What I've noticed- I'm surprised and saddened

[Artists4Hillary]

There are many threads pertaining to prop 8 and gay rights, which are very important. But people here have seemed to forgotten about misogyny and women's rights. They are just as important.

Seems like this has become a non-issue.:(

[SoCal4Hillary]

I see what you're saying and you're definitely right that misogyny/sexism must not be forgotten. However, the reason the prop 8 issue is getting so much attention here right now is because of all the recent developments involving it--such as Ken Starr defending it, Jerry Brown calling for it to be invalidated, etc. It's in the news--a LOT--right now, and there are calls to action (http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=42528) that need to be brought to the forum's attention, hence the many threads.

You KNOW I don't condone the blatant sexism and misogyny we saw throughout this campaign year--and I'm not about to forget it. :mad:

Please post anything you find that pertains to those issues! Once the prop 8 stuff simmers down, other issues will again get the attention they deserve.

[TheTaoOfBill]

There are many threads pertaining to prop 8 and gay rights, which are very important. But people here have seemed to forgotten about misogyny and women's rights. They are just as important.

Seems like this has become a non-issue.:(
Wow... I'm actually a bit offended that you would find the need to take attention away from gay rights issues.

What are you jealous or something? I'm sorry but Gay rights need a lot more attention right now than women. They are the ones being told they can't marry. They are the ones being told they can't have a job. They are the ones being told they can't raise a family. Not women. Women aren't facing NEARLY the same amount of discrimination as gays are. No one is trying to keep women from getting jobs or getting married or adopting children.

This is why I think people should be focused on fighting for individual rights as a whole and not fighting for race rights or womens rights or gay rights individually.

Stop looking out for number 1 and start looking towards people who actually need our help most of all right now at this moment in time. And right now that group is the gays.

[SoCal4Hillary]

Wow... I'm actually a bit offended that you would find the need to take attention away from gay rights issues.

What are you jealous or something? I'm sorry but Gay rights need a lot more attention right now than women. They are the ones being told they can't marry. They are the ones being told they can't have a job. They are the ones being told they can't raise a family. Not women. Women aren't facing NEARLY the same amount of discrimination as gays are. No one is trying to keep women from getting jobs or getting married or adopting children.Um, we watched the most egregious case of sexism ever unfold during this campaign year, and we're not about to forget it. First, the MOST QUALIFIED Democratic candidate in eons was railroaded out of the race. Oh, yeah, she happened to be female. And that came after months of unrelenting, blatant sexism from the media, the Democratic party itself, and everyone involved in the Obama campaign--including the messiah himself. Then the Republicans' choice for VP was ridiculed and insulted and demeaned--even though she was better qualified to be POTUS than the Dem's nominee...and, oh yeah, she happened to be female, too.

Sorry, but after what played out this year in terms of keeping the BEST candidate--who happened to be female--out of the White House, it's impossible to say--with a straight face--that women aren't being oppressed or being deprived of jobs.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Um, we watched the most egregious case of sexism ever unfold during this campaign year, and we're not about to forget it. First, the MOST QUALIFIED Democratic candidate in eons was railroaded out of the race. Oh, yeah, she happened to be female. And that came after months of unrelenting, blatant sexism from the media, the Democratic party itself, and everyone involved in the Obama campaign--including the messiah himself. Then the Republicans' choice for VP was ridiculed and insulted and demeaned--even though she was better qualified to be POTUS than the Dem's nominee...and, oh yeah, she happened to be female, too.

Sorry, but after what played out this year in terms of keeping the BEST candidate--who happened to be female--out of the White House, it's impossible to say--with a straight face--that women aren't being oppressed or being deprived of jobs. To even compare the struggles of women to the struggles of gays is ridiculous.

There is no way in hell an openly gay person could run of the democratic nominee and win 18million votes.

[AdrienneJ]

Bill, who are "gays"?

[CGP]

There are many threads pertaining to prop 8 and gay rights, which are very important. But people here have seemed to forgotten about misogyny and women's rights. They are just as important.

Seems like this has become a non-issue.:(

Feel free to post threads about misogyny in society and women's rights.

I don't really understand though what the motive or thinking behind your comment is? As though if people focus on gay rights, women will be forgotten?

There are gay women also! So gay rights is 50% about gay men and 50% about gay women.

So how is giving attention to gay rights taking attention away from women? :confused:

[CGP]

To even compare the struggles of women to the struggles of gays is ridiculous.

There is no way in hell an openly gay person could run of the democratic nominee and win 18million votes.

I think both groups have historically had very bad experiences in their fights for equality.

And I agree, an openly gay man or openly gay women would not have a hope in hell of winning 18 million votes in a Democratic primary. Not in America anway. It's not the case in other countries where openly gay politicians are not cast aside on the basis of being "gay". It's all very bizarre (to me) how fixated many people are on straightness as though nature only has one way of organizing life.

[AdrienneJ]

well now, do we actually have to prove that women are discriminated against, the victims of perpetual violence on an international level, paid less money for their work.

Lesbians have stood by gay men during the AIDs crisis and have not faltered in their commitment nor their loyalty to their dear friends.
Gay men have not reciprocated to such a level to address the social injustice specifically directed at their sisters. Gay men have not (as a rule) stood
up with women to gain women equality in the work place.

Do not put "gay" rights above LGBTQ rights, nor women's rights. Gay men get beat up and sometimes killed just because of who they love and their lifestyle.
Women get raped and killed and beaten for just being women at a rate significantly above that of the horrors directed at gay men. And lesbians?
Well, you can get beat up and killed for being a woman or beat up and killed for being a woman who loves women.

Two lesbians will make significantly less money than two gay men working equivalent jobs. That doesn't mean less iPODs in the home, that means less food quite often. Lesbians can get their children taken away from them.

Women are ALWAYS,ALWAYS,ALWAYS at the bottom of human rights.
Want to see where a gay man fits? Fine. Now look a few rungs below him to find where a lesbian's rights stand.

[AdrienneJ]

Both groups, women and the LGBT community are being heavily shat on
(as usual) and now with Obama and his ridiculous group of mindless
sycophants, we are all being dumped on again.

If anyone wants to post about women's issues, of course they can.

The discussion of LGBT rights is an incredibly important one.

Perhaps what the poster is missing is that women's groups have been insulted by the Warren BS just as much as LGBTQ groups and people.
However, the women's community has decided to STFU about as usual for this bizarre political cycle. The women's community needs to stand up and make as much stink as they can.

That the LGBTQ community is actually doing something finally is amazing.
As the heads of most (it seems) organizations are in the tank for the
dim one, any movement is important. So it's probably a given that they will all just be quiet and not criticize any second now.

So what we have left is the prop 8 issue which is where we focus because it is the pivot of the battle right now.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Bill, who are "gays"?

Check the dictionary.

[AdrienneJ]

Check the dictionary.

Bill,Iwas heavily implying that perhaps you should check the dictionary.

[VotingHillary]

Wow... I'm actually a bit offended that you would find the need to take attention away from gay rights issues.

What are you jealous or something? I'm sorry but Gay rights need a lot more attention right now than women. They are the ones being told they can't marry. They are the ones being told they can't have a job. They are the ones being told they can't raise a family. Not women. Women aren't facing NEARLY the same amount of discrimination as gays are. No one is trying to keep women from getting jobs or getting married or adopting children.

This is why I think people should be focused on fighting for individual rights as a whole and not fighting for race rights or womens rights or gay rights individually.

Stop looking out for number 1 and start looking towards people who actually need our help most of all right now at this moment in time. And right now that group is the gays.

Spoken just like a man. Absolutely clueless as to the blatant discrimination women face everyday. Lower wages for the same job. Higher costs for clothing, dry-cleaning and even something as simple as deodorant.

Think I am kidding about the deodorant. Next time you are at the drug store, look at Mennens for Men and Lady Mennen's....they have the same price but the size of the Lady Mennen is smaller. Same with shaving cream.

It is these differences that further eat away more at women's pocketbooks than mens.

[AdrienneJ]

Yes, I'm afraid I find Bill incredibly ignorant on the issue of both LGBTQ rights and women's rights.
And frankly, it sounds like something that an Obot would say.
Just oblivious to the situation that women are in both in the US and in the world. Jeez-us.

[CGP]

One question, kind of unrelated to the topic...but:

I have rarely used the term "gay women" and have tended always to use the word "lesbians".

Has "gay" historically referred to homosexuality in general, both men and women?

It seems nowadays people use "gay" to refer to homosexusl men and "lesbian" to refer to homosexual women. I understand the reasoning in a way as "lesbian" helps removes the invisibility of gay women which the term "gay" (for both men/women) may lead to. The flipside problem, however, of splitting "gay"/"lesbian" is that when people talk about "gay rights" it seems as though some think that only gay men are being advocated for...

As Adrienne pointed out, when a person has multiple minority group labellings, the oppression is all the more intense.

Race
+
Gender
+
Sexuality

In American society, the most oppressed group in this regard would be the group that is a minority on each dimension - for example, a black women who is lesbian is facing injustice/oppression on 3 levels. A white man who is gay is facing oppresion on 1 level.

[AdrienneJ]

CGP,
It's nice to back on the forum and talking with you (typing with you).
I think (and don't know for sure) that historically it started with an emphasis on "gay" but because men had taken that term for themselves, it was
a bit exclusive and as-you-pointed-out made others like lesbians invisible.
Sort of like using "mankind" makes women (and even that word too, you know) secondary. So each diverse segment of the community spoke up and the initials LGBT (and now Q) were added.
When I write, and this is just me, I use LGBT, LGBTQ and "gay" interchangably. I don't see the term "gay" being exclusionary if it is obvious that you are using in an inclusive manner. So if someone is writing LGBT and then uses "gay" I know that they are addressing the whole community.
But if someone uses "gay" only and is also splintering women out of the issue as happened above, then it becomes something else.
I've found that other people use GLBT for the initials of the community. I've found what I like and that is to use "LGBT" and "gay" intermittently. Sort of balances it out. And frankly it gets tiring using all those caps.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Spoken just like a man. Absolutely clueless as to the blatant discrimination women face everyday. Speaking of sexism...

Lower wages for the same job.
This arguement ignores the study done in 2003
http://policy.rutgers.edu/cncr/research/0803nyt.pdf

If you've ever had a job working anywhere you know everyone has different wages for the same job. Male or female it doesn't matter. What matters is your ability to ask for a raise when one is due to you. The study above shows that women are much less likely to negotiate with their bosses than men are resulting in less pay for women working the same job as men.

This isn't a communist society. The boss isn't required to pay everyone the same wage. My friend used to work at wendys and she made more than some of her superiors. Why? Because she asked and negotiated her way to good pay. You can't expect the boss to just hand you a good wage. Not even men get that benefit.

I'm not saying it's a genetic difference that women have trouble negotiating compared to men. But it could be a social difference in that men are simply taught how to negotiate more than women because men are socially expected to negotiate and women are not.

Women's groups would do a whole lot more good if they stopped blaming the corporations and start teaching women how to negotiate a raise. We should have required courses in our high schools that deal with negotiation and bargaining. And a more advanced course for college students. I guarantee that would make great strides in the right direction toward closing the pay gap. If there still is one at that point then we can start pointing fingers.

Higher costs for clothing, dry-cleaning and even something as simple as deodorant. Women's clothes are generally more expensive because there is more work put into them. They are more stylish. More work = more cost = higher price. If you search clearance racks or go for less stylish women's clothes you will find similar prices to mens. Likewise if you went to a more trendy men's clothes store you will find some expensive men's clothes.

Women's clothes also tends to be made of thinner and more delicate fabric making it harder to clean. Advanced cleaning techniques = more cost = higher price.

As for deoderant. I don't know enough about the stuff to comment.

Same with shaving cream. Women's shaving cream generally has extra things in it like extra moisturizers and scents. If you don't feel it's a significant enough difference then just buy the mens stuff.

[Jobu86]

Bill... dude.....:(

[CGP]

But if someone uses "gay" only and is also splintering women out of the issue as happened above, then it becomes something else.

Yes, that is misuse of the term.

As I started saying, I think one of the drawbacks of the rise of the term "lesbian" and the abbreviation "LGBT" is that many people now think "gay" only refers to homosexual men. That's not a good thing as the term "gay" remains in wide usage in popular culture and for those not up on all the various terms/abbreviations, they may not realize that "gay" can still be referring to everyone, not just homosexual men. It's all very confusing!

The only true umbrella term for LGBT people it seems is "queer" as no group (that I am aware of) has ever claimed any kind of exclusivity over its use.

I also know some people (both non-trans and trans) who don't think the T should be thrown in with LGB, mainly because T is primarily about gender, while LGB are about sexual orientation. Lumping them together in group again comes with certain drawbacks.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Yes, I'm afraid I find Bill incredibly ignorant on the issue of both LGBTQ rights and women's rights.
And frankly, it sounds like something that an Obot would say.
Just oblivious to the situation that women are in both in the US and in the world. Jeez-us.

You're the one who apparently doesn't realize gay is a noun that means a homosexual person. And like most nouns it has a plural. Gays. Meaning multiple homosexual people. Please look it up before you try to make a mountain out of a molehill. Did you not just see I was defending gay rights? Or do you find it more rewarding to call someone defending gay rights an ignorant. Perhaps I should stop defending the gays if that's the thanks I get for it.

[SoCal4Hillary]

This arguement ignores the study done in 2003
http://policy.rutgers.edu/cncr/research/0803nyt.pdfWell, according to stats through 2007 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193820.html), women are still earning 77.8% as much as men.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Well, according to stats through 2007 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193820.html), women are still earning 77.8% as much as men.

Which makes sense because nothing has been done to teach women how to negotiate better. There are no negotiation courses required in highschool and few college majors require a negotiations course on transcripts.

Few womens groups are sponsoring women's negotiations courses.

For all we know this could be the sole cause of the pay gap. Until we do more to solve that problem we have no one to point fingers to IMO.

[CGP]

Women's groups would do a whole lot more good if they stopped blaming the corporations and start teaching women how to negotiate a raise.

This places blame on women, and not where the blame should be placed - on a patriarchal society. Men hold the power in a patriarchal society - in such a society it doesn't matter how skilled women are at "negotiating" with the oppressors (men), as ultimately the dominant group (men) can do as they please.

An analogous comment (with some necessary additions), using race as an example in a racist society where whites dominate, would be: "Black advocacy groups would do a whole lot more good if they stopped blaming racist white corporations and started teaching black people how to negatioate a raise with their racist white bosses"? You see the problem with this? The context is not challenged in any way. The existing dynamic (whites dominating blacks) is viewed as fixed and unchangeable (& ok) and that it's actually the fault of black people if they don't get a raise. The racist white people are seen as playing no role in their refusal to give black people raises yet it is they (white people) who have total control over the process.

Similarly, with your original comment about women, in no way does such an approach challenge the existing power structure - it accepts as a given that men have the power and that it's the fault of women (and their lack of skills) if they are unsuccessful in negotiating a raise with their oppressors?!! :eek:

[CGP]

Which makes sense because nothing has been done to teach women how to negotiate better. There are no negotiation courses required in highschool and few college majors require a negotiations course on transcripts.

Few womens groups are sponsoring women's negotiations courses.

For all we know this could be the sole cause of the pay gap. Until we do more to solve that problem we have no one to point fingers to IMO.

Read my post above. You're completely missing the broader context (PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY) this is all taking place in. And you are blaming women, not the broader context (men having power over women). That's a form of "blaming the victim".

[TheTaoOfBill]

This places blame on women, and not where the blame should be placed - on a patriarchal society. Men hold the power in a patriarchal society - in such a society it doesn't matter how skilled women are at "negotiating" with the oppressors (men), as ultimately the dominant group (men) can do as they please.

An analogous comment (with some necessary additions), using race as an example in a racist society where whites dominate, would be: "Black advocacy groups would do a whole lot more good if they stopped blaming racist white corporations and started teaching black people how to negatioate a raise with their racist white bosses"? You see the problem with this? The context is not challenged in any way. The existing dynamic (whites dominating blacks) is viewed as fixed and unchangeable (& ok) and that it's actually the fault of black people if they don't get a raise. The racist white people are seen as playing no role in their refusal to give black people raises yet it is they (white people) who have total control over the process.

Similarly, with your original comment about women, in no way does such an approach challenge the existing power structure - it accepts as a given that men have the power and that it's the fault of women (and their lack of skills) if they are unsuccessful in negotiating a raise with their oppressors?!! :eek:

I agree it's not women's fault they don't have negotiating skills. It's societies fault for not teaching women negotiating skills. Which is why I said there should be more ways for young women to learn negotiating skills. Because it is a fact that women in general are less likely to negotiate when it comes to salary and benefits.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Read my post above. You're completely missing the broader context (PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY) this is all taking place in. And you are blaming women, not the broader context (men having power over women). That's a form of "blaming the victim".

I mean what other solution to this problem would you propose? The only other solution would be to write a law that says everyone must get the same pay for the same job. You might as well throw capitalism out the window if you're going to make a law like that.

[CGP]

I agree it's not women's fault they don't have negotiating skills. It's societies fault for not teaching women negotiating skills. Which is why I said there should be more ways for young women to learn negotiating skills. Because it is a fact that women in general are less likely to negotiate when it comes to salary and benefits.

Once again, you make no mention of men. Why?

Do you not realize that in American society (and many other societies) men (as a group) have more power than women (as a group)?

If you don't believe that American society is patriarchal (and therefore sexist), there isn't really much progress that can be made in debating with you on this particular topic. It's not possible to have a logical discussion on this topic if the fundamental problem - in this case patriarchy/sexism - is not even mentioned.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Once again, you make no mention of men. Why?

Do you not realize that in American society (and many other societies) men (as a group) have more power than women (as a group)?

If you don't believe that American society is patriarchal (and therefore sexist), there isn't really much progress that can be made in debating with you on this particular topic. It's not possible to have a logical discussion on this topic if the fundamental problem - in this case patriarchy/sexism - is not even mentioned.

Of course men have more power. I mean that's a given. But I don't see what's wrong with giving women the knowhow to survive in a male world. Teaching women how to negotiate would only further close the pay gap. How is that a bad thing exactly? Because it doesn't punish men enough?

[CGP]

Of course men have more power. I mean that's a given. But I don't see what's wrong with giving women the knowhow to survive in a male world. Teaching women how to negotiate would only further close the pay gap. How is that a bad thing exactly? Because it doesn't punish men enough?

The point is that such an approach does nothing - nothing at all - to challenge the real problem - male dominance. Implicit in your suggestion about the wage negotations is the fact that "men have more power" and that this is "a given" - as though this fact (men having more power) can/should/will never change. That's the concerning aspect of your approach - it does nothing to challenge the unjustified dominance that men have over women in a patriarchal society.

[VotingHillary]

Of course men have more power. I mean that's a given. But I don't see what's wrong with giving women the knowhow to survive in a male world. Teaching women how to negotiate would only further close the pay gap. How is that a bad thing exactly? Because it doesn't punish men enough?

And that is what I don't understand about women...we don't live in a male world; there are more women than men. Yet we continue to allow ourselves as women to be the "lesser" of the two sexes. What the hell is wrong with us, ladies?

[TheTaoOfBill]

The point is that such an approach does nothing - nothing at all - to challenge the real problem - male dominance. Implicit in your suggestion about the wage negotations is the fact that "men have more power" and that this is "a given" - as though this fact (men having more power) can/should/will never change. That's the concerning aspect of your approach - it does nothing to challenge the unjustified dominance that men have over women in a patriarchal society.

