Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[Jello Biafra]

In general, the post-divorce agreement will resemble the pre-divorce one. If the wife provided most of the childcare during marriage, then in general the courts will say she should continue to do so. (According to this site, Missouri uses the 'best interest' rule.) If you, like Aapje, think continuing the marital arrangement after divorce is unfair, that's fine, but exactly who is pushing men into having their wives handle most of the childcare during the marriage?

society and employers mostly, who are generally understanding when women take off time for family, but not when men do.

It's a stretch to say that employers are "generally understanding" when women take off time for family. This article cites a study that says women's jobs are less flexible than men's jobs.

[Galloism]

society and employers mostly, who are generally understanding when women take off time for family, but not when men do.

It's a stretch to say that employers are "generally understanding" when women take off time for family. This article cites a study that says women's jobs are less flexible than men's jobs.

So I followed through the links there to find the actual study results. I was hoping for a breakdown by country, as there are a lot of really dissimilar countries there. They didn't, as far as I can tell.

http://www.uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/ ... ,Yaish.pdf

So we don't really know if that's true in each country or just in aggregate.

Interesting findings though. More study needed.

[Jello Biafra]

So I followed through the links there to find the actual study results. I was hoping for a breakdown by country, as there are a lot of really dissimilar countries there. They didn't, as far as I can tell.

http://www.uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/ ... ,Yaish.pdf

So we don't really know if that's true in each country or just in aggregate.

Interesting findings though. More study needed.

Here's a pdf of a study that focused on the US. It agrees that men are more likely to have job flexibility than women, because in general, higher-paying jobs will have more workplace flexibility than lower-paying jobs. We all know who gets paid more. Also, take a look at what it says about the work flexibility for people who have family-care responsibilities.
(Here's a shorter version of what the pdf says about the issue.)

[Galloism]

So I followed through the links there to find the actual study results. I was hoping for a breakdown by country, as there are a lot of really dissimilar countries there. They didn't, as far as I can tell.

http://www.uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/ ... ,Yaish.pdf

So we don't really know if that's true in each country or just in aggregate.

Interesting findings though. More study needed.

Here's a pdf of a study that focused on the US. It agrees that men are more likely to have job flexibility than women, because in general, higher-paying jobs will have more workplace flexibility than lower-paying jobs. We all know who gets paid more. Also, take a look at what it says about the work flexibility for people who have family-care responsibilities.

So in this study, women report significantly more access to flexible days (about 4% higher), and men and women have about equal flexibility in hours (0.2% higher for men, probably within the margin for error), but men report more flexibility in location (about 2% higher). I think that last one is probably due to technical fields and the ability to work over a VPN, but that's just my supposition.

So, I'm surprised it's that close honestly, but it does show women tend to have more flexibility on working times/days, but men have more flexibility in location.

Still, all of it is closer than I expected.

[Dameth]

My experiences with feminists have been more or less the opposite.

Well I too have met the moderate feminists, and if my experience has not be as painful as with the radfems, dealing with someone who wants to interject feminism in a all men-but-her group playing boardgames, hence generating a very hostile response, and putting me in the position of trying to switch the topic every ten minutes we can go back to have fun, it's not something I like.
There are feminists who I can occasionally agree with, but in general they are a lost of time.

I mean, you don't have to look very far to have a good appreciation of how time wasting they are - just look at the rest of this thread and tell me - if you have been discussing gender dynamics for at least a little bit : haven't you seen this happen a million time ?

Some dude makes a common sense remark - feminists come over and make outrageous claims - anti feminists take her seriously and debunk her into oblivion - other feminists come around and make more outrageous claims.

Same scenario as ever, just rince and repeat - the only possible variation on that scenario is when a feminist has her hand on the banhammer, but the plot twist makes for a bad movie.
No knowlege is earn in the process, no new idea is expressed, and the conversation follows the same script without fail every time.

I have a great respect for Gallo and New Edom, but at some point engaging feminists becomes Sisyphus' punishment. Big lost of time.

so why focus on one specific type of mating dance?

