for my employees. However, I can honestly tell you that if I REALLY wanted to fire someone, it would take me less then a week to find (or rather: invent) a valid legal reason to kick the person out on the spot without any obligations on my side to pay for anything at all. If I wanted to, I could even do it in such a manner that the person wouldn't even be eligable for unemployment welfare fees. It wouldn't even be that difficult. I know my employees well and I know their weaknesses. It would be childsplay to trap them into making a grave mistake that would warrant immediate firing. And I'ld be fully covered.

All that just to say: even going to court and winning, will not amount to anything beneficial for you. It would be no more then a symbolic win for the "woman in a man's world workforce". And unless that court case gets the right amount of momentum to really kick start a semi-revolution, like the whole #metoo thingy, it will be printed on page 25 of the newspaper once and then forgotten in the pages of history and nothing whatsoever will change.

At which point, you probably will have problems finding another job in the same sector, since now your name might be blacklisted as "that woman that sues if she isn't given a promotion".


So you lose anyway. Even if you win.

So when I still worked in the corporate world, there was the guy in the next cubicle. We had the same job title, but I had broader responsibilities and I was much more highly qualified than he was (I had a degree where he'd finished high school). He was paid more than I was.

Again, it's illegal, but you have to be in a position for a potentially long and costly fight. Few of us are.

And here again, you may be sure that the lawyer team of the employer has an entire story ready. A story that will be either so complex that nobody will understand it (just for the benefit of confusion), or a story that will be so manipulative and "somehwat" correct, that you'll be looking like a money hungry fool.

Because how do you prove that someone else job is exactly like yours?

Especially in larger corporations, and especially in the US, there is a reason why they have big budget legal departments. That's their job: to have a "legal" explanation ready for every document signed, including employee contracts.

Good luck fighting that department, comprised of an army of ivy league lawyers, with the community college lawyer that mere middle class mortals can afford, if they really scrape the pennies together



All that, just to say: I totally get what you mean.
Everybody knows it. Well.. most of us know it. It's a tough situation and you can't just go ahead and fight for a change. Not on your own anyway. This are the kinds of problems that only really change once there is a nation-wide, preferably world-wide, movement and / or raising awareness thing that happens.

I like the #metoo example as an analogy.
Personally I think the whole thing there was completely blown up out of proportion and it quickly turned into an over-the-top witch hunt where literally every movement of upper management males was suddenly suspect. So it went from one extreme to the other in a very short while. But that is what is necessary to really bring about change in such things. Now that the dust has settled somewhat around that thing, there no longer is such a witch-hunt.

But... the taboo has been broken in the process. Now, there is awareness about this issue.
Where no more then 5 years ago, most didn't even notice a manager flirting or unecessarily touching his secretary... today it's become very apparant. There is, more awareness. Among the collegues, among the secretaries, among the assistant managers, and, yes, among the superiors and managers themselves as well.


The world needs the equivalent of such a storm in context of gender equality. The problem... gender equality is a lot harder and obscurer then inapropriate sexual intimidation....

 

[zephcom]

Daniel, you might like to google "white privilege" and "male privilege." You'll be able to absorb the concepts at your own pace rather than needing us to teach them.

For the record, I have personally experienced disadvantage as a woman:

- In educational opportunities and support
- In access to employment opportunities (including voluntary roles)
- In receiving less pay for the same (or more, or more qualified) work than a man
- In opportunities, support and encouragement to participate to the full in church life, both before and after I discerned a vocation to ordained ministry
- In social assumptions around parenting and the way domestic and thought-load work is structured in our society
- And in general lack of personal safety in various situations to do with being targeted for my gender.

I'm 38 years old. And my story isn't extraordinary. None of this is ancient history.

First of all, while I have little authority to speak for all men, I offer my sincere apologies for the men of the world who perpetrate and defend offences against women and for those men specifically who have offended and demeaned you personally.

With that said, I see two things operating in tandem here. The first is the personal behavior of men and the second is a systemic societal behavior which is the product of the patriarchal structure of society.

Men have a distorted view of the world and their place in it. Men -actually- do think that problems don't exist if they just pass a 'law' which is supposed to fix the problem. They appear to be functionally unable to grasp the concept that laws need enforcing in order for them to effectively change society for the better.

For instance, laws requiring equal pay for equal work depends on 1) everyone knowing what everyone else is paid, 2) job classifications being equally designed, and 3) protection against retribution for filing a complaint. Men just 'know' they fixed that problem by making it 'illegal' and therefore women -must- whining if they continue to complain.