When did I say or even suggest that male dominance is something that will never change. I'm offering suggestions to make it change and all you are doing is fighting me for it.

Again, I ask what your solution to the paygap problem is? Because saying equal pay for equal work is not a reasonable solution. That's not how capitalism works. Male or female you get paid based on your ability and the companies ability to pay you. Not based on your job title.

Forcing everyone to be paid equally means there is no benefit to working harder. Equal pay for equal work does not work in an economically free society.

So what other solution is there? If you can't force a level playing field you need to give the individuals the tools to fight for themselves. And that's my suggestion. That's my solution. What's yours?

[TheTaoOfBill]

And that is what I don't understand about women...we don't live in a male world; there are more women than men. Yet we continue to allow ourselves as women to be the "lesser" of the two sexes. What the hell is wrong with us, ladies?

There is zero reason for women to think of themselves as inferior to men. And with the right education and the right tools for women we can give them less of a reason to think such a self destructing thought.

[CGP]

When did I say or even suggest that male dominance is something that will never change. I'm offering suggestions to make it change and all you are doing is fighting me for it.

Again, I ask what your solution to the paygap problem is? Because saying equal pay for equal work is not a reasonable solution. That's not how capitalism works. Male or female you get paid based on your ability and the companies ability to pay you. Not based on your job title.

Forcing everyone to be paid equally means there is no benefit to working harder. Equal pay for equal work does not work in an economically free society.

So what other solution is there? If you can't force a level playing field you need to give the individuals the tools to fight for themselves. And that's my suggestion. That's my solution. What's yours?

You are focused on one example - the paygap situation.

I am focused on the bigger picture - male dominance in general.

I don't have a clear practical solution which I can present to you to solve the "paygap" situation, because beyond fundamentally changing the structure/culture of American society, most approaches to fixing the paygap reality will simply be bandaids for a much deeper and more disturbing reality - patriarchy, sexism, male dominance - and wont "solve" anything.

[Brooke]

to even compare the struggles of women to the struggles of gays is ridiculous.

There is no way in hell an openly gay person could run of the democratic nominee and win 18million votes.

Bingo. Stamp. Thank you.

[CGP]

There is zero reason for women to think of themselves as inferior to men. And with the right education and the right tools for women we can give them less of a reason to think such a self destructing thought.

Zero reason? How about a broader societal context which tells them they are "less than" men? How about a broader societal context which demonstrates to them daily that men have more power, that men ultimately control the destinies (at a group level) of women broadly? How about a broader societal context which daily presents women as being less worthy than men of having equal power in society? How about a broader societal context which fuels and fosters violence & abuse by men against women?

I think women have multiple reasons for holding the mistaken belief they are "inferior" to men - because society tells them they are. Resisting the internalization of negative views about women is harder for women to do than you might think.

Internalized racism is a reality.

Internalized sexism is a reality.

Internalized homophobia is a reality.

(On a side note - I think people sometimes misinterpret your comments, and don't get where are coming from, because you don't always provide enough context for your comments. It's always better to provide more context than less to ensure people really understand what you are trying to say - don't rely on readers to fill in the blanks for themselves as that can lead to major errors of interpretation & of course unnecessary disagreements/conflicts).

[AdrienneJ]

So, a question posed by a woman is overrun by the attempts to educate someone who will not be educated.
That's sad. So now I see perhaps what drove the original poster to her question and her frustration.
My advice to those who care about women's issues and all issues is to hop over the posters who use up space without using any effort to think.
Just ignore them. It's not like we haven't had practice jumping over Obamaphiles silly comments. We've been trolled on other sites for months and months and months.
I personally will not respond to this Bill person's silliness. I hope that women and men interested in real discussion will do likewise when such posters
start being goofy.

[TheTaoOfBill]

You are focused on one example - the paygap situation.

I am focused on the bigger picture - male dominance in general.

I don't have a clear practical solution which I can present to you to solve the "paygap" situation, because beyond fundamentally changing the structure/culture of American society, most approaches to fixing the paygap reality will simply be bandaids for a much deeper and more disturbing reality - patriarchy, sexism, male dominance - and wont "solve" anything.

Unfortunately you can't just wave a magic wand to make men suddenly less dominant in society.

You're never going to cure that. Some men will always think a bit too much with the wrong head. Some men will always attack weaker people.

You might be able to make the rates go down but unfortunately it's just a fact of life that some men are overly violent and overly hormonal to treat women with respect.

You also should expect men to vacate their power for women. Equal rights doesn't mean you should start taking away power and benefits from men. It just means you should be making it easier for women to achieve the same power and benefits.

Women should be able to compete with men. Not just handed the same things men have.

[Ikasu]

When did I say or even suggest that male dominance is something that will never change. I'm offering suggestions to make it change and all you are doing is fighting me for it.

Again, I ask what your solution to the paygap problem is? Because saying equal pay for equal work is not a reasonable solution. That's not how capitalism works. Male or female you get paid based on your ability and the companies ability to pay you. Not based on your job title.

Forcing everyone to be paid equally means there is no benefit to working harder. Equal pay for equal work does not work in an economically free society.

So what other solution is there? If you can't force a level playing field you need to give the individuals the tools to fight for themselves. And that's my suggestion. That's my solution. What's yours?

You're treating the symptoms, not the cause.

[TheTaoOfBill]

So, a question posed by a woman is overrun by the attempts to educate someone who will not be educated.
That's sad. So now I see perhaps what drove the original poster to her question and her frustration.
My advice to those who care about women's issues and all issues is to hop over the posters who use up space without using any effort to think.
Just ignore them. It's not like we haven't had practice jumping over Obamaphiles silly comments. We've been trolled on other sites for months and months and months.
I personally will not respond to this Bill person's silliness. I hope that women and men interested in real discussion will do likewise when such posters
start being goofy.

My advice to you is to stop being judgmental and start actually responding to my points instead of attempting to degrade them at every corner.

[TheTaoOfBill]

You're treating the symptoms, not the cause.

What is the cause then and how do you treat it? Seriously I'm looking for solutions.

This is my biggest problem with civil rights activists. There is never a shortage of blame but always a shortage of solutions.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Zero reason? How about a broader societal context which tells them they are "less than" men? How about a broader societal context which demonstrates to them daily that men have more power, that men ultimately control the destinies (at a group level) of women broadly? How about a broader societal context which daily presents women as being less worthy than men of having equal power in society? How about a broader societal context which fuels and fosters violence & abuse by men against women?

I think women have multiple reasons for holding the mistaken belief they are "inferior" to men - because society tells them they are. Resisting the internalization of negative views about women is harder for women to do than you might think.

Internalized racism is a reality.

Internalized sexism is a reality.

Internalized homophobia is a reality.

(On a side note - I think people sometimes misinterpret your comments, and don't get where are coming from, because you don't always provide enough context for your comments. It's always better to provide more context than less to ensure people really understand what you are trying to say - don't rely on readers to fill in the blanks for themselves as that can lead to major errors of interpretation & of course unnecessary disagreements/conflicts).

Why do you feel the need to fight me at every corner? I said women have zero reason to feel inferior to men and you managed to find offense in that?! Really?

[CGP]

Why do you feel the need to fight me at every corner? I said women have zero reason to feel inferior to men and you managed to find offense in that?! Really?

No, not fighting you at all. I have no irritation at this moment.

I am simply disagreeing with your comments & trying to share some information with you that you may or may not find helpful.

And because you are quite vocal on this topic, I feel the need/drive to respond to your comments (many of which I disagree with). That's about it really.

By the way, in general, I think that unfortunately the onus will be on WOMEN to fight for their own rights. Waiting for the day when men will suddenly surrender their power advantage will be futile - the day will never arrive. Those in power never give it up without some kind of struggle. Read the MLK quotes in this post (http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showpost.php?p=545250&postcount=11) - they are very powerful in describing the struggles experienced by many who feel oppressed by some dominant group. Just like blacks couldn't sit back and "wait" for whites to give them equality, just like gays cannot sit back and "wait" for straights to give them equality, women too cannot sit back and "wait" for men to give them equality. Those who want equality must demand it, there is no other way it seems. Women must demand equal power in society.

[TheTaoOfBill]

By the way, in general, I think that unfortunately the onus will be on WOMEN to fight for their own rights. Waiting for the day when men will suddenly surrender their power advantage will be futile - the day will never arrive. Those in power never give it up without some kind of struggle. Read the MLK quotes in this post (http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showpost.php?p=545250&postcount=11) - they are very powerful in describing the struggles experienced by many who feel oppressed by some dominant group. Just like blacks couldn't sit back and "wait" for whites to give them equality, just like gays cannot sit back and "wait" for straights to give them equality, women too cannot sit back and "wait" for men to give them equality. Those who want equality must demand it, there is no other way it seems. Women must demand equal power in society.

I agree 100% with this statement.

Part of the reason I'm so frustrated with feminist groups is they are always willing to point out the problems but never willing to accept that in order to solve them they have to take action into their own hands.

You said I am vocal about this issue and that's because I really care about it. I have 2 sisters whom I love very much and want them to be successful and respected.

Recently my younger sister took a job at a local diner and her boss told her she should wear a skirt and flirt with the customers. Can you believe that!? My family told her to give him a **** you and walk out. You don't demand respect. You command respect.

You said that this is a problem with society not a problem with women. I agree partially. Society does hold women back. But it's up to women to change society. Society doesn't change on it's own.

You can't just point out societies problems and say "Okay society, you know what's wrong. Change it" because society is stubborn and resistant to change.

You've got to give society no other choice than to change. And that means erasing professional differences between business men and business women. The way to do that is through education for young women. Teach them how to handle themselves in the business world.

Once you do that you will prove society wrong and give it no other choice but to think differently about the role of women.

It's the same for gays. Prove society wrong. Get congress to allow gays to marry. Get congress to allow gays to adopt. Then once the statistics come in and show a gay family has little difference from a straight family you will have a solid case against society.

[Meg]

Which makes sense because nothing has been done to teach women how to negotiate better. There are no negotiation courses required in highschool and few college majors require a negotiations course on transcripts.

Few womens groups are sponsoring women's negotiations courses.

For all we know this could be the sole cause of the pay gap. Until we do more to solve that problem we have no one to point fingers to IMO.


I find it laughable that you in any way think women don't know how to negotiate. :rolleyes:

[TheTaoOfBill]

I find it laughable that you in any way think women don't know how to negotiate. :rolleyes:
I'll admit my experience differs from that of the study...somehow women are always able to get me to buy them shit. If women can somehow channel the negotiating skills they use to always guilt trip me in every argument I get in with them to the workplace we'd see a serious close in the pay gap.

I think more women need to be made aware of the tools at their disposal. Like websites that tell you that standard going rate for your career in your area.

[VotingHillary]

Women don't know how to negotiate? I used to be a retail manager. I was always given stores to clean up after another (and yes, MALE) manager had made a mess of it. I finally told my boss my name was not Hazel and I wanted a raise. They offered me crap and the last store I was given was the crappiest. What they didn't know was that a competitor was at my previous store and offered their business card should I ever want to leave. Long story made short, made the call, got a $6000 a year increase. When I tendered my resignation, my supervisor said we will match their offer. When I asked why they didn't do this in the first place he replied, "Honey (yes, honest to God...he called me honey), this is how the game is played. I replied DARLING, I know how the game is played....that is why I am SWITCHING TEAMS! and I hung up. ;)

[Meg]

I'll admit my experience differs from that of the study...somehow women are always able to get me to buy them shit. If women can somehow channel the negotiating skills they use to always guilt trip me in every argument I get in with them to the workplace we'd see a serious close in the pay gap.

I think more women need to be made aware of the tools at their disposal. Like websites that tell you that standard going rate for your career in your area.

That pay gap still exists because of the fact that many men still feel that women do not deserve to be paid an equal salary as the men.

The brain ninja'ing)Yes... Dane Cook moment) that goes on during an arguement and stuff is completely different than what you can do in a workplace. You can't force someone to pay you more and claim discrimination later if there is no other proof.

It's not a woman negotiation problem, it's a cultural feeling that a woman is inferior to men when work is involved.


Read up on the Lily Ledbetter case. There is virtually nothing in place to help a woman, or minority to get an equal salary.

[VotingHillary]

It is not even just pay that is different. Two different managers where I used to work were both going through divorces, one male and one female. Well, the boys club just gathered around the male telling him take as much time off as you need, cutting him break after break. But, the woman was told she better get her act together if she wanted to stay employed. BTW, they were considered equals as far as management terms, which was also a joke since she ran a much bigger store. Sexism in the workplace is very much alive and well.

[TheTaoOfBill]

That pay gap still exists because of the fact that many men still feel that women do not deserve to be paid an equal salary as the men.

The brain ninja'ing)Yes... Dane Cook moment) that goes on during an arguement and stuff is completely different than what you can do in a workplace. You can't force someone to pay you more and claim discrimination later if there is no other proof.

It's not a woman negotiation problem, it's a cultural feeling that a woman is inferior to men when work is involved.


Read up on the Lily Ledbetter case. There is virtually nothing in place to help a woman, or minority to get an equal salary.

If that were the case then how do you explain two different salary for two different men from the same company doing the same job working for exactly the same amount of time. It happens all the time in business.

Pay gap does not necessarily mean there is some sort of mass scheme to keep women's salary down. It simply means on average women aren't getting raises. There are multiple reasons for that including the possibility to the boss is sexist but it's more than likely (and studies show this) that women in general do not negotiate better pay. You can give me anecdote after anecdote but this is what the statistics say.

Everyone has a different wage. That's just the way a capitalist society works. It isn't up to the boss to make sure you're being paid the standard wage. It's up to you.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Women don't know how to negotiate? I used to be a retail manager. I was always given stores to clean up after another (and yes, MALE) manager had made a mess of it. I finally told my boss my name was not Hazel and I wanted a raise. They offered me crap and the last store I was given was the crappiest. What they didn't know was that a competitor was at my previous store and offered their business card should I ever want to leave. Long story made short, made the call, got a $6000 a year increase. When I tendered my resignation, my supervisor said we will match their offer. When I asked why they didn't do this in the first place he replied, "Honey (yes, honest to God...he called me honey), this is how the game is played. I replied DARLING, I know how the game is played....that is why I am SWITCHING TEAMS! and I hung up. ;)
So in other words you took it into your own hands to get a raise in salary. That's exactly what I'm saying women should be taught how to do. Learn how to negotiate. Learn what you're job is worth. Look at your options. Put them on the table in front of your boss. And if he/she refuses find a boss who will pay you appropriately. This is no different than what any man has to go through. It's just that men are better able to handle it because society preps them for it. Society doesn't prep women as well for it.

[mjno7777]

well now, do we actually have to prove that women are discriminated against, the victims of perpetual violence on an international level, paid less money for their work.

Lesbians have stood by gay men during the AIDs crisis and have not faltered in their commitment nor their loyalty to their dear friends.
Gay men have not reciprocated to such a level to address the social injustice specifically directed at their sisters. Gay men have not (as a rule) stood
up with women to gain women equality in the work place.

Do not put "gay" rights above LGBTQ rights, nor women's rights. Gay men get beat up and sometimes killed just because of who they love and their lifestyle.
Women get raped and killed and beaten for just being women at a rate significantly above that of the horrors directed at gay men. And lesbians?
Well, you can get beat up and killed for being a woman or beat up and killed for being a woman who loves women.

Two lesbians will make significantly less money than two gay men working equivalent jobs. That doesn't mean less iPODs in the home, that means less food quite often. Lesbians can get their children taken away from them.

Women are ALWAYS,ALWAYS,ALWAYS at the bottom of human rights.
Want to see where a gay man fits? Fine. Now look a few rungs below him to find where a lesbian's rights stand.


Well stated!!!!

[eyedoc333]

So in other words you took it into your own hands to get a raise in salary. That's exactly what I'm saying women should be taught how to do. Learn how to negotiate. Learn what you're job is worth. Look at your options. Put them on the table in front of your boss. And if he/she refuses find a boss who will pay you appropriately. This is no different than what any man has to go through. It's just that men are better able to handle it because society preps them for it. Society doesn't prep women as well for it.

With all due respect, this still sounds like "blaming the victim".

Just a few years ago, I encountered a male supervisor who, when I asked him a serious question for career advice, suggested that I "wait for Prince Charming to come along and buy me a nice house". I answered that I already had a nice house and it has a mortgage to pay on it! Would he have made this same sort of suggestion to a man? I doubt it.

This same supervisor, when he saw that I was helping a younger, less experienced male colleague set things up for his new lab, said to me with a straight face, "I'm glad you've found yourself a mentor". Again, would he have dared say this to a male colleague who was helping a junior female colleague?

In most cases, women still have to fight 10X as hard to reach their career goals. It's not that we don't know how to negotiate. It's that we encounter glass ceilings and glass walls that we need to break through that just don't exist for males. If you haven't experienced it, it's hard to understand.

[SoCal4Hillary]

I don't have the energy right now to really do justice to this topic, so I'll keep it brief.

Tao, there's SO MUCH wrong with your theories/assumptions about pay inequity it's really shocking.

To look at statistics spanning DECADES (as in that chart I posted earlier) showing gross pay inequity for females vs males, and then declare that the REAL problem is that women don't know how to negotiate raises...well, that's one of the most sexist--and oblivious--things I've ever heard.

So you're essentially saying that GENERATIONS of women have--consistently--made 50-77% as much as men because--for DECADES--women, collectively, didn't know how to ask for or negotiate raises? Really? :confused:

Just so you know, *THIS* woman not only was damn well capable of negotiating raises, but my daughter is, too. I was also the highest paid employee at two consecutive companies, spanning 20 years. So, yeah, SOME of us actually have that mysterious negotiating gene. :rolleyes:

[Mariya]

wow. To make small of sexism and inequality in this world! Through out the world women are treated badly. The funny thing is that women are not even the minority.

But, I agree with BIll - complaining is not the answer. It does nothing. Empowerment is the answer IMHO. Money is the only thing that speaks. Women have to understand that they have to be economically independent and not depend on a man for their survival. That's why I will never become a stay at home mom, even though I would love to. Women are too giving. A friend of mine who did not want to change her last name after her marriage gave in finally because she did not want friction. Women try to be accomodative, and men use it to their advantage all the time. I do not believe that the man would have changed his last name even if it meant losing his family.

When I bring in equal pay, my husband is motivated to perform house hold chores.

Perhaps I don't get equal pay. I don't think so, but it is possible. But I dont dwell on that. I try to develop skills so that I can grow. If you find a way to provide value to the company, then they will pay to keep you. That's all a capitalistic company cares about - money.

Why do they hire young waitresses? So that they look pretty and flirt with the customers. This is not sexism in their mind, but they way the world works and a way to boost business. So, what other skills do you have that provides value?

The difference between China and Iran is the nuclear weapon. China with all its human rights violations is safe because of its military and nuclear missiles. Iran on the other hand is vulnerable. Much as US does not want other countries to build wmds, the other countries realize that US only respects countries with aresenal. So, every country wants one. US will not dare to go into China, no matter what. So, I tell women - Do not ask anyone for equality. Arm and prepare yourself.

[VotingHillary]

Tao, there's SO MUCH wrong with your theories/assumptions about pay inequity it's really shocking.

I am no longer shocked. It is just typical of a male trying to force upon women THEIR rules of the game...and trying desperately to justify them as status quo...women will succeed when they adapt to THEIR rules. Was bullshit in the 1950's and is bullshit in 2008 and will continue to be bullshit under this next federal government we have elected.