That's a case study - we have to start from somewhere because when it comes to gender dynamics, all serious investigation is shut down really quick. It is however safe to assume some characteristics of the mating rituals described will be found in others - by mean of comparison we can narrow down and discriminate between what is likely to be innate and what is a product of our current social arrangement.

This is why afterward discussion with non-zealots is critical -we need to keep an open mind while dealing with those topics and be ready to walk back if we find ourself on a track that leads to false conclusions.

There's a lot of touchy feely points I could make about communication and being attentive, but at the same time it would be sort of naive of me to ignore that individuals with power are basically magnets. The distinction I would make is that people with power tend to get what they want - money, women, expensive food, a harem of Cuban cabana boys, whatever. Seeking power doesn't have to be about sex, it just often results in it because most people want it, and when those people get power, they get what they want. Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense - and I don't think we're being in disagreement here. Note that I don't say sex is not the sole reason to acquire power, and maybe that's the thing I'll take from this conversation. However I do say that power (as in a general term, really, wealth, control over other men, reserve of violence) is likely to get people laid. Men know that and it becomes one of their reason to be competitive.

A great way to study this part of gender dynamics is by way of comparison between heterosexual mating rites (one hypergamous one polygamous partners) and homosexual mating rites (two hyper or two poly), and see what we can get from that.

I have to leave for work so I know Im leaving out some points - I'll add a new post or edit a bit later

[Fascii]

No.

[The Novakian Empire]

No.

[Aapje]

It's a rather obvious truth that very few women approach men, leaving the burden on men to woo women, rather than the other way around. The data from dating sites shows the same, with cold hard statistics.

It's not a conspiracy, it's gender roles.

Sure, but there's no particular reason a woman couldn't. It's custom, not law, and we've been getting better about it. What weird me out is the .. iunno, transationalism of the worldview espoused above. Men perform action A in front of woman B who responds with access to orifice C. That's just not how people work. (Except hookers, in which case it's sort of exactly how they work).

You have to keep in mind that research shows that women rate the vast majority of men as below average in looks, while men are more realistic. So a large number of women are perfectly acceptable for men as casual sex partners by virtue of looks alone, while the majority of men are not. Those men have to do something extra: increase their attraction by making the women like them (as people rate looks higher for people that they like).

So you get what we have now: quite a few men trying to entertain women, who often don't seek to entertain back.

Of course, this is not true for the Brad Pitts of the world, but they don't go on forums to complain about their sex life, because they drown in female cats.

[Aapje]

Is Cathy Young sufficiently critical enough?

She is, but as far as I know, she doesn't identify as a feminist and is considered an anti-feminist by mainstream feminism.

So she is not an example of a critical feminist. Besides, my point doesn't hinge on the existence of a single 'good feminist,' it hinges on the non-existence of a strong movement that is actually taken seriously, rather than a few people whose opinions are considered to be outside of the Overton window by the majority and thus dismissed out of hand.

Automatically, no, but it is more likely to occur.

No. Again, women working less is gender-conformant behavior. Men working less is gender-deviant behavior. You can't conclude that people who support gender conformance in women, will be more likely to support gender deviancy in men. That's not logical.

It's like arguing that a person who likes to beat up gay people, is more likely to support gay people beating up straights. Such reasoning incorrectly ascribes this opinion to the gay-bashers: "It's ok for people to beat up other groups," while their actual opinion is "it's ok for our group to beat up other groups, but not vice versa."

It is feasible for a mixed-gender group to be less diverse than a single-gender group, but this isn't a very good example of that.

Why not? If I ask the mixed-politics, same gender group about a law to force companies to provide maternal leave, I'll surely get more diverse answers than if I ask Democratic men and women.

There are going to be experiences that nearly all women have, and experiences that nearly all men have. These experiences aren't going to be just limited to biology "getting a period on the subway", "getting an erection in class right before being called to speak in front of the class". I'm not going to say that this will have more of an effect than say, class-based differences, but it is an important consideration.

So what experiences are shared by nearly all women, but almost no men, that can impact how a CEO treats his/her people? Give me an example.

This article cites studies that suggest that female CEOs are on average, better-educated than male CEOs and have been at the companies they became CEOs of significantly longer than male CEOs. If women only had to be as qualified as men to be CEO, rather than much more qualified, that would increase the number of potential female CEOs.