That is how society (and in this case, men, because men have been the creators of society) is able to protect the discrimination.

As a blanket statement, men are incredibly poor with empathy. Their egos are so large that gets in the way of grasping the issues of others. That ego is constantly telling them how great they are, how smart they are, and how everyone else on the planet could succeed as easily as they did if they just applied themselves with the same purpose -I- did.

This is why men have such a difficult time with Jesus' Second Great Commandment. That Commandment requires empathy and men have very little of that.

What all this comes down to is that trying to change men one man at a time is just playing 'Whack a Mole'. The structure of society which men created has to change because it is that structure which perpetuates the male image as always being -correct-.

And, as most women already know, men will do almost anything when their egos are being stroked.

 

[Daniel C]

you can tell them by their fruits. i suspect some are carnal christians, others not.

give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. ye shall know them by their fruits. do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

not every one that saith unto me, lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. many will say to me in that day, lord, lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? and then will i profess unto them, i never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

You certainly do know them by their fruits.

 

[Daniel C]

"Sensible choices" like not being able to leave abusive situations?

I don't think so.

If 70% of divorces are initiated by women (I'd like a source for that, by the way), what is it that their husbands are doing to make their marriages unbearable?

If a women decides to walk away from her husband that is one thing. Trying to get others to pay for her living expenses after she made this decision is another.

I say after she makes the choice of ending the relationship she should pay her own way and the tax payer not be pay for her decision.


https://www.divorcemag.com/blog/why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

And assuming men made the women divorce their husbands shows lack of accountability on the woman's part. Woman are given this right of divorce but apparently can't handle the responsibility,so they divorce and shift the blame for their choice on their husbands. Nice!

 

[Daniel C]

Women earn half the income of men, new study finds

Women earned roughly half the income of men in the United States over a 15-year period, taking into account time off for family or child care, according to a report released on Wednesday, which found the pay gap is far greater than has commonly been assumed.

In an examination of women's income from 2001 to 2015, the Washington-based Institute for Women's Policy Research found that women's income was 51 percent less than men's earnings, which includes time with no income.

''taking into account time off for family or child care'', right so when a woman has a child and her work availability is compromised she is still as valuable as a man who can commit 100%? Let's get real here,a person who is disruptive to a business is a liability and absence from work is probably the biggest disrupter but when it's a woman who's pregnant or raising young kids it's the other way round and the employer is the difficult one for not providing all the needs to the mother,and her disruptive schedule. Businesses are their to make a profit not fulfill political goals and if women can't keep pace with the competition thats their problem.

Why exactly should people get the same rewards if they don't render the same level of service? In a sales company someone sells 100 units,the colleague sells 30, do they deserve the same pay? I wouldn't think so.

Political and social pressure on businesses have gotten women a lot of the gains they have today. Some governments have even gone as far as legislating gender quotas against large companies to promote women to CEO positions. If these affirmative action cases don't make as much money as a REAL top CEO who's top of the game....another pay gap based on gender discrimination?

 

[Daniel C]

You really are a walking and talking cliché. And not the good kind.

Thank you.

 

[usexpat97]

"Sensible choices" like not being able to leave abusive situations?

I don't think so.

If 70% of divorces are initiated by women (I'd like a source for that, by the way), what is it that their husbands are doing to make their marriages unbearable?

By that same reasoning, why are women contributing so much less to cause their pay gap?

 

[comana]

First of all, while I have little authority to speak for all men, I offer my sincere apologies for the men of the world who perpetrate and defend offences against women and for those men specifically who have offended and demeaned you personally.

With that said, I see two things operating in tandem here. The first is the personal behavior of men and the second is a systemic societal behavior which is the product of the patriarchal structure of society.

Men have a distorted view of the world and their place in it. Men -actually- do think that problems don't exist if they just pass a 'law' which is supposed to fix the problem. They appear to be functionally unable to grasp the concept that laws need enforcing in order for them to effectively change society for the better.

For instance, laws requiring equal pay for equal work depends on 1) everyone knowing what everyone else is paid, 2) job classifications being equally designed, and 3) protection against retribution for filing a complaint. Men just 'know' they fixed that problem by making it 'illegal' and therefore women -must- whining if they continue to complain.

That is how society (and in this case, men, because men have been the creators of society) is able to protect the discrimination.