[Spang]

I've always lived under the philosophy that if you want something, you've got to go out and get it for yourself. You can blame the evil white man if you want, but it's not going to solve a damn thing. Every American in this country has a voice. It's up to you if you want your voice to be heard. If no one's listening, speak louder.

[sadie]

I am no longer shocked. It is just typical of a male trying to force upon women THEIR rules of the game...and trying desperately to justify them as status quo...women will succeed when they adapt to THEIR rules. Was bullshit in the 1950's and is bullshit in 2008 and will continue to be bullshit under this next federal government we have elected.

Stamp! I find it particularly offensive that a man would presume to tell women how it is. Walk a day in my shoes, then you tell me what it's like to be a woman. I am not a victim, but I'm not treated equally either. And negotiating skills? Seriously?? Get a clue.

As for why women's issues have taken a backseat...Prop 8 is just the hot button issue right now. It's all over the news, it's everywhere. But it doesn't make gender equality any less important, not to me.

[MrSandMan]

I am no longer shocked. It is just typical of a male trying to force upon women THEIR rules of the game...and trying desperately to justify them as status quo...women will succeed when they adapt to THEIR rules. Was bullshit in the 1950's and is bullshit in 2008 and will continue to be bullshit under this next federal government we have elected.

You're sexist against men and how dare you shame sexism when you're sexist yourself. Shame on you!

My wife read this thread and she said that it's the bullshit like in this thread that ruins the fight against sexism when it comes to real issues... she said it's harder for people to take real issues seriously when women / feminists throw around the "sexist" word so easily.

I agree with her 100%.

[VotingHillary]

You're sexist against men and how dare you shame sexism when you're sexist yourself. Shame on you!

My wife read this thread and she said that it's the bullshit like in this thread that ruins the fight against sexism when it comes to real issues... she said it's harder for people to take real issues seriously when women / feminists throw around the "sexist" word so easily.

I agree with her 100%.

Sorry, but you and your wife need a serious reality-check. Women are subjected to conforming to men's "rules" be they of the business world or the bedroom...to deny that is to further support the very ...to use you and your wife's words...BULLSHIT that has held back women for centuries.

[MrSandMan]

Sorry, but you and your wife need a serious reality-check. Women are subjected to conforming to men's "rules" be they of the business world or the bedroom...to deny that is to further support the very ...to use you and your wife's words...BULLSHIT that has held back women for centuries.

Right, and I'm willing to bet that -anyone- who doesn't agree with you need a "reality-check", right? With that said, women are not subjected to conforming to men's "rules". If you are experience this for real, not just some false outcry, I would suggest moving to an area where men don't try subjecting you to conforming to their "rules". --like I'm sure there are communities that blacks experience racism, or gays experience hostility.

btw, No need to apologize for disagreeing with me. As a man, I won't apologize for disagreeing with you. --That's an example that, I think, TheTaoOfBill is trying to express.

[VotingHillary]

Right, and I'm willing to bet that -anyone- who doesn't agree with you need a "reality-check", right? With that said, women are not subjected to conforming to men's "rules". If you are experience this for real, not just some false outcry, I would suggest moving to an area where men don't try subjecting you to conforming to their "rules". --like I'm sure there are communities that blacks experience racism, or gays experience hostility.

btw, No need to apologize for disagreeing with me. As a man, I won't apologize for disagreeing with you. --That's an example that, I think, TheTaoOfBill is trying to express.

Right, and I'm willing to bet that -anyone- who doesn't agree with you need a "reality-check", right? Wrong, anyone with an opinion based on facts is never subjected to that phrase from me.

women are not subjected to conforming to men's "rules". let me know what planet you are living on because I would join it in a heart-beat...because it sure isn't planet Earth.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I am no longer shocked. It is just typical of a male trying to force upon women THEIR rules of the game...and trying desperately to justify them as status quo...women will succeed when they adapt to THEIR rules. Was bullshit in the 1950's and is bullshit in 2008 and will continue to be bullshit under this next federal government we have elected.

Nothing is as hypocritical as a man hating feminist. Please stop responding to me if all you can do is spew sexism.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I don't have the energy right now to really do justice to this topic, so I'll keep it brief.

Tao, there's SO MUCH wrong with your theories/assumptions about pay inequity it's really shocking.

To look at statistics spanning DECADES (as in that chart I posted earlier) showing gross pay inequity for females vs males, and then declare that the REAL problem is that women don't know how to negotiate raises...well, that's one of the most sexist--and oblivious--things I've ever heard.

So you're essentially saying that GENERATIONS of women have--consistently--made 50-77% as much as men because--for DECADES--women, collectively, didn't know how to ask for or negotiate raises? Really? :confused:

Just so you know, *THIS* woman not only was damn well capable of negotiating raises, but my daughter is, too. I was also the highest paid employee at two consecutive companies, spanning 20 years. So, yeah, SOME of us actually have that mysterious negotiating gene. :rolleyes:

I fail to see how you posted statistics that contradict my statements.

You showed that there is a pay gap. That's great. I showed the reason for the pay gap. Women aren't asking for as high of a pay as men and they aren't asking for raises as often as men.

I am glad you are capable of negotiating. That is very important. But you just proved my point. You are good at negotiating so you became the highest payed employee.

That's my point. The highest paid employees don't just become the highest paid employee. You obviously didn't get that salary from being a man. You got it from having negotiation skills.

Studies show women are lacking in negotiation skills.

No one is saying it's a genetic thing. It's simply an education thing. It's a society thing. Women simply aren't as educated in money handling in general because they aren't expected bye society to be as independent as men.

You are doing a good job with your daughter if you are teaching her how to be independent and negotiate her salary. That's a good thing to teach your daughter and all I'm saying is that we teach all our daughters in this in our public schools.

[VotingHillary]

What I find most interesting of this entire thread is that men's theories should be accepted as fact...and women's facts are considered theories. And that says it all.

[TheTaoOfBill]

What I find most interesting of this entire thread is that men's theories should be accepted as fact...and women's facts are considered theories. And that says it all.

Right...you caught me and my big evil man plan to degrade women and make sure they don't steal all my man powers away.

[VotingHillary]

Right...you caught me and my big evil man plan to degrade women and make sure they don't steal all my man powers away.

Sarcasm is never a substitute for fact..it is an excuse for lack of facts.

[Den2006]

Until we define the worth of seperation of time off for family as it equates to on'the job worth there will continue to be a seperaton of pay. Men taking off time for family emergencys, sickness, school functions is less accepted and happens less then for women. Producitivity has to take into account of late days and days missed for family and children isssues. Until this is addressed in a more equatable manner this will continue to be a issue of contention. I can only speak to my own personal experience in the work place but more time is addrssed to covering for missed time in the work unit for men than women. It's an effect that translates though the workforce and must be taken into consideration when pay scale is taken into consideration.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Sarcasm is never a substitute for fact..it is an excuse for lack of facts.

Yeah.What was I thinking coming in here with scientific studies and statistics. Those aren't facts. Those are just my display of raw hatred towards women. Because they do mean things to me.

As seen in this picture of a girl biting my nipple off:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/RawrSaysI/EmilyBites.jpg

[eyedoc333]

Speaking of sexism...


This arguement ignores the study done in 2003
http://policy.rutgers.edu/cncr/research/0803nyt.pdf


As a scientist, I wouldn't base a whole argument on this one essay, written as an opinion piece. The fact that women have a starting salary less than men for a particular job can be explained by reasons other than than an author's interpretation of women's "inferior" negotiating skills.

What if female CEOs receive less total compensation than male CEO's? Are women who reach the highest levels of management also deficient in negotiating skills? I don't think so.

"...how well compensated are women CEOs relative to their male counterparts? The CEO of Xerox was the woman with the highest compensation $7,280,000 in the Forbes CEO Compensation Report (May 2007). She ranked 225th. Compensation for the remaining women CEOs ranged from a $1.5 million low to the second highest at $5.12 million. These salaries are downright puny. The average annual compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO was $10.8 million according to the Institute for Policy Studies."
http://www.momsrising.org/node/714

[foxyladi]

they are all human rights.:D:D

[TheTaoOfBill]

As a scientist, I wouldn't base a whole argument on this one essay, written as an opinion piece. The fact that women have a starting salary less than men for a particular job can be explained by reasons other than than an author's interpretation of women's "inferior" negotiating skills.

What if female CEOs receive less total compensation than male CEO's? Are women who reach the highest levels of management also deficient in negotiating skills? I don't think so.


http://www.momsrising.org/node/714

It's not just one essay.

There are lots of similar studies that come to similar conclusions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827_pf.html
In one early study, Babcock brought 74 volunteers into a laboratory to play a word game called Boggle. The volunteers were told they would be paid anywhere from $3 to $10 for their time. After playing the game, each student was given $3 and asked if the sum was okay. Eight times more men than women asked for more money.

Babcock then ran the experiment a different way. She told a new set of 153 volunteers that they would be paid $3 to $10 but explicitly added that the sum was negotiable. Many more now asked for more money, but the gender gap remained substantial: 58 percent of the women, but 83 percent of the men, asked for more.

Another study quizzed graduating master's degree students who had received job offers about whether they had simply accepted the offered starting salary or had tried to negotiate for more. Four times as many men -- 51 percent of the men vs. 12.5 percent of the women -- said they had pushed for a better deal. Not surprisingly, those who negotiated tended to be rewarded -- they got 7.4 percent more, on average -- compared with those who did not negotiate.
This one isn't about negotiating job salaries but it's about negotiating car prices:
http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&cha=2&id=3565
Only 69 percent of the women surveyed said they had used a variety of sources to research used car prices before making a purchase compared to 86 percent of the men surveyed, according to CR’s Auto Price Service study. The study also found that men are more likely to negotiate the purchase price than women—with 76 percent of men saying that they had negotiated compared with 68 percent of women.

Here's a more recent article about it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/13/1950152.htm

[xfiles]

The bottom line is that women have to empower themselves (and gays also). There are many very strong, intelligent women (and gays) out there who just need to learn to speak out at every turn, ask for acceptance and demand it if it isn't given. Women need to prove they can do just as well as men and in some cases exceed men.

But when we have a patriarchal society as Murra accurately points out, women have a long road to travel.

Look at how sports dominates our culture. Where are the women in this equation? It is a good old boy network at its finest. That is why I now refuse to watch or participate in men's sports in any way.

Women have a great deal of power, more so than they may realize but they don't use it or in some cases can't because men stand in their way.

Can't you just see a woman refusing to have sports on TV in her household and protesting sponsors, etc.? It could be done but then many women who depend on men for their income or the bulk of it would either be divorced pretty quickly or face the wrath of the men who are addicted to sports.

This is but one example of how men maintain control in hiring, keeping the hype going, etc. Very few women are involved in this equation of wealth and notariety.

ONE of the answers for women (and gays) is to begin to empower yourselves, speak out, demand attention and sharing the wealth & experience of this man's world.

[eyedoc333]

It's not just one essay.

There are lots of similar studies that come to similar conclusions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827_pf.html

This one isn't about negotiating job salaries but it's about negotiating car prices:
http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&cha=2&id=3565


Here's a more recent article about it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/13/1950152.htm

I am not familiar with these studies, how the experiments were set up, how the questions were framed, and the potential biases of questioners. I don't know the experimental error that existed between 76% and 68% or whether it was statistically significant based on numbers of responses. However, I'm not buying these studies as the reason for why women are paid less for the same job as men.

[TheTaoOfBill]

The bottom line is that women have to empower themselves (and gays also). There are many very strong, intelligent women (and gays) out there who just need to learn to speak out at every turn, ask for acceptance and demand it if it isn't given. Women need to prove they can do just as well as men and in some cases exceed men.

But when we have a patriarchal society as Murra accurately points out, women have a long road to travel.

Look at how sports dominates our culture. Where are the women in this equation? It is a good old boy network at its finest. That is why I now refuse to watch or participate in men's sports in any way.

Women have a great deal of power, more so than they may realize but they don't use it or in some cases can't because men stand in their way.

Can't you just see a woman refusing to have sports on TV in her household and protesting sponsors, etc.? It could be done but then many women who depend on men for their income or the bulk of it would either be divorced pretty quickly or face the wrath of the men who are addicted to sports.

This is but one example of how men maintain control in hiring, keeping the hype going, etc. Very few women are involved in this equation of wealth and notariety.

ONE of the answers for women (and gays) is to begin to empower yourselves, speak out, demand attention and sharing the wealth & experience of this man's world.

The reason there aren't many women's professional sports is because they don't make much money. For example. The WNBA. I tried watching a couple games of it and I just wasn't really excited by it. I get excited by slam dunks in basketball and there just isn't enough of it in the WNBA. They are getting better though. I think there were 2 dunks this year? But that's like 2 dunks in it's entire history. So if they can get more women who can dunk like Candice Parker I might be willing to watch it more.

Mens sports are simply more exciting in my experience. They hit harder move faster and jump higher.

So most men simply get bored with women's sports and most women don't watch sports regularly at all. So it just doesn't tend to be profitable to show women's sports.

But I'm really looking for the WNBA to spruce up their style a bit. Like I said...if dunks happened more often I'd give it another shot. Maybe others will too. And if the WNBA can succeed who knows what will be next. WMLB? WNFL? WNHL?

[TheTaoOfBill]

I am not familiar with these studies, how the experiments were set up, how the questions were framed, and the potential biases of questioners. I don't know the experimental error that existed between 76% and 68% or whether it was statistically significant based on numbers of responses. However, I'm not buying these studies as the reason for why women are paid less for the same job as men.

It's not the sole reason of course but it's definitely one of the reasons. When several studies reach the same conclusion I would think that's significant. But you're the scientist I guess.

[MrSandMan]

My wife is the highest *person* at her company below management. She's been there for 2 years and is getting paid better than people who's been there 7+ years.

How did you she do it? She earned it! Instead of bitching about everything and crying sexism whenever she doesn't get her way, she works harder. And hard work NEVER goes unnoticed. She is the most successful (in such a short time period) ever at this company. And she's being rewarded for it.

They are going to move her up in her company within the year...

My suggestion to the women who cry "sexism" at the whim, instead of wasting your energy looking for a free ride, get out there and work your ass off and earn your raise! Nobody deserves a free for using the 'sexism' card to benefit you.

Another key point, my wife NEVER misses work.

[TheTaoOfBill]

My wife is the highest *person* at her company below management. She's been there for 2 years and is getting paid better than people who's been there 7+ years.

How did you she do it? She earned it! Instead of bitching about everything and crying sexism whenever she doesn't get her way, she works harder. And hard work NEVER goes unnoticed. She is the most successful (in such a short time period) ever at this company. And she's being rewarded for it.

They are going to move her up in her company within the year...

My suggestion to the women who cry "sexism" at the whim, instead of wasting your energy looking for a free ride, get out there and work your ass off and earn your raise! Nobody deserves a free for using the 'sexism' card to benefit you.

Another key point, my wife NEVER misses work.
My friend is the same way. Though less impressive because she worked at wendy's but still. She wound up making more money than some of her managers. Because she bargained her way up raise after raise. At one point when the wiis were all the craze her boss mentioned how much he wanted one and she happened to have bought a shit ton of them in order to sell them. So she told her boss "I'll sell it to you for 500 dollars and a raise"

This chick definitely has a 2 ton pair balls on her lol. But her boss took up her offer and to this date I think she wound up making about a 1000 dollar profit on that wii from that moment till the time she quit.

[MrSandMan]

My friend is the same way. Though less impressive because she worked at wendy's but still. She wound up making more money than some of her managers. Because she bargained her way up raise after raise. At one point when the wiis were all the craze her boss mentioned how much he wanted one and she happened to have bought a shit ton of them in order to sell them. So she told her boss "I'll sell it to you for 500 dollars and a raise"

This chick definitely has a 2 ton pair balls on her lol. But her boss took up her offer and to this date I think she wound up making about a 1000 dollar profit on that wii from that moment till the time she quit.

I agree, the sexism card is just used as an excuse anymore and it's sad! Funny thing is, my wife didn't even ask for a raise nor did she expect her raises... The company took the initiative and rewarded her.

When she was younger, she worked at a gas station / service station while she was going to college. The company was so impressed with her work ethics and efficiency that they fired the previous manager (who held his position for 8 years) and offered her the position with more money. Of course she took it and he was pissed. But oh-well...

1 year later, the owner of the company wanted my wife moved up to his office and handle bigger tasks, she declined because we married and she moved in with me in my city... and then she found another job (the current job that she kicks ass at!)

[Ikasu]

A few data points do not prove anything.

[Mherim]

A few data points do not prove anything.

What about 74 data points? or 153 data points?

(And of course it's not proof, it's evidence).

[Mherim]

Here's a few interesting articles, showing that there doesn't need to be a correlation between gender pay gap and gender "power gap":

In Norway;
The proportion of women in the Storting (parliament) and the municipal councils is increasing year-by-year (http://www.ssb.no/ola_kari_en/makt_en/)
whilst
The income difference betwen men and women remains constant (http://www.ssb.no/ola_kari_en/inntekt_en/)

[LadyLazarus]

I don’t even know where to begin on this insane thread.

First, for some reason we seem to have lot sight of the critical fact that sexism and heterosexism all come from the same root oppression that is tied to gender, i.e., which is why the word “sexism” is a linguistic component of both words used to describe the prejudice and oppression perpetuated by one group to another. This is a fact. Queer men and women are oppressed in society precisely because they don’t conform to society’s gender expectations and defy a rigid and unrelenting gender socialization, which pressures women, for example, not only to be feminine, passive, and dependent, but to also sexually desire and ultimately marry men, becoming duly assimilated and functioning members of a gender-normative society. Given that gender is a social construct, and not a biological one, as is “sex” for example, gender is a profoundly political concept. So feminism, which is largely the struggle to resist such oppressive gender norms, is intimately tied to the struggle of sexual dissidents. In fact, so much feminist theory is written by lesbian women and gay men that they have come to dominate the field. Third-wave feminism is in part largely due to lesbian women arguing that white, heterosexual feminism needs to and should account for non-hetero-normative experience in this world.

Second, for the person who continues to base his entire argument about sexism on his purported “wife’s” single experience living in a sexist world, I would remind this individual of the fallacy in logic known as “hasty generalization” in which one confuses an unrepresentative sample size with a valid sample size., i.e., one woman’s experience in a patriarchal world cannot be representative of all women’s experience in a patriarchal world. Therefore, any data harnessed from this individual’s life experience—quantitative or qualitative-- is utterly useless when trying to determine whether or not a significant wage gap exists and/or the reasons for that wage gap. If this aforementioned, but never seen, wife is as successful as this individual claims, one also wonders if either he or his wife have ever heard of the phrase “tokenism,” which refers to a policy or practice of limited inclusion of members of a minority group, usually creating a false appearance of inclusive practices.

Third, for the few male members of this thread who have dared to expropriate the word “sexism” from those who are victimized by a documented oppression, which the sheer volume of male generated violence against women in this world attests to, all I can say is “nice try, but we’re not buying it.” To be a victim of sexism you have to first establish that you have been the victim of some discriminatory policy or practice based upon your sex. And no, being called a sexist by those who have rightfully identified your sexist thoughts, discourse, or actions doesn’t count.

[Drawing]

As a woman in America I have a hard time equating what subtle sexism I've directly encountered (not much) or the social sexism in our culture with what women in third world countries go through every day. The majority of starving people in this country are women - voting rights, reproductive rights, rape as a weapon during wartime - these are all horrific things that women in America couldn't even begin to comprehend living with.