This is a good example of jumping to conclusions. Being 'better-educated' and having more company-specific experience don't necessarily mean that the female CEOs are actually better or even selected by a different standard. Quite a few CEOs don't get hired, but started their own company. On average, you'd expect self-made CEOs to be lesser educated. AFAIK, way more male CEOs are self-made than female CEOs (which hyper/hypoagency would predict to be the case, as men are more risk taking).

The same risk-taking would also likely result in ambitious men moving between companies more than women of the same ability. So again, you can't judge those more mobile men to be worse CEOs, they are just CEOs that on average tend to take a slightly different path to the top than women CEOs.

Do you have any theories as to why men in the Netherlands seek to work more?

Gender roles. As a man you get judged by a different standard than women and people tend to be socially conforming. It's slowly changing though, more and more men are working 36 or 32 hours/week, although this is very class-specific (the lower class/lesser salary, the less men do this).

It might be true that in some situations, such as domestic abuse, some feminists choose methods that hurt men, this doesn't mean that there is no solution that would help both women and men.

I agree and in that case, we must fight against the solution that mainstream feminists propose and for that better method.

The latter.

Draft law in the US

VAWA in the US

Rape law in the UK

Note that it is not necessarily for a law to be explicitly discriminatory. A law where the inevitable outcome of implementing it, are discriminatory policies, is a discriminatory law. For example, it's clear that there is a cultural bias by the police to presume that the man is the (sole) domestic abuser. It is clear that a large percentage of domestic violence is mutual. So the logical result of mandatory (first versions of VAWA) and pro-arrest (later versions) requirements in the law, is that men will get unfairly arrested way more than without a requirement/advice that the police blame one person for the domestic violence.

Actually, the mandatory arrest part of the law also resulted in predictable (to scientifically minded people) and strong negative effects to women as well, which is why it was taken out. The same ignorance that leads to discrimination, generally leads to laws that fail to work properly for the favored group as well.

It might be true that the courts don't recognize the value of sacrificing time spent with the child in favor of work, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't recognize the value of sacrificing the value of work experience in favor of spending time with the child. Perhaps they should recognize both?

Why can't they just treat people like adults, by default?

The adult thing to do, when a contract ends where someone did something for you, is to start doing it yourself or find someone else to do it. If I have a cleaning lady, I can't fire her and then expect her to come and clean anyway for free. That's idiotic. So why treat marriage any differently, in the modern context where most men and women have the abilities to do so?

If a person spent most time on work, they should start doing more caring upon divorce and if a person spent most time caring, they should start doing more work upon divorce. After all, marriage made the old arrangement viable & reasonable, the marriage ended, the old arrangement is no longer viable & reasonable.

In general, the courts will seek to continue the relationship the parents had with the child during the marriage.

It is dumb to react to radical change by doing the same thing, rather than what is reasonable in the new situation.

The marriage ended because it wasn't working and people in the marriage want to change their life. The least rational thing to do, is to try to keep things the same, rather than fix what wasn't working in the first place.

After all, in most instances had the marriage continued, the work/childcare balance would have likely remained the same.

But the marriage didn't continue! This is like arguing that we shouldn't fix a design flaw that made a plane fall out of the sky, because the people would have kept flying if the plane didn't crash.

[Hajaland]

Still, injustices remain. Let's not forget, also, that women include trans women, and they in particular certainly do face an awful lot of harrassment, abuse, assault and marginalization on a regular basis in the West.

Even if you accepted the dogma about transgenderism. That still wouldn't mean you would include "trans women" in a statistic about women; doing so would skew the results of any effort to gather stats about violence against women, for example.

[Aapje]

It's a stretch to say that employers are "generally understanding" when women take off time for family. This article cites a study that says women's jobs are less flexible than men's jobs.

You have to be careful with these kinds of studies, since they may not accurately measure what you think they measure.