As a blanket statement, men are incredibly poor with empathy. Their egos are so large that gets in the way of grasping the issues of others. That ego is constantly telling them how great they are, how smart they are, and how everyone else on the planet could succeed as easily as they did if they just applied themselves with the same purpose -I- did.

This is why men have such a difficult time with Jesus' Second Great Commandment. That Commandment requires empathy and men have very little of that.

What all this comes down to is that trying to change men one man at a time is just playing 'Whack a Mole'. The structure of society which men created has to change because it is that structure which perpetuates the male image as always being -correct-.

And, as most women already know, men will do almost anything when their egos are being stroked.

I believe there is a lot of truth in what you have said here. I don’t think change will come from the within patriarchal structure currently in place but gradually as more women fill power positions. Yes there are laws that state discrimination is illegal but who is primarily holding the authority to enforce these laws? Until that authority is balance with more women in place change will not truly occur.

 

[zephcom]

''taking into account time off for family or child care'', right so when a woman has a child and her work availability is compromised she is still as valuable as a man who can commit 100%? Let's get real here,a person who is disruptive to a business is a liability and absence from work is probably the biggest disrupter but when it's a woman who's pregnant or raising young kids it's the other way round and the employer is the difficult one for not providing all the needs to the mother,and her disruptive schedule. Businesses are their to make a profit not fulfill political goals and if women can't keep pace with the competition thats their problem.

Why exactly should people get the same rewards if they don't render the same level of service? In a sales company someone sells 100 units,the colleague sells 30, do they deserve the same pay? I wouldn't think so.

Political and social pressure on businesses have gotten women a lot of the gains they have today. Some governments have even gone as far as legislating gender quotas against large companies to promote women to CEO positions. If these affirmative action cases don't make as much money as a REAL top CEO who's top of the game....another pay gap based on gender discrimination?

<chuckle> WWJD?

Not that it really matters in the real world, but breaking molds and changing society's bad points was one of the things Jesus got Himself involved in. In fact, it resulted in Him being killed.

 

[Daniel C]

That's what American slaveholders said about their slaves. They also were wrong.

A Biblical 'slave' voluntarily entered into those arrangements and left after 7 years if those chose.

I think you talk non-sense.

 

[Nithavela]

''taking into account time off for family or child care'', right so when a woman has a child and her work availability is compromised she is still as valuable as a man who can commit 100%?

She is worth more because she is contributing to the continuation of the human race.

You know, if you value such a thing.

 

[Daniel C]

<chuckle> WWJD?

Not that it really matters in the real world, but breaking molds and changing society's bad points was one of the things Jesus got Himself involved in. In fact, it resulted in Him being killed.

I don't do the ''what would Jesus do'' because I think it's arrogant to try and figure out what Gods thinking would be like. Jesus tells us what he want's in the Bible and we can plainly see some people are way from his teaching in this thread and only interested in personal gain and pride.

 

[Nithavela]

A Biblical 'slave' voluntarily entered into those arrangements and left after 7 years if those chose.

I think you talk non-sense.

Ah yes, the good old "biblical slavery was just like indentured servitude" thing.

I think I shall go with the classic counter of "a master could hold a mans family hostage to force him to become a lifetime slave".

 

[zephcom]

I believe there is a lot of truth in what you have said here. I don’t think change will come from the within patriarchal structure currently in place but gradually as more women fill power positions. Yes there are laws that state discrimination is illegal but who is primarily holding the authority to enforce these laws? Until that authority is balance with more women in place change will not truly occur.

And, sadly, things are made even more difficult when the major religions, primarily the Abrahamic religions, continue to preach the superiority of men over women.

 

[Tinker Grey]

A Biblical 'slave' voluntarily entered into those arrangements and left after 7 years if those chose.

I think you talk non-sense.

Wrong

 

[zephcom]

I don't do the ''what would Jesus do'' because I think it's arrogant to try and figure out what Gods thinking would be like. Jesus tells us what he want's in the Bible and we can plainly see some people are way from his teaching in this thread and only interested in personal gain and pride.

I DID qualify my comment with "not that it matters".

 

[usexpat97]

She is worth more because she is contributing to the continuation of the human race.

You know, if you value such a thing.

If I'm her boss, I don't. I promote based on merit. And by merit, I mean contributing to my team. And if the men come out on top, I'm not going to "recalibrate" the results, like the female CEO at Yahoo did. And got sued for.