Yes, I do think sexism is a problem globally. No, I don't think its that massive of an issue in America - the sheer fact that I can go to the grocery store without worrying about keeping my face covered, if I talk to a man I'm not related to, or that I'll be attacked by a militia and raped on the way home is proof of that. The problems we have to deal with here in America are a wet dream to what millions of women are going through on the planet today.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Third, for the few male members of this thread who have dared to expropriate the word “sexism” from those who are victimized by a documented oppression, which the sheer volume of male generated violence against women in this world attests to, all I can say is “nice try, but we’re not buying it.” To be a victim of sexism you have to first establish that you have been the victim of some discriminatory policy or practice based upon your sex. And no, being called a sexist by those who have rightfully identified your sexist thoughts, discourse, or actions doesn’t count.


Main Entry:
sex·ism Listen to the pronunciation of sexism
Pronunciation:
ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm
Function:
noun
Etymology:
1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date:
1968

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex ; especially : discrimination against women2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Sexism is NOT limited to men. If you are a feminist who says things like "Typical male" or assumes that someone has no interest in women equality simply because of their gender you are not only a hypocrite but you are infact a sexist.

I love how this is the same board who felt it was okay to call Rev Wright a racist (which I feel is a fair judgment) but fail to see how in the same regards a woman can be a sexist against men for spewing similar hatred.

It makes no difference who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. If you make assumptions against someone based on their gender you are a sexist. I don't think any dictionary in the world would define sexism in the way you described.

Just because men are in power doesn't mean we don't have rights and we can't defend ourselves against man hating feminists.

I have offered studies statistics and facts opposing the viewpoint that the gender income gap is the result of sexist bosses and for debunking that false claim I get called a sexist. I get called a typical man. I get called basically someone wanting to hold women back when that is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make women stronger and better able to compete with men in income. If I have daughters I will be teaching them how to negotiate and I will show them the tools they can use to figure out what the standard pay for their career choice is and I will help them know their worth. If more women were taught these things the gender gap would slowly begin to dissipate.

But some of you are not willing to look at the facts. You're not willing to accept the issue might not be with men but might in fact be with women so you are completely unwilling to solve the real problem here.

That's the definition of sexism if you ask me. You are too busy assuming men are out to hold you back that you are completely unwilling to look out for yourselves. There needs to be more programs to help women compete in the business world. Some women's groups actually get this. Like the Independent Women's Forum.

Unfortunately most women's groups are still all too willing to blame men for their problems instead of taking personal responsibility

[TheTaoOfBill]

As a woman in America I have a hard time equating what subtle sexism I've directly encountered (not much) or the social sexism in our culture with what women in third world countries go through every day. The majority of starving people in this country are women - voting rights, reproductive rights, rape as a weapon during wartime - these are all horrific things that women in America couldn't even begin to comprehend living with.

Yes, I do think sexism is a problem globally. No, I don't think its that massive of an issue in America - the sheer fact that I can go to the grocery store without worrying about keeping my face covered, if I talk to a man I'm not related to, or that I'll be attacked by a militia and raped on the way home is proof of that. The problems we have to deal with here in America are a wet dream to what millions of women are going through on the planet today.

Stamp! :cool:

[AdrienneJ]

The US could never even get it together to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
That's a pretty sorry condemnation right there.
I thought one of the interesting things that happened with Palin was that in watching her arrive on the scene and campaign-- I saw a marked difference in the Republican women who attended her events. At first, the Repub women (and this of course is a broad sweeping generalization, but I think has truth to it) seemed a little shell-shocked. I imagined them saying to themselves, "a woman"? That's what many of their faces looked like. But as time went by, the women seemed to get some fire in them. They seemed energized, excited by the possibility that a woman (a woman like them to good degree--at least in political position) could be a VP and (dare they say it to themselves) a President.
Then-- all hell starts to break lose. And not just from the totally useless press but from the Republican quarters. Republicans begin attacking Palin.
Now where have I seen that behavior before?
Could it just possibly be that America has a big old problem with women?
Nah.. tell me ain't so, Joe.

So I'm guessing that as those Repub women got energized and began to see new horizons open up due to Palin's arrival, the Repub powers that be got threatened. After all, somebody in America doesn't want women to gain their rightful place as equal citizens. No?

[Drawing]

The US could never even get it together to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
That's a pretty sorry condemnation right there.
I thought one of the interesting things that happened with Palin was that in watching her arrive on the scene and campaign-- I saw a marked difference in the Republican women who attended her events. At first, the Repub women (and this of course is a broad sweeping generalization, but I think has truth to it) seemed a little shell-shocked. I imagined them saying to themselves, "a woman"? That's what many of their faces looked like. But as time went by, the women seemed to get some fire in them. They seemed energized, excited by the possibility that a woman (a woman like them to good degree--at least in political position) could be a VP and (dare they say it to themselves) a President.
Then-- all hell starts to break lose. And not just from the totally useless press but from the Republican quarters. Republicans begin attacking Palin.
Now where have I seen that behavior before?
Could it just possibly be that America has a big old problem with women?
Nah.. tell me ain't so, Joe.

So I'm guessing that as those Repub women got energized and began to see new horizons open up due to Palin's arrival, the Repub powers that be got threatened. After all, somebody in America doesn't want women to gain their rightful place as equal citizens. No?

Why is opposition to Palin being Vice President equivalent to hating women? I'm a women though and through and I didn't support her for the job because I didn't agree with her politics whatsoever.

[jlynne]

Try to explain away the transgender studies. I think they are most telling because you are comparing a person with identical skill sets and identical personality traits.

We use the workplace experiences of transgender people – individuals who change their gender typically with hormone therapy and surgery – to provide new insights into the long-standing question of what role gender plays in shaping workplace outcomes. Using an original survey of male-to-female and female-to-male transgender people, we document the earnings and employment experiences of transgender people before and after their gender transitions. We find that while transgender people have the same human capital after their transitions, their workplace experiences often change radically. We estimate that average earnings for female-to-male transgender workers increase slightly following their gender transitions, while average earnings for male-to-female transgender workers fall by nearly 1/3. This finding is consistent with qualitative evidence that for many male-to-female workers, becoming a woman often brings a loss of authority, harassment, and termination, but that for many female-to-male workers, becoming a man often brings an increase in respect and authority. These findings challenge the omitted variables explanations for the gender pay gap and illustrate the often hidden and subtle processes that produce gender inequality in workplace outcomes.

Schilt, Kristen and Wiswall, Matthew (2008) "Before and After: Gender Transitions, Human Capital, and Workplace Experiences," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 (Contributions), Article 39.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol8/iss1/art39

[AdrienneJ]

Why is opposition to Palin being Vice President equivalent to hating women? I'm a women though and through and I didn't support her for the job because I didn't agree with her politics whatsoever.


Drawing, I didn't say that. I said it was interesting that the right attacked their own candidate. You didn't support Palin because you stated you didn't agree with her politics. A rational reason not to support Palin. But if you were a Repub and her politics mirrored your own, you would support her.
Right? Re-read my post.

[Drawing]

Drawing, I didn't say that. I said it was interesting that the right attacked their own candidate. You didn't support Palin because you stated you didn't agree with her politics. A rational reason not to support Palin. But if you were a Repub and her politics mirrored your own, you would support her.
Right? Re-read my post.

From what I've read from Republicans that didn't support Palin - Peggy Noonan for one, Reagan's speechwriter - is that they felt she wasn't ready for the position, that her positions were too far-right and religiously based to appeal to the center of the electorate, and she was coming from the religious-right side of the Republican party as opposed to the fiscal conservative wing - but to such an extent that they were extremely uncomfortable with her taking office. The Republican party has been heading for a ideological split for a while now and Palin ended up being the personification of the wedge. That she's female, as far as I can tell, didn't have anything to do with it.

[jlynne]

Here is an article from Harvard Business that challenges some of the assertions being made in this thread based on the study I posted.


If Women Were More Like Men
Posted by Jillian Weiss on October 21, 2008 9:13 AM

"No No No!!!" These were the words my new boss had scrawled in red ink across my draft memo. After more than a decade as a big-firm lawyer in the area of complex insurance coverage contracts, I was rather shocked to see such a savage display of temper, and even more shocked to think that my writing, always rated rather highly by other employers, merited such treatment. Little had changed over the past decade - not my hard-driving work ethic nor my clear writing style. The explanation seemed obvious to me, though at first I didn't want to believe it: I was now a woman.

I had transitioned from male to female in 1998, and my new employer neither knew nor suspected that I was transgender. Now I was receiving the condescending treatment that some of my female colleagues had complained about all along. After several such incidents, I quietly left the practice of law, never to return. As a male attorney, my competence had never been questioned so harshly by my employers, so I assumed that reports of gender discrimination were bogus complaints brought by females who didn't measure up. As a male, I had been privileged, though I didn't know it at the time, to avoid much of the harsh treatment reserved for females in a male bastion.
Since then, as a professor and consultant who specializes in transgender workplace diversity issues, I've met many people with stories like mine. (See the December HBR case, "When Steve Becomes Stephanie.") That's why I was particularly interested by a recent article in Time Magazine, discussing a new study of transgender experiences in the workplace. The study, by Kristen Schilt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, and Matthew Wiswall, an economist at NYU, provides strong evidence that the wage gap between men and women really is the result of discrimination.

Most gender studies compare men and women of similar education level and work experience and they inevitably find that women are paid less than men even when their education and experience are equivalent. But that doesn't by itself prove discrimination. Alternative explanations for the salary gap abound: women lack competitive drive, they avoid conflict, and they consciously stay away from time-consuming workplace challenges in favor of family. Schilt and Wiswall have taken a very different approach, which I think nails discrimination as the problem.

Rather than trying to compare groups of men and women, Schilt and Wiswall looked at people like me. They measured our earnings and employment experiences before and after our gender transitions, and found significant changes. Of course, you could argue that the study merely proves that employers have a problem with transgendered workers. But the results also show that those of us who had transitioned from male to female suffered a loss in earnings of nearly one-third, whereas those who moved from female to male increased slightly (1.5%).

Have transgender women lost our competitive drive, ability to handle conflict, and willingness to put in the hours as a result of changing genders? Or do employers have more of a problem with women than men? I have my opinion; tell me yours.


Dr. Jillian T. Weiss, Associate Professor of Law and Society at Ramapo College, is author of Transgender Workplace Diversity: Policy Tools, Training Issues and Communication Strategies for HR and Legal Professionals, as well as a popular blog on the subject. Her work has been featured by the NY Times, Associated Press, and SHRM, among others. She has worked with many Fortune 500 companies to create policies and train employees regarding transgender issues in the workplace.

http://conversationstarter.hbsp.com/2008/10/if_women_were_more_like_men.html

[LadyLazarus]

Sexism is NOT limited to men. If you are a feminist who says things like "Typical male" or assumes that someone has no interest in women equality simply because of their gender you are not only a hypocrite but you are infact a sexist.

Having access to a dictionary doesn't make you any less of a sexist, nor does it mean you understand the word any better than you did before you opened it.

Also, if you are naive enough to believe that I would discuss the word sexism without knowing its definition, please review a previous post I made on this forum where I provided the classic, textbook definition of sexism. However, unlike you, I didn't have to open a dictionary to provide it.

If you read my post, you would also see that I asked you to name a single discriminatory practice against you based upon your sex. You have failed to do so, thus you have only increased suspicion that you are trying to claim you are victim of sexism to distract others from basic fact that you are a sexist. Being in denial about this fact, doesn't make you any less of sexist.

[AdrienneJ]

From what I've read from Republicans that didn't support Palin - Peggy Noonan for one, Reagan's speechwriter - is that they felt she wasn't ready for the position, that her positions were too far-right and religiously based to appeal to the center of the electorate, and she was coming from the religious-right side of the Republican party as opposed to the fiscal conservative wing - but to such an extent that they were extremely uncomfortable with her taking office. The Republican party has been heading for a ideological split for a while now and Palin ended up being the personification of the wedge. That she's female, as far as I can tell, didn't have anything to do with it.

And George Will's excuse?

[Drawing]

And George Will's excuse?

Why does he have to have different reasons than Noonan, who's female? If you're referencing something specific he said please quote and cite it so we all know what you're talking about, but to insinuate that a Republican male who didn't support Palin did so solely because she's female is a pretty big assumption to make. And if he has said that he didn't support Palin simply because she's female, how does that equate to all Republicans who didn't support Palin having that same reason?

[AdrienneJ]

This is an odd discussion here. What's happened I believe, is a schism between those who voted for Hillary and those that voted for Obama.
It's to be expected I guess. But in a discussion of a broader issue-- that of sexism (at the moment) it is troubling.
But I suppose because that is what happened this election cycle, the Obama contingent cannot bring themselves to see the sexism that occured which was so pathetically blatant to those of us who see it.
I don't know how to open the eyes of those who do not want to address this problem.

[AdrienneJ]

It would be nice if we all could agree to some basic tenets.


1) that sexism exists in America
2) that sexism is a social negative
3) that we should work to end sexism

these seem self evident

[Drawing]

This is an odd discussion here. What's happened I believe, is a schism between those who voted for Hillary and those that voted for Obama.
It's to be expected I guess. But in a discussion of a broader issue-- that of sexism (at the moment) it is troubling.
But I suppose because that is what happened this election cycle, the Obama contingent cannot bring themselves to see the sexism that occured which was so pathetically blatant to those of us who see it.
I don't know how to open the eyes of those who do not want to address this problem.

So you couldn't provide a quote or cite to back up what you were saying? Or is it just easier to assume (again) that the real problem is that people that supported Obama and people that supported Hillary in the primaries are completely different groups that have absolutely no overlap whatsoever? You were the one that brought up Palin into the overall discussion about sexism.

edit: I should edit this because I rushed this - I'm at a loss to understand how this relates back to supposedly who people supported in the primaries. It seems like an amazingly baseless assumption to make.

As I've said, as a woman I find what sexism we deal with in America to be an absolute cakewalk compared to what women in developing and war torn countries go through every day. We're so completely spoiled and the majority of us have no concept of what those women go through - and yet millions of them are. Our sexism problems in America are not right, but they're absolutely laughable in comparison to the sexism that exists across the globe.

[AdrienneJ]

Why does he have to have different reasons than Noonan, who's female? If you're referencing something specific he said please quote and cite it so we all know what you're talking about, but to insinuate that a Republican male who didn't support Palin did so solely because she's female is a pretty big assumption to make. And if he has said that he didn't support Palin simply because she's female, how does that equate to all Republicans who didn't support Palin having that same reason?

Oh boy... I in no way indicated that Will didn't support Palin solely because he is a man. Since you brought up Noonan, I assumed you were aware of Will. If your point was that there is a splinter in the Repub party then between Noonan and Will both sides of the Repub
interests would be covered.

[Spang]

I support Obama so I guess that makes me a sexist. :rolleyes:

[Drawing]

Oh boy... I in no way indicated that Will didn't support Palin solely because he is a man. Since you brought up Noonan, I assumed you were aware of Will. If your point was that there is a splinter in the Repub party then between Noonan and Will both sides of the Repub
interests would be covered.

I certainly know who George Will is, but your entire statement regarding him was "what's his excuse?" Well, I dunno, what did he say? Provide some context so people don't have to guess at what point you're trying to make (and then get snarked down when they guess incorrectly).

[AdrienneJ]

Having access to a dictionary doesn't make you any less of a sexist, nor does it mean you understand the word any better than you did before you opened it.

Also, if you are naive enough to believe that I would discuss the word sexism without knowing its definition, please review a previous post I made on this forum where I provided the classic, textbook definition of sexism. However, unlike you, I didn't have to open a dictionary to provide it.

If you read my post, you would also see that I asked you to name a single discriminatory practice against you based upon your sex. You have failed to do so, thus you have only increased suspicion that you are trying to claim you are victim of sexism to distract others from basic fact that you are a sexist. Being in denial about this fact, doesn't make you any less of sexist.


Lady Lazarus, are you still online?

[TheTaoOfBill]

Having access to a dictionary doesn't make you any less of a sexist, nor does it mean you understand the word any better than you did before you opened it.

Also, if you are naive enough to believe that I would discuss the word sexism without knowing its definition, please review a previous post I made on this forum where I provided the classic, textbook definition of sexism. However, unlike you, I didn't have to open a dictionary to provide it.

If you read my post, you would also see that I asked you to name a single discriminatory practice against you based upon your sex. You have failed to do so, thus you have only increased suspicion that you are trying to claim you are victim of sexism to distract others from basic fact that you are a sexist. Being in denial about this fact, doesn't make you any less of sexist.
Actually I did give you an example of discrimination. When I am told I am a typical man am I am trying to keep women down when I have made my intents crystal clear that is discrimination. That is sexism against men. Men have rights too and they don't need to take sexism from rabid man haters.

[jlynne]

Here is an article that directly addresses some of the perceptions/misperceptions that keep appearing in this thread.

The dominant story in mainstream culture is that women and minorities are hyper-vigilant in perceiving bias, to the point of mistakenly perceiving sexism and racism when it does not really exist. Mainstream culture is replete with derogatory references to “feminazi” women who blame everything on gender, and with depictions of strident women who are too quick to blame sexism for their troubles. Likewise, people of color are derided for “playing the race card,” as if an attribution to race is always an artifice and never an insight. This cultural narrative encourages suspicious treatment of those who would attribute adverse outcomes to gender or race bias.

Research in the field of social psychology suggests that the realities of perceiving bias are much more complex than either legal doctrine or dominant cultural understandings acknowledge. First, the widespread cultural assumption of hyper-vigilance is largely a myth. Although there is modest evidence that some persons who belong to stigmatized social groups are highly sensitive to prejudice cues, the weight of evidence suggests that under-perception of gender bias is closer to the norm than hyper-vigilance.

Social psychologists have identified a psychological drive to believe that the world is fundamentally “just” in the sense of meritocratic, such that people get what they deserve and are not held back by unfair considerations such as gender or race. Attribution of negative outcomes to discrimination clashes with this belief in a “just world.” As a result, women and people of color who strongly believe in a “just world” tend to discount discrimination as an explanation for negative outcomes and instead blame themselves. For example, researchers have found that the more that members of lower-status groups (specifically, in this research, Latino/a Americans and women) “endorsed the ideology of individual mobility (e.g., agreed with statements such as “advancement in American society is possible for individuals of all ethnic groups”), the less likely they were to report that they personally, or members of their group, were targets of discrimination.

Under common understanding and prevailing legal doctrine, if there is sexism there must be a sexist. Yet, social psychologists have observed an emotional reluctance to perceive discrimination against a person when it requires identifying an individual villain. Termed “blame avoidance,” this phenomenon helps explain why women and other members of subordinated social groups are more likely to recognize the existence of discrimination against their social group but deny that they have personally experienced it. Recognizing systemic and anonymous discrimination against women does not require an identifiable villain, but perceiving discrimination against an individual woman does.

The entire article is too long to post but you can download it from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1169582. All their materials are usally available for free.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Try to explain away the transgender studies. I think they are most telling because you are comparing a person with identical skill sets and identical personality traits.



Schilt, Kristen and Wiswall, Matthew (2008) "Before and After: Gender Transitions, Human Capital, and Workplace Experiences," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 (Contributions), Article 39.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol8/iss1/art39

Now THIS is a pretty good study! And it shows that there possibly is a chunk of sexism in the pay gap. Which I suspected was part of it. But we still don't know how big of a part it plays because there are so many other factors.