For example, take this question from the study:
- Can respondent decide when to start and end work? (1=No–employer decides …3=Yes–respondent decides)

This question appears wrong to me, since in my experience, reality is usually between these extremes. Supposedly flexible jobs often have limits on that flexibility and supposedly inflexible jobs often have room for flexibility. When you force grey reality into black and white answers, it often goes wrong.

It's perfectly possible to have men who answer '3' to this question because technically they merely have to make their hours, but where those men get heavy social pressure if they actually work at odd hours regularly. On the other hand, it's possible that some women answer '1', because they work in a roster system, but where the employers are very willing to change the roster to accommodate a need, even sometimes on short notice.

So in practice, the person who gave the 'less flexible' answer may actually have more flexibility in reality.

PS. I would also argue that jobs with fewer work hours are inherently more flexible. A person who works 80 hours a week at times that he/she chooses, has generally less ability to deal with emergencies than someone who works 20 hours.

PS2. Another big issue with the study is that it depends on self-assessments. Men and women may have different standards. If women have a lower threshold for stress, they can report that there jobs are more stressful, while the average man who did the same job would rate it less stressful.

[Hirota]

Let's not forget, also, that women include trans women,

Not according to a large swathe of feminists.

[Jello Biafra]

Here's a pdf of a study that focused on the US. It agrees that men are more likely to have job flexibility than women, because in general, higher-paying jobs will have more workplace flexibility than lower-paying jobs. We all know who gets paid more. Also, take a look at what it says about the work flexibility for people who have family-care responsibilities.

So in this study, women report significantly more access to flexible days (about 4% higher), and men and women have about equal flexibility in hours (0.2% higher for men, probably within the margin for error), but men report more flexibility in location (about 2% higher). I think that last one is probably due to technical fields and the ability to work over a VPN, but that's just my supposition.

So, I'm surprised it's that close honestly, but it does show women tend to have more flexibility on working times/days, but men have more flexibility in location.

Still, all of it is closer than I expected.

It's important to note that men get more vacations and sick days, which decreases the need for flexibility days, and vice versa.

[Twilight Imperium]

I have a great respect for Gallo and New Edom, but at some point engaging feminists becomes Sisyphus' punishment. Big lost of time.

I don't want to keep pissing in your cheerios, but your version of a "moderate feminist" and mine don't seem to match up. Either that or there was some serious shit going down in that boardgame.

But what I'm getting at is sort of tangential to that - you don't have to engage with any current feminists to promote the cause. You can focus on your own style of advocacy without paying heed to any part of the current trends of the debate. Yes, if you do it in public the more radical wing will probably try and fuck you over - but so what? Voices of reason are often more popular than people think, especially in times of extreme polarisation. Why do you think Jon Stewart was the most trusted face in news for a few years? Because he didn't get sucked into the bullshit. (and cause he was pretty funny)

It is however safe to assume some characteristics of the mating rituals described will be found in others - by mean of comparison we can narrow down and discriminate between what is likely to be innate and what is a product of our current social arrangement.

Agreed! What are some other rituals that could be dissected and compared? Dinner/movie date? Tinder?

Yes, it makes sense - and I don't think we're being in disagreement here. Note that I don't say sex is not the sole reason to acquire power, and maybe that's the thing I'll take from this conversation. However I do say that power (as in a general term, really, wealth, control over other men, reserve of violence) is likely to get people laid. Men know that and it becomes one of their reason to be competitive.

Yep, all basically agreed.

A great way to study this part of gender dynamics is by way of comparison between heterosexual mating rites (one hypergamous one polygamous partners) and homosexual mating rites (two hyper or two poly), and see what we can get from that.

Heh, where's Kinsey Jr. when you need him? I would be fascinated to read a modern anthropological study about the mating rites of modern America.

[Jello Biafra]

No. Again, women working less is gender-conformant behavior. Men working less is gender-deviant behavior. You can't conclude that people who support gender conformance in women, will be more likely to support gender deviancy in men. That's not logical.

It's like arguing that a person who likes to beat up gay people, is more likely to support gay people beating up straights. Such reasoning incorrectly ascribes this opinion to the gay-bashers: "It's ok for people to beat up other groups," while their actual opinion is "it's ok for our group to beat up other groups, but not vice versa."

Women as CEOs and bosses isn't gender conformance in women. As they themselves are deviating from the norm, they are more likely to permit it in others.

Why not? If I ask the mixed-politics, same gender group about a law to force companies to provide maternal leave, I'll surely get more diverse answers than if I ask Democratic men and women.

I don't think so, because the Democrats are more likely to suggest things such as paternity leave and other alternate forms of leave.

So what experiences are shared by nearly all women, but almost no men, that can impact how a CEO treats his/her people? Give me an example.

I'm finding various surveys about sexual harassment at the workplace. They aren't quite as uniform as I would like, with some suggesting that 16% of men are harassed, with others reporting up to 41%. Nonetheless, woman are sexually harassed more often, across all industries, but with some industries it being more prevalent than others (such as the foodservice/hospitality and STEM fields). Further, the women who are sexually harassed are more likely to have it done by a male superior, whereas the men who are sexually harassed are more likely to have it be done by a male coworker than a superior (men are more likely to be harassed by men than by women).
As such, a female CEO is much more likely to know how someone in her position can abuse their authority over their subordinates, and would be more likely to implement policies meant to curtail that sort of behavior.

I was also planning to combine this with statistics on street harassment to make the case that all women have probably been sexually harassed in their lives, but the statistics don't mesh in quite the same way (because of the way the studies are conducted). Nonetheless, women are quite often the victims of sexual harassment on the streets, as well.

This is a good example of jumping to conclusions. Being 'better-educated' and having more company-specific experience don't necessarily mean that the female CEOs are actually better or even selected by a different standard. Quite a few CEOs don't get hired, but started their own company. On average, you'd expect self-made CEOs to be lesser educated. AFAIK, way more male CEOs are self-made than female CEOs (which hyper/hypoagency would predict to be the case, as men are more risk taking).

Then what standard are CEOs selected by?

The same risk-taking would also likely result in ambitious men moving between companies more than women of the same ability. So again, you can't judge those more mobile men to be worse CEOs, they are just CEOs that on average tend to take a slightly different path to the top than women CEOs.

That article points out how men receive greater benefits from 'networking', so it makes sense that men would be more likely to jump between companies.

Gender roles. As a man you get judged by a different standard than women and people tend to be socially conforming. It's slowly changing though, more and more men are working 36 or 32 hours/week, although this is very class-specific (the lower class/lesser salary, the less men do this).

Presumably gender roles also discourage women from abrogating their family responsibilities in favor of work responsibilities?

Rape law in the UK

Oh, is the UK one of the places that uses penetration as a requirement of rape?

Note that it is not necessarily for a law to be explicitly discriminatory. A law where the inevitable outcome of implementing it, are discriminatory policies, is a discriminatory law. For example, it's clear that there is a cultural bias by the police to presume that the man is the (sole) domestic abuser. It is clear that a large percentage of domestic violence is mutual. So the logical result of mandatory (first versions of VAWA) and pro-arrest (later versions) requirements in the law, is that men will get unfairly arrested way more than without a requirement/advice that the police blame one person for the domestic violence.

Actually, the mandatory arrest part of the law also resulted in predictable (to scientifically minded people) and strong negative effects to women as well, which is why it was taken out. The same ignorance that leads to discrimination, generally leads to laws that fail to work properly for the favored group as well.

I'd say that discriminatory policies are not the same as discriminatory laws, but of course it does point out a flaw in the laws themselves.

Why can't they just treat people like adults, by default?

The adult thing to do, when a contract ends where someone did something for you, is to start doing it yourself or find someone else to do it. If I have a cleaning lady, I can't fire her and then expect her to come and clean anyway for free. That's idiotic. So why treat marriage any differently, in the modern context where most men and women have the abilities to do so?

If a person spent most time on work, they should start doing more caring upon divorce and if a person spent most time caring, they should start doing more work upon divorce. After all, marriage made the old arrangement viable & reasonable, the marriage ended, the old arrangement is no longer viable & reasonable.

I don't see a problem with courts considering the opportunity cost of a domestic arrangement.

But the marriage didn't continue! This is like arguing that we shouldn't fix a design flaw that made a plane fall out of the sky, because the people would have kept flying if the plane didn't crash.