[Nichelle]

This is quite the interesting thread. I can only relay my personal experiences throughout my career. I'm a black female. -

- Then: I interned at GM during my college years as a mechanical engineering student. (I'm old so that was 20 years ago) What a fight that was. I walked into an all male meeting and was introduced. An older male asked me to turn around so they could see all of me. Huh? No one said a thing. I was young and was absolutely not prepared. I didn't turn around but I didn't protest, as I should have. Duh! During those same years, another male explained to me that the only role women should have in the auto industry is choosing colors.

- Now: I've been employed for 15 years with my current company. The atmosphere is better, but I don't tolerate much. After working through silly questions such as 'what should we call you?' as people wondered how to refer to someone with a different skin color, I've learned to be agressive when it comes to my position and pay. I had to threaten to leave and actually receive an opposing offer in order to receive the same title as white men who were doing less than I was. In another instance, I documented and proved that my position should be elevated to a higher pay grade. My boss refused to speak to me for 3 days but he made the change. It was all smiles and 'atta girls' until it came to gaining entry into middle and upper management. I learned early that if I am 'modest' and rate myself as such, my boss will provide a modest raise. However, if I demand and justify what I deserve, I will get it. I'm one of the top rated managers in a dept of 3,000. I don't know of many white, males there that have the same fight for equal reward.

By the way, a few years ago my father explained to me that he spent more time with my brother on issues because he believed I would simply grow up and get married. It was my brother who needed preparation for the business world. That explained a lot.

I hate that our society reinforces such behavior. But I am committed to ensuring that any female I know learns from my experiences and gets a head start.

I feel like I just vented!:D

[TheTaoOfBill]

This is quite the interesting thread. I can only relay my personal experiences throughout my career. I'm a black female. -

- Then: I interned at GM during my college years as a mechanical engineering student. (I'm old so that was 20 years ago) What a fight that was. I walked into an all male meeting and was introduced. An older male asked me to turn around so they could see all of me. Huh? No one said a thing. I was young and was absolutely not prepared. I didn't turn around but I didn't protest, as I should have. Duh! During those same years, another male explained to me that the only role women should have in the auto industry is choosing colors.

- Now: I've been employed for 15 years with my current company. The atmosphere is better, but I don't tolerate much. After working through silly questions such as 'what should we call you?' as people wondered how to refer to someone with a different skin color, I've learned to be agressive when it comes to my position and pay. I had to threaten to leave and actually receive an opposing offer in order to receive the same title as white men who were doing less than I was. In another instance, I documented and proved that my position should be elevated to a higher pay grade. My boss refused to speak to me for 3 days but he made the change. It was all smiles and 'atta girls' until it came to gaining entry into middle and upper management. I learned early that if I am 'modest' and rate myself as such, my boss will provide a modest raise. However, if I demand and justify what I deserve, I will get it. I'm one of the top rated managers in a dept of 3,000. I don't know of many white, males there that have the same fight for equal reward.

By the way, a few years ago my father explained to me that he spent more time with my brother on issues because he believed I would simply grow up and get married. It was my brother who needed preparation for the business world. That explained a lot.

I hate that our society reinforces such behavior. But I am committed to ensuring that any female I know learns from my experiences and gets a head start.

I feel like I just vented!:D

Wow. That's such an insane story! It does suck that women almost need to be a different kind of aggressive than men. It's not enough for women to be aggressive. You've got to know how to play your cards as well. And I'm glad you knew how to play them. Good for you! :)

Like I said earlier in the thread. You don't demand respect you command it. It's not enough to say RESPECT ME. You've got to give them no other choice but to respect you. And that's exactly what you did there. That's awesome.

[LadyLazarus]

rabid man haters

Hm... why am I not surprised by this comment. Transforming women into caricatures is the quintessential rhetorical move of a sexist. Women who legitimately critique the sexism of men are called "rabid." Nice.

I'm betting you use the portmanteau "feminazi" also quite often. Since you are such a beleaguered victim of sexism, it stands to reason that women make you quite frustrated, hence your irrational anger directed at them.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Hm... why am I not surprised by this comment. Transforming women into caricatures is the quintessential rhetorical move of a sexist. Women who legitimately critique the sexism of men are called "rabid." Nice.

I'm betting you use the portmanteau "feminazi" also quite often. Since you are such a beleaguered victim of sexism, it stands to reason that women make you quite frustrated, hence your irrational anger directed at them.

Women don't frustrate me. Women who call me sexist when I stand for nothing less than women equality frustrates me. I am actaully particularly frustrated with you right now because I really liked your spiderwoman avatar :(.

[AdrienneJ]

The US could never even get it together to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
That's a pretty sorry condemnation right there.
I thought one of the interesting things that happened with Palin was that in watching her arrive on the scene and campaign-- I saw a marked difference in the Republican women who attended her events. At first, the Repub women (and this of course is a broad sweeping generalization, but I think has truth to it) seemed a little shell-shocked. I imagined them saying to themselves, "a woman"? That's what many of their faces looked like. But as time went by, the women seemed to get some fire in them. They seemed energized, excited by the possibility that a woman (a woman like them to good degree--at least in political position) could be a VP and (dare they say it to themselves) a President.
Then-- all hell starts to break lose. And not just from the totally useless press but from the Republican quarters. Republicans begin attacking Palin.
Now where have I seen that behavior before?
Could it just possibly be that America has a big old problem with women?
Nah.. tell me ain't so, Joe.

So I'm guessing that as those Repub women got energized and began to see new horizons open up due to Palin's arrival, the Repub powers that be got threatened. After all, somebody in America doesn't want women to gain their rightful place as equal citizens. No?

Hey Lady Lazarus,
Thanks for coming over here. Tell me what you think about this post I made a bit ago.

[Nichelle]

Wow. That's such an insane story! It does suck that women almost need to be a different kind of aggressive than men. It's not enough for women to be aggressive. You've got to know how to play your cards as well. And I'm glad you knew how to play them. Good for you! :)

Like I said earlier in the thread. You don't demand respect you command it. It's not enough to say RESPECT ME. You've got to give them no other choice but to respect you. And that's exactly what you did there. That's awesome.

I have so many stories from my career that are just crazy.

I forgot to add, in reference to the OP, I don't believe that women's issues are being forgotten. Though I appreciate the question, gay rights are top of news at the moment and that's just fine with me. I don't think they get enough attention. I think we can care about multiple causes without implying that one is less important than the other because it isn't the hot topic of the day.

[Mariya]

Look at how sports dominates our culture. Where are the women in this equation? It is a good old boy network at its finest. That is why I now refuse to watch or participate in men's sports in any way.

Women have a very special place in today's mainstream sports. Cheerleading! :D:mad: . Now, that is a "sport" in itself.

[xfiles]

:mad::mad: TOO! Now if it paid as well as pro football and had all the infrastructure, money and hype profootball does, we may get somewhere!

Women have a very special place in today's mainstream sports. Cheerleading! :D:mad: . Now, that is a "sport" in itself.

[Mariya]

The reason there aren't many women's professional sports is because they don't make much money. For example. The WNBA. I tried watching a couple games of it and I just wasn't really excited by it. I get excited by slam dunks in basketball and there just isn't enough of it in the WNBA. They are getting better though. I think there were 2 dunks this year? But that's like 2 dunks in it's entire history. So if they can get more women who can dunk like Candice Parker I might be willing to watch it more.

Mens sports are simply more exciting in my experience. They hit harder move faster and jump higher.

So most men simply get bored with women's sports and most women don't watch sports regularly at all. So it just doesn't tend to be profitable to show women's sports.

But I'm really looking for the WNBA to spruce up their style a bit. Like I said...if dunks happened more often I'd give it another shot. Maybe others will too. And if the WNBA can succeed who knows what will be next. WMLB? WNFL? WNHL?

What if men had only the height and energy of women? Would there be no sports? I can understand men supporting men's sports...but why cannot women support women's sports? Going by the same logic - elephant or gorilla fights should be more interesting? More power? Noadays even mens sport in not interesting enough, and we need steroids to keep the game interesting. It is no longer sports. It is a circus that makes money.

[TheTaoOfBill]

What if men had only the height and energy of women? Would there be no sports? I can understand men supporting men's sports...but why cannot women support women's sports? Going by the same logic - elephant or gorilla fights should be more interesting? More power? Noadays even mens sport in not interesting enough, and we need steroids to keep the game interesting. It is no longer sports. It is a circus that makes money.

I'm not saying women can't watch sports. I'm saying they don't. It's a general accepted fact that in general men are the sports fanatics and women are not. And when women sports are generally less dramatic than men sports you really can't blame them for liking one over the other. I really wanted to like the WNBA as a basketball fan. I thought it was great women finally got their own sports team. But their sales aren't doing nearly as well as the NBA and I have a feeling it's because it's a much less stylish and exciting sport without the dunks. Those girls can definitely shoot a jump shot which is great. But nothing gets my blood pumping more than a quick break away to a nice air jorden dunk.

The WNBA needs more of this:
YouTube - Lisa Leslie - First women's dunk

[xfiles]

Exactly! It is inequality based on gender which directly relates to strength, performance in sports, etc. So there has to be a way of equalizing or leveling the playing field to give women the same opportunity as men. Perhaps start with lowering the exhorbitant pay pro-ball players and other sports figures receive. Sure, most men's sports are more exiting but I don't feel the exhorbitantly high salaries are warranted.

What if we raise teacher's salaries (many more women are teachers than men but men would get the same pay raises) commensurate with pro-football salaries and subsidize the salaries and schools with tax on pro-football and other over paid sports. If men really want to play and particpate in sports badly enough, maybe they could figure out how to survive on $500,000 per year instead of $5,000,000!

Just tossing (brainstorming) ideas out there.

Let's start a women's think tank!

What if men had only the height and energy of women? Would there be no sports? I can understand men supporting men's sports...but why cannot women support women's sports? Going by the same logic - elephant or gorilla fights should be more interesting? More power? Noadays even mens sport in not interesting enough, and we need steroids to keep the game interesting. It is no longer sports. It is a circus that makes money.

[Mariya]

Reduce the height of the basket ball post and you will get more dunks? The game is designed with men's build? Not sure about this.

Bill, I do not think you are sexist. You are bringing up one important issue. Negotiating is very important, and most girls are not prepared for this. They are not brought up with aggression.Look at all the toys out there - baby, mommy, makeup, cooking. How about tough business woman Barbie? A look at Toys R Us catalog will show you that even legos are for boys. Anything that uses brains, or works machines is for boys. The whole culture is that way. In some ways, American culture is worse than other nations. No one told me ever as I was growing up that cars were not for girls.

[Mariya]

Oh, and the whole society does not like tough women. There is a special name for the - BITCH. Funny how both Hillary and Palin were called "polarizing", and that docile lady Laura Bush is hailed as a classy lady. Classy means looking good, being polite, and doing what is expected of you.
I get so worked up about women's issues, but mostly with women. Why do they allow this to happen to them? But it is a vicious cycle - boys and girls are brainwashed from birth. Remember "Iron my shirt"?

[calmati]

There are many threads pertaining to prop 8 and gay rights, which are very important. But people here have seemed to forgotten about misogyny and women's rights. They are just as important.

Seems like this has become a non-issue.:(

This thread had potential until it turned into another "all Obama supporters are evil" thread.


Both groups, women and the LGBT community are being heavily shat on
(as usual) and now with Obama and his ridiculous group of mindless
sycophants, we are all being dumped on again.

Yes, I'm afraid I find Bill incredibly ignorant on the issue of both LGBTQ rights and women's rights.
And frankly, it sounds like something that an Obot would say.
Just oblivious to the situation that women are in both in the US and in the world. Jeez-us.

And that came after months of unrelenting, blatant sexism from the media, the Democratic party itself, and everyone involved in the Obama campaign--including the messiah himself.

My advice to those who care about women's issues and all issues is to hop over the posters who use up space without using any effort to think.
Just ignore them. It's not like we haven't had practice jumping over Obamaphiles silly comments. We've been trolled on other sites for months and months and months.

This is an odd discussion here. What's happened I believe, is a schism between those who voted for Hillary and those that voted for Obama.
It's to be expected I guess. But in a discussion of a broader issue-- that of sexism (at the moment) it is troubling.
But I suppose because that is what happened this election cycle, the Obama contingent cannot bring themselves to see the sexism that occured which was so pathetically blatant to those of us who see it.

I supported Hillary during the primaries and Obama during the general election - AFTER Hillary essentially asked us (her supporters) to do so. Pardon me, I didn't think she was lying when she made that speech.

But now, because I did what my conscience told me to do, I continue to be labeled as some sort of anti-American whackjob. Turning 180 and voting Republican wasn't on my list of choices. So go ahead and ignore me because I stayed true to Hillary... at least I know I did the right thing.

[Spang]

Does anyone know why WNBA players get paid less than NBA players? Does anyone know why female football players get paid less than male football players? Men get paid more than women in hockey and baseball, too. Why is that, do you think?

[Mariya]

Does anyone know why WNBA players get paid less than NBA players? Does anyone know why female football players get paid less than male football players? Men get paid more than women in hockey and baseball, too. Why is that, do you think?

The logical answer would be that the men's teams bring in more money..and people are willing to pay more to see men play. However, international tennis is different. More people turn up for women. It is more interesting with more rallys. Women's tennis make more money for sponsors. Yet, men get paid more (in wimbledon atleast). Men's final is considered the grand finale. They get a cup.. women get a plate :)

[sadie]

Women don't frustrate me. Women who call me sexist when I stand for nothing less than women equality frustrates me.

You say you stand for nothing less than equality, and I respect that. But then you come in here and presume to tell us that it's not as bad as it seems or how to be respected, essentially continuing the pattern of a man telling women how to make her way in the world so she isn't taken advantage of. We aren't some crazy species without the ability to think or reason, we understand how to command or demand respect. What you don't seem to understand is that there are times where it feels like screaming to an empty room because we are devalued or dismissed.

Your defensive comments do nothing but continue this. Because your comments aren't particularly well-received, you feel the need to fight against the very women you claim to fight for. THIS is what is frustrating the hell out of me as I read this thread. Don't tell me how it is...I know how it is. I'm a woman and you are not. That is fact. All of the studies in the world won't change the fact that I know what it's like to be a woman and you do not. Although I appreciate your desire for equality, not listening to and respecting our point of view is doing nothing to achieve that goal.

[Spang]

The logical answer would be that the men's teams bring in more money..and people are willing to pay more to see men play. However, international tennis is different. More people turn up for women. It is more interesting with more rallys. Women's tennis make more money for sponsors. Yet, men get paid more (in wimbledon atleast). Men's final is considered the grand finale. They get a cup.. women get a plate :)

That's the answer I was looking for. Also, I think the Williams sisters are more marketable than any other tennis players today, and they're both women.

[Mariya]

You say you stand for nothing less than equality, and I respect that. But then you come in here and presume to tell us that it's not as bad as it seems or how to be respected, essentially continuing the pattern of a man telling women how to make her way in the world so she isn't taken advantage of. We aren't some crazy species without the ability to think or reason, we understand how to command or demand respect. What you don't seem to understand is that there are times where it feels like screaming to an empty room because we are devalued or dismissed.

Your defensive comments do nothing but continue this. Because your comments aren't particularly well-received, you feel the need to fight against the very women you claim to fight for. THIS is what is frustrating the hell out of me as I read this thread. Don't tell me how it is...I know how it is. I'm a woman and you are not. That is fact. All of the studies in the world won't change the fact that I know what it's like to be a woman and you do not. Although I appreciate your desire for equality, not listening to and respecting our point of view is doing nothing to achieve that goal.

hmm.. but in order to work and win in a world currently dominated by men, don't we women have to understand men's views? Bill is just stating his view. We can disagree, just as he disagrees with yours..But why should a man not be allowed to express his opinions just because he is not a woman?

[Mariya]

That's the answer I was looking for. Also, I think the Williams sisters are more marketable than any other tennis players today, and they're both women.

Speaking of sports and women, is there any other sport more ridiculous than beach volleyball? The game actually has rules about how much butt should be visible. Now that's one women's sport than men will like to watch.

[Spang]

Speaking of sports and women, is there any other sport more ridiculous than beach volleyball? The game actually has rules about how much butt should be visible. Now that's one women's sport than men will like to watch.

I enjoyed watching men and women's beach volleyball during the most recent Summer Olympics but not because of the ass. This may come as a surprise to some, but less clothing is worn on the beach, typically.

[Artists4Hillary]

Feel free to post threads about misogyny in society and women's rights.

I don't really understand though what the motive or thinking behind your comment is? As though if people focus on gay rights, women will be forgotten?

There are gay women also! So gay rights is 50% about gay men and 50% about gay women.

So how is giving attention to gay rights taking attention away from women? :confused:

I have, and they are ignored, for the most part. I'm just saying that BOTH are important, and misogyny is just as important as gay rights, for straight AND lesbian women. We are all women, no matter what sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is NOT the issue here. All through the primaries, there was a lot of focus on the sexism, and it seems to be lost. The sexism continues. That cannot be igorned, any more than gay and lesbian rights.

But I want to thank everyone on this thread who are talking about it. I'm glad I started this thread, because it got everyone thinking and debating about the issue. Prop 8 is a disgrace. So is sexism.

[AdrienneJ]

You say you stand for nothing less than equality, and I respect that. But then you come in here and presume to tell us that it's not as bad as it seems or how to be respected, essentially continuing the pattern of a man telling women how to make her way in the world so she isn't taken advantage of. We aren't some crazy species without the ability to think or reason, we understand how to command or demand respect. What you don't seem to understand is that there are times where it feels like screaming to an empty room because we are devalued or dismissed.

Your defensive comments do nothing but continue this. Because your comments aren't particularly well-received, you feel the need to fight against the very women you claim to fight for. THIS is what is frustrating the hell out of me as I read this thread. Don't tell me how it is...I know how it is. I'm a woman and you are not. That is fact. All of the studies in the world won't change the fact that I know what it's like to be a woman and you do not. Although I appreciate your desire for equality, not listening to and respecting our point of view is doing nothing to achieve that goal.


Hey Sadie,
appreciate your frustration. The problem is that there are both men and women on the thread who seem to think sexism is no big deal. Getting them to hear that it is a very big problem-- seems to be in itself a very big problem.
It concerns me that the young women don't seem very concerned by the issue. And that some people simply aren't listening to very clear statements made by those who are concerned about sexism. Tis a strange forum these days.