This analogy only works if you consider the 'man works, woman childrears' arrangement to be a design flaw.

[Jello Biafra]

Modern feminism increasingly denies individual women agency. ... It advocates safe spaces (which generally are thought to do more harm than good).

Generally thought by whom?

[Galloism]

So in this study, women report significantly more access to flexible days (about 4% higher), and men and women have about equal flexibility in hours (0.2% higher for men, probably within the margin for error), but men report more flexibility in location (about 2% higher). I think that last one is probably due to technical fields and the ability to work over a VPN, but that's just my supposition.

So, I'm surprised it's that close honestly, but it does show women tend to have more flexibility on working times/days, but men have more flexibility in location.

Still, all of it is closer than I expected.

It's important to note that men get more vacations and sick days, which decreases the need for flexibility days, and vice versa.

Yes, because they typically have access to higher tier employment. However, the study also notes this:

Women are 4.1 percent more likely to have access to paid sick days compared with
otherwise comparable men. While previous research has shown that women are
more likely to have access to maternity leave than men are to have paternity leave,
the finding that women are more likely to have sick time comes as a surprise and is
not consistent with previous studies.4

Now, they note this is not consistent with previous studies, which either means previous studies didn't ask the right questions, they didn't ask the right questions, circumstances have shifted, or they suffered a statistical aberration. A follow up study attempting to duplicate this result would be needed to know if this is true.

So, at least in this study, women have more sick leave than comparable men, more flexibility in working days with men, and roughly comparable flexibility in hours. Women are more easily able to get time off than men when in a comparable position.

The only area they seem to lag is flexible location.

[New Edom]

I have a great respect for Gallo and New Edom, but at some point engaging feminists becomes Sisyphus' punishment. Big lost of time.

I don't want to keep pissing in your cheerios, but your version of a "moderate feminist" and mine don't seem to match up. Either that or there was some serious shit going down in that boardgame.

But what I'm getting at is sort of tangential to that - you don't have to engage with any current feminists to promote the cause. You can focus on your own style of advocacy without paying heed to any part of the current trends of the debate. Yes, if you do it in public the more radical wing will probably try and fuck you over - but so what? Voices of reason are often more popular than people think, especially in times of extreme polarisation. Why do you think Jon Stewart was the most trusted face in news for a few years? Because he didn't get sucked into the bullshit. (and cause he was pretty funny)

It is however safe to assume some characteristics of the mating rituals described will be found in others - by mean of comparison we can narrow down and discriminate between what is likely to be innate and what is a product of our current social arrangement.

Agreed! What are some other rituals that could be dissected and compared? Dinner/movie date? Tinder?

Yes, it makes sense - and I don't think we're being in disagreement here. Note that I don't say sex is not the sole reason to acquire power, and maybe that's the thing I'll take from this conversation. However I do say that power (as in a general term, really, wealth, control over other men, reserve of violence) is likely to get people laid. Men know that and it becomes one of their reason to be competitive.

Yep, all basically agreed.

A great way to study this part of gender dynamics is by way of comparison between heterosexual mating rites (one hypergamous one polygamous partners) and homosexual mating rites (two hyper or two poly), and see what we can get from that.

Heh, where's Kinsey Jr. when you need him? I would be fascinated to read a modern anthropological study about the mating rites of modern America.

One of the problems with what you proposed about the radicals vs. the more practical people at the start of this post is that there is literally a media bombardment of attacks on the idea of pursuing men's rights issues. Major news outlets are the front lines. The vlogs and blogs and specialist feminist websites are a source of information to them but generally a number of major news sources have pro-mainstream feminist editors, columnists or news anchors. The fact is, this i a rather norma perspective, the patriarchy vs. women narrative. So challenging this is not challenging women's rights, it's challenging that ONLY that narative should be listened to. I would liken this to having more than one religious denomanation vs. just one.

[Aapje]

Women as CEOs and bosses isn't gender conformance in women. As they themselves are deviating from the norm, they are more likely to permit it in others.

The problem with that argument is that feminism is full of people who support gender deviance in women and yet strongly hold certain stereotypes about men (like the idea that men are uniquely violent).