[mcgowan.swan]

wow, where to start.

i cant believe that i actually agree with tao about something, but i do believe he has a point about negotiation skills. they should be taught and would help.
but they are not the answer by themselves. and i think he is being unduly castigated in this thread for a lack of understanding of the issue. he assumed that since he was standing up for women we would read between the lines, and i will, as a white sixty year old woman, do exactly that.

and before i begin, just a note to the poster that thought we should give pro sports salaries to the teachers, i assume you do not realize that we citizens pay the salaries of the teachers, unlike the box office profits and sponsorships that pay pro sport salaries. so therefore, :eek::eek:

now, my take on this subject: i believe:

our culture is the culprit. from birth all says men will work, women will marry.
change that and you change sexism. however, physiology plays a part in this as well and cannot be overlooked. women are physically softer as a rule, and less prone to be "physical" as opposed to "mental" about things in general. there are exceptions, but this is the norm.

add to that the fact that women are the mothers of all men. it is hard to treat a mother figure like the guy next door when it comes to the outside world and adulthood. we need to try to instill respect for the skills of the mother in the male child so he can carry that into adulthood and be comfortable with it. sexism runs deep into the psyche and is not even a fully conscious emotion for most men. it is second nature.

i believe there will always be differences in the way men and women are treated by society, and i also think there should be differences, but i hope someday that those differences in treatment will be by the woman.s choice, and not mandated by society into forced roles. there will always be pyschos and sociopaths so i do not believe violence against women will disappear with education and culture shift, but it will diminish exponentially.

i have been a working woman since 1965 and the changes in the workplace since then have been drastic. things are one hundred percent better now, and still improving. hillary would never have been able to run in 1965 and would have been honeyed out of even the idea, but she ran strongly in 2008.

tao has touched on one very important aspect of our progress. women are more attuned to the aggressiveness needed to negotiate and get ahead in the business world. examples have been set and need to be taught to the next generation and improved upon.

yes, sexism is presently alive and well in the workplace and we cannot wave a magic wand to remove it, but we can and have made advances in our skills. business acumen and expertise is lacking in the eduction of many women and it is a necessary tool. it does help us get what we expect to get in our careers.

but we have made major progress and we will make more, and it will be done by one woman at a time proving we can and educating our children so each generation is more attuned to changing the culture.

screaming and blaming the corporations and men in general has little effect and often does damage to the cause.

the fact that feminism managed to link itself to abortion issues in the late seventies also pushed us back about thirty years. it hurt our cause a great deal. i believe women are back on track now and we will push ahead until we earn and receive the respect we deserve.

i wont quote a lot of reports and statistics. i dont know how to find them and i believe you can find statistics to support anything you need supported. they can be manipulated to produce the desired results and often are.

sexism exists and should be fought and brought to light wherever it is, but we should also be careful to not find it hiding behind every remark and action. sometimes a joke is just a joke, etc.

at the moment, gay rights are in the news and laws are being issued that pertain to removal of those rights, so we are on that issue right now, but unfairness and injustice are basically a dislike and action banner of this forum, so human rights of any kind being trampled on will get attention from us.

it is true that we women in america have it the best of women anywhere, and i am everyday thankful and appreciative for the freedoms of my life. women in other countries, when they fight for their rights are actually fighting to live, whereas when i fight for mine i am fighting only to live better. the difference is humbling sometimes. but to fight injustice is something i was born with the need to do so do it i must, wherever i find it.

the issue of human rights is so complicated and culturally embedded that i cannot possibly understand all of the facets involved. just suffice it to say that in my lifetime, things have improved drastcally for women in america, and i am thankful for the advances and ready to push for more, but i do not think we can regulate equality, i think we must teach it.

as tao said, we must command respect, not just demand it, and we must lead our culture to embrace tolerance for all the differences that exist, not just women or gays. when that is done, and has spread worldwide, then and only then will we truly be a free society. swan:)

[Mariya]

I enjoyed watching men and women's beach volleyball during the most recent Summer Olympics but not because of the ass. This may come as a surprise to some, but less clothing is worn on the beach, typically.

I know..but does the rules of the game have to dictate exactly the length and width of the bikini? No higher than this spot? Check the rules. I know this because the Indian players refused to wear this tiny speck, and they were disqualified.

[Artists4Hillary]

it is true that we women in america have it the best of women anywhere

Politically, I have to disagree with this. The Senate only has 17% of women. Latin America has female Presidents, and so has England, Germany, India and Israel. We are 27th in the world.

[Nichelle]

This thread had potential until it turned into another "all Obama supporters are evil" thread.

OMG I just realized I've gotten so used to seeing that crap that I just skip over it and hardly notice it anymore. I stop reading the posts once I see those certain buzzwords.

[AdrienneJ]

Politically, I have to disagree with this. The Senate only has 17% of women. Latin America has female Presidents, and so has England, Germany, India and Israel. We are 27th in the world.

wow.. somebody actually wrote that American women have it the best of anybody? Jeez. We're not even signatories to CEDAW, the international rights of women. One more time.... we are not even signatories to the international rights of women. We are the only major western country to have refused to sign. Amazing.

[xfiles]

The reason we have a patriarchial society and most others do too is because of biology and evolution. Men were traditionally the hunters and women stayed behind to mend, clean, cook, take care of the children, etc. and we still have the essence of that today in many ways.

Women find a hard time getting ahead because they are expected to be the caregivers and nurturers and men the "workers".

It will not change much if women keep accepting these roles and depending on men for income (some professions that women are in are obviously frequented by men). Many women do this because there is no other way to make money--the kind of money they need to live decently anyway.

It is a man's world and mostly men control the money, the jobs and the perks.

It will be very difficult to break through but it can be done. One woman at a time and then more women and more and more.

Women are good negotiators for the most part--strong women, business women and others who don't shy away from being assertive and major players.

I have several ideas as to how women could begin this process but they would not be popular, especially with men. So now we just have to empower ourselves, help other women become empowered and gradually we will become more equal in most ways.

[calmati]

The reason we have a patriarchial society and most others do too is because of biology and evolution. Men were traditionally the hunters and women stayed behind to mend, clean, cook, take care of the children, etc. and we still have the essence of that today in many ways.

Women find a hard time getting ahead because they are expected to be the caregivers and nurturers and men the "workers".

It will not change much if women keep accepting these roles and depending on men for income (some professions that women are in are obviously frequented by men). Many women do this because there is no other way to make money--the kind of money they need to live decently anyway.

It is a man's world and mostly men control the money, the jobs and the perks.

It will be very difficult to break through but it can be done. One woman at a time and then more women and more and more.

Women are good negotiators for the most part--strong women, business women and others who don't shy away from being assertive and major players.

I have several ideas as to how women could begin this process but they would not be popular, especially with men. So now we just have to empower ourselves, help other women become empowered and gradually we will become more equal in most ways.

Wow. I am actually in agreement with TFRC. Excellent post! I agree completely.

Well done.

[Ikasu]

Wow. I am actually in agreement with TFRC. Excellent post! I agree completely.

Well done.

TFRC has always been a thoughtful poster.

[mcgowan.swan]

wow.. somebody actually wrote that American women have it the best of anybody? Jeez. We're not even signatories to CEDAW, the international rights of women. One more time.... we are not even signatories to the international rights of women. We are the only major western country to have refused to sign. Amazing.

i should have qualified that as regarding our lives versus those of women in third world countries. we dont need to worry about our mates or family stoning us to death for infidelity, or groups of men raping us in public with no consequences, etc. we can go where we please. when we please, and with whom and still live without being in danger. we have control of our own lives. it is difficult for me to care about our political issues in this nation in light of how oppressed women in those countries are. i care about our issues, but they pale in comparison to things like women routinely having their clitorises cut out to make them less likely to dishonor their husbands, and other atrocities. that is all i meant.

and to my dismay, that is all that was gotten out of my post? really? :(

[Nichelle]

and to my dismay, that is all that was gotten out of my post? really? :(

I thought your post was great.

[mcgowan.swan]

I thought your post was great.

thank you.:) i was quite impressed by your posts as well. quite a career and some major accomplishments, and a tough industry you chose as well. kudos to you. :)

when i post i do hope that it is read as a whole. i did not quote the first person because that person said they politically disagree and that is ok. but the second post upset me. in truthfulness, however, it was basically my own fault as i did not clarify my intent in that passage. trying to dig myself out of a snow storm in time to go to work tonight and posting while resting in between, so i was rushing a little. i will try to be clearer from now on. lol.

i am glad someone got more out of the post though. so thank you again. :)

swan. :D

[AdrienneJ]

i should have qualified that as regarding our lives versus those of women in third world countries. we dont need to worry about our mates or family stoning us to death for infidelity, or groups of men raping us in public with no consequences, etc. we can go where we please. when we please, and with whom and still live without being in danger. we have control of our own lives. it is difficult for me to care about our political issues in this nation in light of how oppressed women in those countries are. i care about our issues, but they pale in comparison to things like women routinely having their clitorises cut out to make them less likely to dishonor their husbands, and other atrocities. that is all i meant.

and to my dismay, that is all that was gotten out of my post? really? :(

Mcgowan.swan,
apologies if what I wrote hurt your feelings. I didn't read your initial post, only that one line that had been quoted by another poster. I only saw the line the "american women have it better than anyone else"- or words to that effect. And I don't believe that your post was cited. (perhaps I am wrong).That's all I was responding to. And truly, I could have been in a better mood than I was-- I was reading so many thoughtless things, that I assumed that somebody was doing the "there's no sexism here to see" cheerleading thing.
But now, besides that, I would like to address the point you made here
in your post. I'm gonna have to back to back post to do it, though.

[AdrienneJ]

i should have qualified that as regarding our lives versus those of women in third world countries. we dont need to worry about our mates or family stoning us to death for infidelity, or groups of men raping us in public with no consequences, etc. we can go where we please. when we please, and with whom and still live without being in danger. we have control of our own lives. it is difficult for me to care about our political issues in this nation in light of how oppressed women in those countries are. i care about our issues, but they pale in comparison to things like women routinely having their clitorises cut out to make them less likely to dishonor their husbands, and other atrocities. that is all i meant.
(

I understand your point about degree. But let me make a point about paralells between our country's problems and some international ones.
In the us you say we don't have to worry about being stoned for infidelity.
But do you know the stats for domestic violence and how many women are murdered or beaten to the point of near death? And that is on the rise.
Do you know how many women are the victims of date rape or spousal rape or rape in general. And that is on the rise. We do have gang rape here in America as well. And how do you think the courts here are doing on
conviction rates? Your next point is that we can go where we please and with whom we choose and not be in danger. That's not true. Lesbians are in danger of going where they want and with whom they choose. Two women holding hands in the wrong place (and how many wrong places are there as opposed to safe places?) will most likely run the risk of being verbally abused and perhaps worse. Take Back the Night is all about ending violence towards women. We have that for a reason. Women are often not safe out at night.
Always the risk in the cities and elsewhere of rape and other violence.
And then your point about the forced clitorectomy. Yes, disgusting, inexcusable, heart breaking, maddening. But women here are getting their breasts filled with possible life damaging matter and losing sexual sensitivity in their own bodies in the hope of getting approval. Women here are getting their lips jammed with crap, and plastic surgery, and botox and all of these
have potential health hazards. All of these things done to promote what society tells them they need to be. All of it pathetic.
I was in an international human rights law program at oxford. I studied the international rights of women. And I in no mean am in any way minimizing or lessening the despicable inhumane treatment of women in this world. But it was the writings of some wickedly smart Indian women (from India) who opened my eyes to the savagery here in my country (US). We don't see what we take as familiar.

[AdrienneJ]

What we westerners run into on the international women's rights scene is coming across as being hypocrits sometimes. We have to watch that by cleaning our own house as we work to make women's lives decent in the rest of the world.
I didn't mention young women (and girls and boys) who are killing themselves with bolemia and anorexia. Trying to fit an image that our society promotes-- that no one can attain.
And we seem to have a rather unhealthy attachment to pornography. We actually spend more money in this country on pornography than we do on sports. Now that's rather amazing if you have a feel for how much money we throw at sports.

Yes, women in other countries, I would definitely agree with you, have it worse than us. Just a few days ago a woman's rights activist was summarily beheaded. They just walked right in to where she was and killed her. No warning, no nothing.
However, just a few days ago (and probably within the last hour in some other event) a woman was just shot in the face because a guy thought she had insulted him.

We have so much work to do.

[MrSandMan]

I support Obama so I guess that makes me a sexist. :rolleyes:

I didn't support Palin, so I guess that I'm sexist too..

[Meg]

I didn't support Palin, so I guess that I'm sexist too..

That's two of us.

[Ikasu]

I didn't support Palin, so I guess that I'm sexist too..

No, no one is saying that.

[mcgowan.swan]

What we westerners run into on the international women's rights scene is coming across as being hypocrits sometimes. We have to watch that by cleaning our own house as we work to make women's lives decent in the rest of the world.
I didn't mention young women (and girls and boys) who are killing themselves with bolemia and anorexia. Trying to fit an image that our society promotes-- that no one can attain.
And we seem to have a rather unhealthy attachment to pornography. We actually spend more money in this country on pornography than we do on sports. Now that's rather amazing if you have a feel for how much money we throw at sports.

Yes, women in other countries, I would definitely agree with you, have it worse than us. Just a few days ago a woman's rights activist was summarily beheaded. They just walked right in to where she was and killed her. No warning, no nothing.
However, just a few days ago (and probably within the last hour in some other event) a woman was just shot in the face because a guy thought she had insulted him.

We have so much work to do.

i'm sorry if i came across as upset with you. that was not the case. i was upset because i thought the only thing noticed in my post was the one passage i did not clarify. i'm pretty easy going about most things. lol.

as to our rights and safety, i agree that i live in one of those weird safe places where women can walk at night, and lesbians can hold hands and even kiss in public without problems.

however, i spent twenty years traveling the country and playing in night clubs in many cities and towns all over america. the truth is that america was at that time a basically much safer place than most other countries for women. i had to apply the usual safety rules, like not walking alone and always looking in the back seat before opening my car and always having the keys out and ready. i never went into bad neighborhoods alone, and the best rule of all, i always carried a huge knife in my belt under my blouse. lol. a real equalizer. never had to use it though. thank god.

my point was that gang raping a woman in public would get the guys arrested and put in jail, unlike other countries, key word there being in public. and we are free to leave an abusive husband if we can find a way and go to a shelter for battered women and get help. we are not forced to return because our family sold us to the man as a wife or because the law says we belong to him. few do leave abusive men, but it is mainly due to the lack of self esteem many women are raised with, or out of fear because they had the bad luck to actually find themselves married to a possessive and obsessive sociopath.

lucky for me my mother taught me to look for the signs of abuse and to run from any one that displayed any of them. i thank god every day that she did, as i was close to being involved with a total nutcase, but i saw it coming and bolted. his next "friend" was not so vigilant and spent years getting away.

as for the abuse women inflict on themselves, i have little empathy, and very little sympathy. i worked for twenty years in an industry that was the epitome of pressure to improve the image. i just ignored it. i have a lot of self esteem and if you dont want me the way i am than my advice is keep on moving. lol.

i was raised in the fifties and sixties. sexism was rampant, but i have never done any self injury and none of my friends have either. i think self-abuse is a product of parental abuse, not sexism. emotional problems that are formed during childhood make these women unable to help themselves and leave them with little or no self esteem and no strong base to work from. they then fall victim to the pressure of society to conform to an image.

i guess the only point i really wanted to make is that american women have freedoms not found in other societies, even if many women are unable to utilize these freedoms due to personal choices or bad luck. for the majority of american women the choices are there. we are not owned by our husbands or families in most cases.. i value the fact that the law says i am a full citizen and i can fight for a right if i have to and know it is not a foregone conclusion that i will lose just because i am a woman and have no rights in my society.

i am not a scholar or a writer, and what i post is just from observations in my own life. in my life, i have the freedom to do what i please and go where i want and with whom, so take it as a personal statement. i am safe where i am. by law, i belong to no man.. i belong to myself only, and that makes me free, which makes me luckier than many women in the world. swan :)

[Redladybird]

Um, we watched the most egregious case of sexism ever unfold during this campaign year, and we're not about to forget it. First, the MOST QUALIFIED Democratic candidate in eons was railroaded out of the race. Oh, yeah, she happened to be female. And that came after months of unrelenting, blatant sexism from the media, the Democratic party itself, and everyone involved in the Obama campaign--including the messiah himself. Then the Republicans' choice for VP was ridiculed and insulted and demeaned--even though she was better qualified to be POTUS than the Dem's nominee...and, oh yeah, she happened to be female, too.

Sorry, but after what played out this year in terms of keeping the BEST candidate--who happened to be female--out of the White House, it's impossible to say--with a straight face--that women aren't being oppressed or being deprived of jobs.

Thank you. We won't forget. It's amazing how the poor treatment of women is tolerated/accepted in this country/ world. I will not tolerate it.

[Redladybird]

I didn't support Palin, so I guess that I'm sexist too..

It's one thing to not support Palin. It's another thins to talk about her clothes. Call her uneducated, wonder if she had the baby. Dumb her down (SNL) for no good reason. Oh and call her a bitch or C**T. If you did not participate in that then you're clear.

[Mherim]

It's one thing to not support Palin. It's another thins to talk about her clothes.

Where can I find a simple summary of issues that are approved to be important to me without appearing sexist?

(It's a tricky jungle to navigate, and I never know when I will encounter an issue that I think is relevant and important, but could get me labelled a sexist.)

[Redladybird]

Where can I find a simple summary of issues that are approved to be important to me without appearing sexist?

(It's a tricky jungle to navigate, and I never know when I will encounter an issue that I think is relevant and important, but could get me labelled a sexist.)

If you don't mind my asking, are you male or female? Actually it's not that tricky. Can you support any of the incidents that i listed above?

[AdrienneJ]

It's one thing to not support Palin. It's another thins to talk about her clothes. Call her uneducated, wonder if she had the baby. Dumb her down (SNL) for no good reason. Oh and call her a bitch or C**T. If you did not participate in that then you're clear.

Exactly.:)

[Mherim]

If you don't mind my asking, are you male or female? Actually it's not that tricky. Can you support any of the incidents that i listed above?

I was not sarcastic or facetious, I was serious. It's not always easy knowing what people will interpret as sexist.

I thought the issue of Palin's spending on clothes was an issue worth considering and debating, just as people discussed Obama's spend on stage effects for his speech.
Some of the reports I read had Palin down as spending what sounded like outrageous amounts of money on clothes, and even having to charge items on her employees' credit cards.

[Maverick]

In corproate America the days of walking into the boss' office and demanding a pay raise are long gone

In corporate America it is all about what you can "negotiate" coming in the door ... being able to make up a gap through annual merit review process is a myth

The insinuation that simply taking "negotiating skills" training will make the difference ... well, I am struggling with anything to say to just how outrageously simple minded that is

I personally find two things, in corporate America, very discouraging - as regards this topic ...

First: Men that fail to pay based on position description. I lead a team of Managers, Associate Managers, and Business Analysts. The team is two fifths women, and 3 fifths men ... Associate Managers are half women and half men ... all three managers are men that were in their roles when I arrived [team has had zero turnover in 3 years] ... and the Sr Business Analysts are equal at 5 and 5.


Every Business Analyst has been hired in, or promoted, to Sr Business Analyst in my tenure ... and every Sr Business Analyst is started at the same pay rate ... what they do after that is based strictly on merit performance. The same is true of every Manager and Associate Manager.

Every person in my organization is a key provider to their families ... how do I know this? Because they are working ... and I assume that everyone is working to provide for their families.

There is no negotiating with me on starting slaries ... I will not impact the morale of my current staff because someone has taken a Carnegie class on negotiating ... if I cannot meet their slary expectations - they are free to look elsewhere

Second: The more disconcerting ... is the number of women in leadership in corporate America that I have observed that have no problem showing just how much of a man they can be "in a man's world" and outshine men in being misogynists


To make this about Negotiating Training is just stunning


Just my thoughts

[Artists4Hillary]

I agree with you making this about negotiating skills. It's ridiculous.

Second: The more disconcerting ... is the number of women in leadership in corporate America that I have observed that have no problem showing just how much of a man they can be "in a man's world" and outshine men in being misogynists

But what is the ratio of men and women in leadership positions in corporate America.? You'll find men far outnumber women.

And it's true about women who have internalized sexism. We saw enough of that in the primaries.

Thank God for women like Geraldine Ferrarro.

[Maverick]

But what is the ratio of men and women in leadership positions in corporate America.? You'll find men far outnumber women.

I have to disagree with you here A4H.

It all depends on what you want to define as leadership positions ... if you want to zero in strictly at the CEO levels - you are correct.

If, however, you focus on levels such as Manager and above ... they are far closer to being at an even keel than you may believe.

The power that a Senior Manager, Director and VP carry is nothing to be dismissed ... they make the culture of a business

[AdrienneJ]

And just more evidence that sexism is thoroughally ingrained in our society...
When a constitutional law case makes it to the supreme court... if the case involves possible racism the court awards it "strict scrutiny". On the other hand, if the case involves possible sexism the court awards it
"intermediate scrutiny." That means the burden of proof is higher to prove that discrimination based on sex occurred than it is to prove that discrimination based on race occured.

It is truly assanine that both wouldn't receive "strict scrutiny."

So entrenched sexism goes right on up to the Supreme Court. And then right back on down to us again.

[Artists4Hillary]

It all depends on what you want to define as leadership positions ... if you want to zero in strictly at the CEO levels - you are correct.

The CEO level is an important arguement. Why is it that women are not equally represented?

And as far as VP's go, my stepfather was the VP of Litton Industries, in his time, VPs in corporate America were nil, and still, there are virtually no female VPs in big corporate America.

Managers, I'll agree with you there.

[Redladybird]

I was not sarcastic or facetious, I was serious. It's not always easy knowing what people will interpret as sexist.

I thought the issue of Palin's spending on clothes was an issue worth considering and debating, just as people discussed Obama's spend on stage effects for his speech.
Some of the reports I read had Palin down as spending what sounded like outrageous amounts of money on clothes, and even having to charge items on her employees' credit cards.

Ok, but you saw how her family was portrayed. She was not a Washington insider or a multimillionaire. Out of all of her qualifications, you felt like the amount of money she was supposedly spending on clothes was a serious issue. Did we ever hear about how much all the male candidates spent on their wardrobes ever? Not until after Palin's wardrobe became an issue did we start hearing about how Michelle wore clothes from Target. Before then who knows. Also, we want our candidates to look good and she did. We should focus on what's really important not gossip and attempts to belittle.

[Mherim]

Out of all of her qualifications, you felt like the amount of money she was supposedly spending on clothes was a serious issue.

I'm capable of caring about more than one issue at a time. This was one of many.


Did we ever hear about how much all the male candidates spent on their wardrobes ever?

Yes. I remember reading articles about where Obama bought his suits, and plenty of pictures of the soles of his shoes.

[Redladybird]

I'm capable of caring about more than one issue at a time. This was one of many.



Yes. I remember reading articles about where Obama bought his suits, and plenty of pictures of the soles of his shoes.

The fact that you genuinely seem to care is good. So, here are definitions and examples for you:
sexism-noun
The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender.
The notion that either gender is smarter or stronger is.
Unfair treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender.
The fact that there is only one woman in a management position in that company makes it easy to believe that sexism runs rampant there.
Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other.
In order to succeed in this company, women generally must acquire various masculine traits, which only points out the underlying.
Promotion or expectation or assumption of people to behave in accordance with or deviate from a gender role.
Hollywood contributes to sexism in our society by making and promoting violent films for men and romantic comedies for women.

Govenor Palin was made out to look like an idiot. Why? They wanted Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. Why? Don’t get me started. Anyway it just won't be tolerated by me. Peace.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Govenor Palin was made out to look like an idiot. Why? Because she showed up to the biggest interview of her career completely unprepared to answer basic and completely fair questions on the issues. They wanted Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. Why? Because she had little chance of winning, which of it's self wasn't bad enough to drop out, but then she basically said McCain would bring more to the table than Obama and that pissed us the hell off, Neither of these things have to do with sexism as you are heavily implying.

[Ikasu]

Because she had little chance of winning, which of it's self wasn't bad enough to drop out, but then she basically said McCain would bring more to the table than Obama and that pissed us the hell off, Neither of these things have to do with sexism as you are heavily implying.

Not wanting to bring up old stories or anything, but I hear this a lot from people who are STILL angry about it. The McCain comment by Hillary was about Republican strategy, not McCain vs. Obama. She was saying Democrats need to elect someone that would not be hurt by the inexperience accusation that will be used by McCain. She wasn't saying McCain will be better than Obama, that a Republican > Democrat, but that we need someone to match up.

It didn't matter, Obama won so the argument was wrong, but she was advocating for her campaign. Nothing wrong with that.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Not wanting to bring up old stories or anything, but I hear this a lot from people who are STILL angry about it. The McCain comment by Hillary was about Republican strategy, not McCain vs. Obama. She was saying Democrats need to elect someone that would not be hurt by the inexperience accusation that will be used by McCain. She wasn't saying McCain will be better than Obama, that a Republican > Democrat, but that we need someone to match up.

It didn't matter, Obama won so the argument was wrong, but she was advocating for her campaign. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally I didn't want her to drop out. I thought the long primary was giving democrats a better shot in the GE. But that's the reason people wanted her to drop out. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. Despite what many PUMAs want to believe we were not against Hillary because she was a woman. Not most of us anyway...

Just like most of you weren't against Obama because he was black. It sounds just as silly from both sides.

[Ikasu]

Personally I didn't want her to drop out. I thought the long primary was giving democrats a better shot in the GE. But that's the reason people wanted her to drop out. It had nothing to do with her being a woman. Despite what many PUMAs want to believe we were not against Hillary because she was a woman. Not most of us anyway...

Just like most of you weren't against Obama because he was black. It sounds just as silly from both sides.

I agree, but the comment was misunderstood.

I don't think the calls for her to drop out were sexist, but a result of the often times crazy pro-Obama movement. Lanny Davis was exactly right, Hillary made Obama a strong GE candidate.

[Redladybird]

Because she showed up to the biggest interview of her career completely unprepared to answer basic and completely fair questions on the issues. Because she had little chance of winning, which of it's self wasn't bad enough to drop out, but then she basically said McCain would bring more to the table than Obama and that pissed us the hell off, Neither of these things have to do with sexism as you are heavily implying.

1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2: a foolish or stupid person

Are you sure you want to support calling the Governor of Alaska (1 out of 57, I mean 50 states) an idiot? Because she, in your opinion, showed up to the biggest interview of her career...? OK.
Hillary actually won minus the shenanigans.

Regardless, I hope you are for the elimination of sexism.

[TheTaoOfBill]

1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2: a foolish or stupid person

Are you sure you want to support calling the Governor of Alaska (1 out of 57, I mean 50 states) an idiot? Because she, in your opinion, showed up to the biggest interview of her career...? OK.
Hillary actually won minus the shenanigans.

Regardless, I hope you are for the elimination of sexism.

I'm not saying I support calling her an idiot. I'm saying she's not being called an idiot because she's a woman. I personally believe she is smarter than people give her credit for. But she's the one who brought the idiot image on her self. She should have been more prepared.

[Redladybird]

i'm not saying i support calling her an idiot. I'm saying she's not being called an idiot because she's a woman. I personally believe she is smarter than people give her credit for. But she's the one who brought the idiot image on her self. She should have been more prepared.

ok.970

[TheTaoOfBill]

I don't really understand the significance of your image...

[Ikasu]

I don't really understand the significance of your image...

Is it a sexist image? Yes. It's portraying her as a sexual object.

[xfiles]

The calls for her to drop out were based in sexism. No one asked Obama to drop out. There were other reasons for her being asked to drop out related to making it easier for Obama to steal the nomination.

[Meg]

Is it a sexist image? Yes. It's portraying her as a sexual object.

I don't see how that image is portraying her as a sexual object.

You can clearly see the focus is not on Sarah it's on the little girls behind her. It's displaying the significance of a famle VP to those little girls, not because of how hot people think sarah's legs are.

[Ikasu]

I don't see how that image is portraying her as a sexual object.

You can clearly see the focus is not on Sarah it's on the little girls behind her. It's displaying the significance of a famle VP to those little girls, not because of how hot people think sarah's legs are.

I don't think so. I noticed the legs and nothing else. So I guess it worked.

[Redladybird]

Is it a sexist image? Yes. It's portraying her as a sexual object.

The image sums up everything IMO. I agree with Timeforrealchange.

[TheTaoOfBill]

The calls for her to drop out were based in sexism. No one asked Obama to drop out. There were other reasons for her being asked to drop out related to making it easier for Obama to steal the nomination.

You generally don't ask the person in the lead to drop out... :rolleyes:

I can assure you. I was there. I saw there reasons and I understood them. It had nothing to do with sexism.

[Meg]

I don't think so. I noticed the legs and nothing else. So I guess it worked.

Well you're a guy, so I'm not surprised. Sorry!:p

But if you click on the phot Sarah's legs may be in the forefront but the little girls in the back are the clear focus. Sarah's legs are blurry, meaning the focus was on the background, not the foreground. ;)

[Ikasu]

Well you're a guy, so I'm not surprised. Sorry!:p

But if you click on the phot Sarah's legs may be in the forefront but the little girls in the back are the clear focus. Sarah's legs are blurry, meaning the focus was on the background, not the foreground. ;)

Don't be sorry. That's the point. A majority of the males are going to see two legs and that's the intention of the photo.

[Redladybird]

Well you're a guy, so I'm not surprised. Sorry!:p

But if you click on the phot Sarah's legs may be in the forefront but the little girls in the back are the clear focus. Sarah's legs are blurry, meaning the focus was on the background, not the foreground. ;)

I have never seen so much denial!:eek: Why not have a picture of Govenor Palin's full body, while she is speaking at the podium, with the girls in the background? Come on. Instead we have to see her legs. Until we can admit to the problem we will remain the same.

[Redladybird]

You generally don't ask the person in the lead to drop out... :rolleyes:

I can assure you. I was there. I saw there reasons and I understood them. It had nothing to do with sexism.

You don't ask anyone to drop out. You play til the end of the game. And you play fair. Otherwise, you cheated and where's the pride in that?

[Meg]

Don't be sorry. That's the point. A majority of the males are going to see two legs and that's the intention of the photo.

But not only guys look at these photos. Women also look at them, and they would look past her legs and the importance of it and not view it as sexist but more as inspirational.

Go back and think of what Hillary always said about father lifting their little girls on their shoulders and telling them they could grow up to be anything. That's what that picture is about.

Look in the background where the little girl with the galsses is. who standing next to her talking to her... her? Her mother.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/Forum%20Stuff/Palin20and20the20girls___.jpg

[Meg]

I have never seen so much denial!:eek: Why not have a picture of Govenor Palin's full body, while she is speaking at the podium, with the girls in the background? Come on. Instead we have to see her legs. Until we can admit to the problem we will remain the same.


Because if it was a full body shot, the photo would not have been the same.

You make it seem as those in the photo someone's looking up her skirt.:rolleyes:

[xfiles]

Hillary was in the lead on numerous occasions. And you are right. No one should be forced out or asked to drop out I was very offended by this during the primaries!

You don't ask anyone to drop out. You play til the end of the game. And you play fair. Otherwise, you cheated and where's the pride in that?

[Ikasu]

But not only guys look at these photos. Women also look at them, and they would look past her legs and the importance of it and not view it as sexist but more as inspirational.

Go back and think of what Hillary always said about father lifting their little girls on their shoulders and telling them they could grow up to be anything. That's what that picture is about.

Look in the background where the little girl with the galsses is. who standing next to her talking to her... her? Her mother.


Very good argument, but I don't agree.

[TheTaoOfBill]

You don't ask anyone to drop out. You play til the end of the game. And you play fair. Otherwise, you cheated and where's the pride in that?

It really is frustrating to me when people think Obama's staff was the only campaign that did dirty deeds.

Politics is a dirty game. Hillary knew that. That's why she used Michigan and Florida. That's why instead of a real redo she proposed to have a redo with changed rules that would have bared out republicans or democrats who voted republican in the previous vote. Then she claims Obama is against democracy when he does not approve of the rule change for obvious reasons.

But too many people here choose to ignore that part of the primaries just so they can continue to say Obama played dirty.

It happened on both sides okay? Let it go!

[TheTaoOfBill]

Hillary was in the lead on numerous occasions. And you are right. No one should be forced out or asked to drop out I was very offended by this during the primaries!

No. Hillary never once had the lead. Obama had her beat in pledged delegates from January to June.

[Meg]

Very good argument, but I don't agree.

This would be the time to say we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.

But let me just say there's always more than one meaning to a photo. Just because there's legs in the foreground doesn't make it the intended focus.;)

[Redladybird]

But not only guys look at these photos. Women also look at them, and they would look past her legs and the importance of it and not view it as sexist but more as inspirational.

Go back and think of what Hillary always said about father lifting their little girls on their shoulders and telling them they could grow up to be anything. That's what that picture is about.

Look in the background where the little girl with the galsses is. who standing next to her talking to her... her? Her mother.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/Forum%20Stuff/Palin20and20the20girls___.jpg

We women have to tolerate naked women and exposed breasts all the time at the movie theaters. This is the same thing. What do you have to say about this inspiring photo?

971

Meggles, no hard feelings though.

[Meg]

We women have to tolerate naked women and exposed breasts all the time at the movie theaters. This is the same thing. What do you have to say about this inspiring photo?

971

Meggles, no hard feelings though.

Yes women's bodies can ogled at and called art. The moment you dare mention showing the male anatomy in movies or pictures or anything else, it's porn. :rolleyes: Sexist... I think so.

That one, I find sexist. :mad: I've never liked that photo the intent in that one has always been obvious.

No hard feelings.:p

[Cleverboy]

This is a poor start to a topic about misogyny and sexism in the media.

There was absolutely NO REASON why the thread starter could not have simply started up a topic regarding sexism and misogyny instead of attacking coverage of a recent high profile ballot initiative that has stripped a category of people of their rights. This is hardly an "either/or" scenario. It's like noticing that people have been discussing the rise of pedophilia and incest abuse cases, and feeling that this somehow has made the public overlook sexism and general concern over public expressions of hatred against women. I'm particularly disappointed that someone thought Tao Of Bill's use of "gays" was in some way inappropriate. Simply Googling "gays in the media" should show a more than adequate cross section of usage for the word "gays". Considering that "gay" is a NOUN, it seems a somewhat easily rectified issue that the original person questioning could have checked out for themselves without bothering everyone else.

http://www.answers.com/gays
n.
A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians. Hopefully Artists4Hillary will actually start future threads about these important issues and not threads about why other issues are getting more attention. This thread is based, in my opinion, on something that is very much a "victimhood mentality" which would only be justified if you were talking about facts and figures... like allotments for government programs and the like (ie. "Why do government funded at-work programs on sensitivity training focus more on sexual orientation than gender issues?", backing this up by a recent report, for example, on program focuses and the amount of coverage in hand-out literature).

Once social groups start targeting each other for loose impressions of competitive scrutiny (not tied to anything substantive save "discussion threads")... instead of doing more to raise awareness of their cause... it really begins to undermine the very nature of discussion.

~ CB

[Redladybird]

Yes women's bodies can ogled at and called ary. The moment you dare mention showing the male anatomy in movies or pictures or anything else, it's porn. :rolleyes: Sexist... I think so.

That one, I find sexist. :mad: I've never liked that photo the intent in that one has always been obvious.

No hard feelings.:p

Sometimes I feel that we women are supposed to feel comfortable with naked women all over the place. If you put a naked man on the big screen they get all uncomfortable and that's why we rarely see that. Not because it's seen as porn. Trust me.

[Ikasu]

No. Hillary never once had the lead. Obama had her beat in pledged delegates from January to June.

Arguable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_prim aries,_2008

[Meg]

Sometimes I feel that we women are supposed to feel comfortable with naked women all over the place. If you put a naked man on the big screen they get all uncomfortable and that's why we rarely see that. Not because it's seen as porn. Trust me.


Well sometimes some people say that showing the male anantomy borders on porn... seriously wtf?

But women already have a general idea of what another woman's body looks like, so there's nothing there that can really "shock" us. The moment you show a guy you get into that awkward moment... if you catch where I'm going. ;)

[xfiles]

At your link! And now he will be VP. Our system sucks!

http://app3.sellersourcebook.com/users/26641/biden.jpg

Arguable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_prim aries,_2008

[Redladybird]

This is a poor start to a topic about misogyny and sexism in the media.

There was absolutely NO REASON why the thread starter could not have simply started up a topic regarding sexism and misogyny instead of attacking coverage of a recent high profile ballot initiative that has stripped a category of people of their rights. This is hardly an "either/or" scenario. It's like noticing that people have been discussing the rise of pedophilia and incest abuse cases, and feeling that this somehow has made the public overlook sexism and general concern over public expressions of hatred against women. I'm particularly disappointed that someone thought Tao Of Bill's use of "gays" was in some way inappropriate. Simply Googling "gays in the media" should show a more than adequate cross section of usage for the word "gays". Considering that "gay" is a NOUN, it seems a somewhat easily rectified issue that the original person questioning could have checked out for themselves without bothering everyone else.

http://www.answers.com/gays
Hopefully Artists4Hillary will actually start future threads about these important issues and not threads about why other issues are getting more attention. This thread is based, in my opinion, on something that is very much a "victimhood mentality" which would only be justified if you were talking about facts and figures... like allotments for government programs and the like (ie. "Why do government funded at-work programs on sensitivity training focus more on sexual orientation than gender issues?", backing this up by a recent report, for example, on program focuses and the amount of coverage in hand-out literature).

Once social groups start targeting each other for loose impressions of competitive scrutiny (not tied to anything substantive save "discussion threads")... instead of doing more to raise awareness of their cause... it really begins to undermine the very nature of discussion.

~ CB

Both are important issues, yes. But Hillary to my knowledge is not gay. This thread was just pointing out the Loud outcry against Prop 8 and Warren and the (tolerance for)/mild moan against Sexism and Misogyny. Do you believe racial problems and sexual preference have similarities? Just curious.

[Redladybird]

Well sometimes some people say that showing the male anantomy borders on porn... seriously wtf?

But women already have a general idea of what another woman's body looks like, so there's nothing there that can really "shock" us. The moment you show a guy you get into that awkward moment... if you catch where I'm going. ;)

Not to go back and forth on this but men know there bodies too. There's really more to it than you think. To my knowledge, porn is what you do with your body on screen in a certain, uh, manner. A man's anatomy is normal. But, let's even it out. For every naked women there should be a naked man if we have to show naked people at all.:rolleyes:

[Ikasu]

Not to go back and forth on this but men know there bodies too. There's really more to it than you think. To my knowledge, porn is what you do with your body on screen in a certain, uh, manner. A man's anatomy is normal. But, let's even it out. For every naked women there should be a naked man if we have to show naked people at all.:rolleyes:

This reminds of a Seinfeld episode where Elaine explains to Jerry that a man's body is repulsive and no one wants to see it.

[Cleverboy]

Both are important issues, yes. But Hillary to my knowledge is not gay. This thread was just pointing out the Loud outcry against Prop 8 and Warren and the (tolerance for)/mild moan against Sexism and Misogyny. I see. You're setting up a false dichotomy there, founded on an error. The error being: "The majority of topics in this forum at ANY given time, should relate to Hillary Clinton by no less than one degree of separation."

You're somehow implying moderators should step in and say "We've reached a limit... enough talking about prop 8, Hillary's not gay". Or maybe people should say, "Y'know, because Hillary isn't gay, I'm going to stop talking about gay rights issues on a forum dedicated to her supporters".

Sounds a bit cockeyed if you ask me, but I can understand how some people can think like that even if I disagree. If most posts didn't start off in the "MAIN ROOM" forum, and there was a "Politics and Social Issues" forum, I think it'd be easier to understand the context of how these issues of the day simply get discussed without regard to some floating "relevancy detector".

Personally, Hillary isn't Barack Obama either... it would go to follow that there shouldn't be so many Obama threads either. But, some people have that nervous tick about creating them.

Do you believe racial problems and sexual preference have similarities? Just curious.
Are racial and sexual orientation issues similar? Sounds like a wild discussion tangent to me, and not a very useful one. I'll avoid what I think is an obvious answer and let the facts speak for themselves.

FACTOID: In Massachusetts, a law used to prevent blacks from marrying whites was used to prevent out-of-state gays from marrying. From this one issue, I think any reasonable person would conclude that there is an overlap in how civil rights issues are handled. Inter-racial marriage originally had a rather ugly umbrella term called "miscegenation", and there was a history of laws drafted to prevent it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Now, same-sex marriages are the new battle ground on marriage issues, where same-sex couples are fighting for the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. Right now, thousands of married couples are faced with the prospect of having their legal marrianges NULLIFIED:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/dontdivorce

~ CB

[Meg]

Not to go back and forth on this but men know there bodies too. There's really more to it than you think. To my knowledge, porn is what you do with your body on screen in a certain, uh, manner. A man's anatomy is normal. But, let's even it out. For every naked women there should be a naked man if we have to show naked people at all.:rolleyes:


Yeah, I know too. :p I'm just saying, I've heard people say that.

Men know their bodies but they certainly don't want to stare at it during a movie as women have to. So yes one naked girl = one naked guy. It's fair.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Women's vaginas are shown about as often as men's penises.

But men's chests are shown more often than women's chests. What's the deal with this? In conclusion women should show their chest more in movies!

[Redladybird]

Women's vaginas are shown about as often as men's penises.

But men's chests are shown more often than women's chests. What's the deal with this? In conclusion women should show their chest more in movies!

Finally, we can now go shirtless in the summertime without getting attacked. good to know. I see you have no problem with more naked men on screen. Good for you!

[Cleverboy]

Women's vaginas are shown about as often as men's penises. But men's chests are shown more often than women's chests. What's the deal with this? In conclusion women should show their chest more in movies! I think I'm okay without seeing more "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" or "Boogie Nights", thanks.

~ CB

[TheTaoOfBill]

I think I'm okay without seeing more "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" or "Boogie Nights", thanks.

~ CB

Don't forget Scary Movie!

[AdrienneJ]

Not to go back and forth on this but men know there bodies too. There's really more to it than you think. To my knowledge, porn is what you do with your body on screen in a certain, uh, manner. A man's anatomy is normal. But, let's even it out. For every naked women there should be a naked man if we have to show naked people at all.:rolleyes:

Parity for Nudity! I kind of like it. Good idea. ;)

[Redladybird]

I see. You're setting up a false dichotomy there, founded on an error. The error being: "The majority of topics in this forum at ANY given time, should relate to Hillary Clinton by no less than one degree of separation."

You're somehow implying moderators should step in and say "We've reached a limit... enough talking about prop 8, Hillary's not gay". Or maybe people should say, "Y'know, because Hillary isn't gay, I'm going to stop talking about gay rights issues on a forum dedicated to her supporters".

Sounds a bit cockeyed if you ask me, but I can understand how some people can think like that even if I disagree. If most posts didn't start off in the "MAIN ROOM" forum, and there was a "Politics and Social Issues" forum, I think it'd be easier to understand the context of how these issues of the day simply get discussed without regard to some floating "relevancy detector".

Personally, Hillary isn't Barack Obama either... it would go to follow that there shouldn't be so many Obama threads either. But, some people have that nervous tick about creating them.


Are racial and sexual orientation issues similar? Sounds like a wild discussion tangent to me, and not a very useful one. I'll avoid what I think is an obvious answer and let the facts speak for themselves.

FACTOID: In Massachusetts, a law used to prevent blacks from marrying whites was used to prevent out-of-state gays from marrying. From this one issue, I think any reasonable person would conclude that there is an overlap in how civil rights issues are handled. Inter-racial marriage originally had a rather ugly umbrella term called "miscegenation", and there was a history of laws drafted to prevent it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Now, same-sex marriages are the new battle ground on marriage issues, where same-sex couples are fighting for the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. Right now, thousands of married couples are faced with the prospect of having their legal marrianges NULLIFIED:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/dontdivorce

~ CB

Ok, Cleverboy, prop 8 and gay rights are very important to you. So, important that you missed the point of this thread. Let me remind you that the poster did state that they are very important issues. "There are many threads pertaining to prop 8 and gay rights, which are very important. But people here have seemed to forgotten about misogyny and women's rights. They are just as important."
Do you not think that misogyny and women's rights are important?
Regarding my other question "Sounds like a wild discussion tangent to me"...
You were right. I was just trying to figure out your reasoning.:rolleyes:

[Redladybird]

I think I'm okay without seeing more "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" or "Boogie Nights", thanks.

~ CB

I don't understand. Did you prove my point? I didn't see these films. Assuming there was male nudity.

[TheTaoOfBill]

If we equate a woman's upper region as being the same as a male's upper region I would say men expose themselves on camera much more than women. It's socially acceptable for a man to show his chest but not for a woman.

If we're talking about lower region I'd say it's about the same. Penises and vaginas are rarely shown on film at all.

[Redladybird]

If we equate a woman's upper region as being the same as a male's upper region I would say men expose themselves on camera much more than women. It's socially acceptable for a man to show his chest but not for a woman.

If we're talking about lower region I'd say it's about the same. Penises and vaginas are rarely shown on film at all.

Frontal nudity is frontal nudity. A woman's ****** would be pretty hard to film. Anyway, there is no place for sexism and Hillary and Sarah were highly qualified candidates. As I said before, i would have gotten behind Barack if he had won fair and square.

[Ikasu]

Frontal nudity is frontal nudity. A woman's ****** would be pretty hard to film. Anyway, there is no place for sexism and Hillary and Sarah were highly qualified candidates. As I said before, i would have gotten behind Barack if he had won fair and square.

Sarah was not highly qualified.

[Meg]

Sarah was not highly qualified.

I'd go with slightly qualified.

[Horizon]

I'd go with slightly qualified.

I'll say semi qualified. A little.

[AdrienneJ]

Sarah was not highly qualified.

Sarah was as qualified as Obama. Of course this isn't in disagreement with your statement.

[Ikasu]

I'd go with slightly qualified.

Yea, she wasn't impressive. To compare her to Hillary is a joke.

[Ikasu]

Sarah was as qualified as Obama. Of course this isn't in disagreement with your statement.

I don't think Obama was impressive either, but more capable than Sarah.

[Horizon]

I don't think Obama was impressive either, but more capable than Sarah.

Yeppers.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Obama might have been inexperienced but IMO
Illinois Senator > Alaska Governor
Illinois State Senator > Mayor of Wasilla
Community Organizer > Miss Wasilla

[AdrienneJ]

I don't think Obama was impressive either, but more capable than Sarah.

I don't know. She gave a great speech at the convention (you might think her politics suck, but she was funny and poised and professional); I thought she beat Biden up at the debate (or stayed even, depending on your opinion);
she pulled in huge numbers at the rallies.

I don't know if Palin would be capable or not. I don't know if Obama is going to be capable or not. So far with his decisions like Warren, it's not looking too good.

[Ikasu]

I don't know. She gave a great speech at the convention (you might think her politics suck, but she was funny and poised and professional); I thought she beat Biden up at the debate (or stayed even, depending on your opinion);
she pulled in huge numbers at the rallies.

I don't know if Palin would be capable or not. I don't know if Obama is going to be capable or not. So far with his decisions like Warren, it's not looking too good.

She has great political instincts, but as a governor and a thinker, Obama is clearly more capable.

[CGP]

Obama might have been inexperienced but IMO
Illinois Senator > Alaska Governor
Illinois State Senator > Mayor of Wasilla
Community Organizer > Miss Wasilla

Making a direct comparison isn't that useful given that Palin was not campaigning to be the next US president. Had she been the top of the ticket then it would make more sense to compare her and Obama directly. But she wasn't, a crucial fact many seem to conveniently overlook - and often responded to by her detractors with "she would have been a heartbeat away from the presidency"...:rolleyes:

[CGP]

She has great political instincts, but as a governor and a thinker, Obama is clearly more capable.

As much as I loathe some of her conservative views, Palin seems far more sincere and transparent in what she really believes. Obama is a big-time player and I find that very unattractive. Palin seems more genuine, more down-to-earth. Obama meanwhile is all for the power, all for saying whatever to win the next round.

[Ikasu]

As much as I loathe some of her conservative views, Palin seems far more sincere and transparent in what she really believes. Obama is a big-time player and I find that very unattractive. Palin seems more genuine, more down-to-earth. Obama meanwhile is all for the power, all for saying whatever to win the next round.

I don't disagree. Palin is more honest, but Obama is the smarter guy imo.

[CGP]

I don't disagree. Palin is more honest, but Obama is the smarter guy imo.

There's a fine line between "smart" and "slimy".

Sometimes they are indistinguishable.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Making a direct comparison isn't that useful given that Palin was not campaigning to be the next US president. Had she been the top of the ticket then it would make more sense to compare her and Obama directly. But she wasn't, a crucial fact many seem to conveniently overlook - and often responded to by her detractors with "she would have been a heartbeat away from the presidency"...:rolleyes:

I disagree strongly. The VP should be ready to take over as president on day one. The constitution says if the president elect were to die before being inaugurated the VP would be president on day one. As a result she should at qualified to be on the top of the ticket as well as the bottom. If she's too unqualified for the top she's too unqualified for the bottom.

[CGP]

I disagree strongly. The VP should be ready to take over as president on day one. The constitution says if the president elect were to die before being inaugurated the VP would be president on day one. As a result she should at qualified to be on the top of the ticket as well as the bottom. If she's too unqualified for the top she's too unqualified for the bottom.

The expected response...

Obama campaigned for President.

Palin campaigned for Vice-President.

Which part am I missing?

[TheTaoOfBill]

The expected response...

Obama campaigned for President.

Palin campaigned for Vice-President.

Which part am I missing?

The part where it's the VP's main job to be prepared to take over for the president at any time including day one.

[AdrienneJ]

I don't disagree. Palin is more honest, but Obama is the smarter guy imo.

I don't understand how Obama got the rep for being so smart. Where has he displayed his high intelligence? He didn't impress me in the debates by being particularly brilliant. The uh uh uh um stuff kind of detracts from him as coming across as being really quick. I don't see it. The rally speeches are
on teleprompter. So not from them, either. His books aren't particularly well written or terribly insightful-- from the sections I've read. He seemed to always be soft pitched in interviews-- so I never saw him take a complicated or hard question and show his smarts in any impressive way.

So I can't say that Obama is smarter than Palin. She actually comes across as pretty smart when she's given the room to do it. I saw a couple of her speeches on TV where she addressed energy issues-- she came across as pretty smart and very well informed.

[Ikasu]

I don't understand how Obama got the rep for being so smart. Where has he displayed his high intelligence? He didn't impress me in the debates by being particularly brilliant. The uh uh uh um stuff kind of detracts from him as coming across as being really quick. I don't see it. The rally speeches are
on teleprompter. So not from them, either. His books aren't particularly well written or terribly insightful-- from the sections I've read. He seemed to always be soft pitched in interviews-- so I never saw him take a complicated or hard question and show his smarts in any impressive way.

So I can't say that Obama is smarter than Palin. She actually comes across as pretty smart when she's given the room to do it. I saw a couple of her speeches on TV where she addressed energy issues-- she came across as pretty smart and very well informed.

He graduate magna cum laude from HLS, which is difficult to do. It's very competitive. Obama's intelligence isn't anything Earth shattering, but the comparison is Obama to Palin.

Speech isn't a very good measure. Maybe he's nervous.

[LadyLazarus]

What cracks me up is the way people who say "Sarah Palin isn’t qualified to be Vice President” do so as if they are saying something novel or something remotely intellectual. Speaking in political clichés doesn’t make a claim true.

[TheTaoOfBill]

He graduate magna cum laude from HLS, which is difficult to do. It's very competitive. Obama's intelligence isn't anything Earth shattering, but the comparison is Obama to Palin.

Speech isn't a very good measure. Maybe he's nervous.
Uh's are a sign he's stopping to think. I couldn't think of a better measure of intelligence than stopping to think.

[AdrienneJ]

He graduate magna cum laude from HLS, which is difficult to do. It's very competitive. Obama's intelligence isn't anything Earth shattering, but the comparison is Obama to Palin.

His education should have made him intelligent-- in that it should have been incorporated into who he is on a daily basis. In short, when he speaks, I should be able to see the results of his education. I don't see great intelligence in him, at all. I see average intelligence. And I've seen flashes in Palin that I thought showed some spark of higher intelligence, to tell the truth.

[CGP]

Uh's are a sign he's stopping to think. I couldn't think of a better measure of intelligence than stopping to think.

I don't think that's a good "measure" of intelligence.

It might be a measure of "thougthfulness" or "patience" or "reaction time"...but not inelligence.

[Ikasu]

His education should have made him intelligent-- in that it should have been incorporated into who he is on a daily basis. In short, when he speaks, I should be able to see the results of his education. I don't see great intelligence in him, at all. I see average intelligence. And I've seen flashes in Palin that I thought showed some spark of higher intelligence, to tell the truth.

The way you speak or answer questions has nothing to do with your innate intelligence.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I don't think that's a good "measure" of intelligence.

It might be a measure of "thougthfulness" or "patience" or "reaction time"...but not inelligence.

Well 2 out of 3 of those things are good things at least. And I would put those 2 things as parts a broad measure of intelligence.

[AdrienneJ]

The way you speak or answer questions has nothing to do with your innate intelligence.

Huh?

[LadyLazarus]

Having been to graduate school, I can say that magna cum laude is actually not very rare. In most programs, getting anything less than an A marks you as sub-standard, i.e., getting an A- is actually bad news. Getting a B+ is like failing the class/seminar. Most grad students I know that finish almost always graduate magna cum laude or equivalent, and if they want to get a a good job, finish summa cum laude.

[AdrienneJ]

Having been to graduate school, I can say that magna cum laude is actually not very rare. In most programs, getting anything less than an A marks you as sub-standard, i.e., getting an A- is actually bad news. Getting a B+ is like failing the class/seminar. Most grad students I know that finish almost always graduate magna cum laude or equivalent, and if they want to get a a good job, finish summa cum laude.

Tis true.

[Ikasu]

Having been to graduate school, I can say that magna cum laude is actually not very rare. In most programs, getting anything less than an A marks you as sub-standard, i.e., getting an A- is actually bad news. Getting a B+ is like failing the class/seminar. Most grad students I know that finish almost always graduate magna cum laude or equivalent, and if they want to get a a good job, finish summa cum laude.

That's MS programs, this is a law school. Harvard Law School is very competitive and getting that distinction is tough.

[CGP]

Having been to graduate school, I can say that magna cum laude is actually not very rare. In most programs, getting anything less than an A marks you as sub-standard, i.e., getting an A- is actually bad news. Getting a B+ is like failing the class/seminar. Most grad students I know that finish almost always graduate magna cum laude or equivalent, and if they want to get a a good job, finish summa cum laude.

I went to grad school not too long back and it seemed that just about everyone was getting A marks. So much so that I thought it was pretty ridiculous that everyone was conveniently able to do so well! The fact that getting A marks was standard for the majority of students, it cheapened what an "A" really meant. I didn't exactly get excited receiving A marks given I knew I had a lot of company!

[Ikasu]

Huh?

We are disagreeing because we have different views of intelligence.

[LadyLazarus]

I went to grad school not too long back and it seemed that just about everyone was getting A marks. So much so that I thought it was pretty ridiculous that everyone was conveniently able to do so well! The fact that getting A marks was standard for the majority of students, it cheapened what an "A" really meant.

Yep, one's GPA is kind of a joke in Doctoral programs. A Juris Doctorate is still a doctorate, so we're not talking about MS programs.

They've now started using another latin honors code to distinguish grad students who have greater than 4.0 GPAs because it is just so common to have one no matter where you go.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Huh?

Autism is probably the most dibilitating social disorder and completely destroys the ability to speak in people. However many autistic people are considered geniuses. Some are able to memorize numbers really well.

Others are able to paint remarkable works of art.

There are some who believe Michaelangelo had a form of autism due to his anti social behaviors and his temper tantrums.

I think this proves the way people speak has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence.

[AdrienneJ]

We are disagreeing because we have different views of intelligence.


Obama got a degree in law. Being a lawyer is all about having analytic and communication skills. Your goal is to convey your point of view with clarity, specificity and precision.

You pointed out (as- I assume to show evidence of his intelligence)
that he'd done well at Harvard Law. Therefore, logically, as a stellar law student, Obama should have the ability to bring his intellect to the forefront through writing and discussing issues in depth-- he should have the ability to easily communicate his knowledge.

And if he's got some great breadth of knowledge, I sure haven't seen evidence of it.

But that's just my opinion. Yours clearly differs. That's cool.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Obama got a degree in law. Being a lawyer is all about having analytic and communication skills. Your goal is to convey your point of view with clarity, specificity and precision.

You pointed out (as- I assume to show evidence of his intelligence)
that he'd done well at Harvard Law. Therefore, logically, as a stellar law student, Obama should have the ability to bring his intellect to the forefront through writing and discussing issues in depth-- he should have the ability to easily communicate his knowledge.

And if he's got some great breadth of knowledge, I sure haven't seen evidence of it.

But that's just my opinion. Yours clearly differs. That's cool.

I think he does an amazing job communicating and his uhs and ahs rarely hinder his message in my opinion.

[RE:]

I think he does an amazing job communicating and his uhs and ahs rarely hinder his message in my opinion.You must be watching closed captioning...that's the only way I could decipher what he was saying in the debates.

I kept getting distracted by him distracting himself. I knew many people that forgot what the question was because he had just as many uhs as words.

Closed Captioning Rules!!

[TheTaoOfBill]

You must be watching closed captioning...that's the only way I could decipher what he was saying in the debates.

I kept getting distracted by him distracting himself. I knew many people that forgot what the question was because he had just as many uhs as words.

Closed Captioning Rules!!

My close family, my college friends and my grandparents all thought the Uhs and Ahs gave him a more personal touch and made it feel like he was talking directly to us instead of at us. A lot of people thought the uh's and ah's were a positive thing.

There were a couple times he tripped up his message but for the most part I got what he was saying and I related to it.

[Cleverboy]

As much as I loathe some of her conservative views, Palin seems far more sincere and transparent in what she really believes. Obama is a big-time player and I find that very unattractive. Palin seems more genuine, more down-to-earth. Obama meanwhile is all for the power, all for saying whatever to win the next round. I disagree. I think Palin is much more practiced than you give her credit for. Unfortunately, the character that she has practiced isn't as accessible to as many people as Obama's practiced character (hers also requires much less education and much more about "appearance" and quirky displays of "confidence"). In the end, they're all politicians, and we will see them through whatever our personal lens allows us to. If you know someone Palin reminds you of, you'll buy her act. If you know someone like Obama, maybe you'll buy into his act. Palin's brand of cut-throatedness involves using her charm and putting her opponents off their footing through any number of means. Obama's brand of cut-throatedness involves legalese and using the "rules" and his own pedantic, yet charismatic intuition to frame his arguments. Palin was called Sarah-Baracuda. Obama was called "No-Drama Obama". I don't think its more complicated than that.

~ CB