I don't think so, because the Democrats are more likely to suggest things such as paternity leave and other alternate forms of leave.

Which would be standpoints that would be heard in the mixed politics group. On the other hand, surely you'd not expect certain 'Republican opinions' from the Democrat-only, mixed gender group.

So the same-gender, mixed politics group would surely be more diverse in opinion (from both sides of the culture war.)

As such, a female CEO is much more likely to know how someone in her position can abuse their authority over their subordinates, and would be more likely to implement policies meant to curtail that sort of behavior.

Ok, I'll give you that one, however... (there is always a however)....in my experience, companies are very reactive on such matters and only institute policies when someone makes a big fuss over something like that. At that point, it seems to me that the gender of the CEO is relatively inconsequential, as many male CEOs just do the same damage control that a female CEO would probably do.

Then what standard are CEOs selected by?

The ones that are selected, are often chosen by their adherence to conventional wisdom* and usually because they have a strength that was their predecessors weakness.

* relative to the sector and/or history of the company.

That article points out how men receive greater benefits from 'networking', so it makes sense that men would be more likely to jump between companies.

It's known that men are more eager to take advantage of opportunities and more eager to create opportunities, so you'd expect them to accept offers more readily and offer themselves up more often.

Presumably gender roles also discourage women from abrogating their family responsibilities in favor of work responsibilities?

In the upper class, it is quite socially conforming to hire a nanny.

You are correct that it is not part of the traditional female gender role, but my standpoint is that gender roles have changed for women way more than for men, so this is consistent with my beliefs.

Oh, is the UK one of the places that uses penetration as a requirement of rape?

It's actually worse, the penetration has to happen with a penis. So that pretty much means that women can't commit the crime, unless they run around with a penis in their handbag.

I don't see a problem with courts considering the opportunity cost of a domestic arrangement.

Again, that opportunity cost is also suffered by the husband, when it comes to his relationship with the children and such. I object to trying to consider one kind of it and not other kinds, especially when it clearly favors one gender.

This analogy only works if you consider the 'man works, woman childrears' arrangement to be a design flaw.

I consider it untenable for the arrangement to continue in a situation where the parents are no longer living together

[Solaas]

Soo, now Cathy Young is a "feminist"???
I hope that's a joke
Let's ask to Feminist Current, the most important Feminist site in Canada:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/tag/cathy-young/

Cathy Young, darling of men’s rights activists and libertarian basement-dwellers across America, has boldly stood …

For some unknown reason, virulent anti-feminist, Cathy Young, continues to be published by otherwise seemingly legit pub…

[Mericoa]

Are women oppressed in the west? Hell No! They can vote,drive,have sex with any adult, they can have an abortion. They serve less prison time then men for the same crime. Man make up 80% of all suicide victims. And make up 93% of all workplace deaths. Boys less likely to go to college than girls are. So women are oppressed at all.

[Hirota]

Soo, now Cathy Young is a "feminist"???
I hope that's a joke
Let's ask to Feminist Current, the most important Feminist site in Canada:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/tag/cathy-young/

Cathy Young, darling of men’s rights activists and libertarian basement-dwellers across America, has boldly stood …

For some unknown reason, virulent anti-feminist, Cathy Young, continues to be published by otherwise seemingly legit pub…

I see you are still pulling the ideological bullshit of "anyone who disagrees with me is not a feminist" All you've proven is other feminists (such as "the most important Feminist site in Canada)" are just as toxic.

[Hirota]

Modern feminism increasingly denies individual women agency. ... It advocates safe spaces (which generally are thought to do more harm than good).

Generally thought by whom?

http://www.ora.tv/unsafespeech/article/2016/3/23/the-evidence-against-safe-space - several studies linked in that article which have found avoiding the cause of trauma typically causes more harm than confronting it.

[Knask]

Generally thought by whom?

http://www.ora.tv/unsafespeech/article/2016/3/23/the-evidence-against-safe-space - several studies linked in that article which have found avoiding the cause of trauma typically causes more harm than confronting it.

When you're seeking treatment. And we all know, the purpose of going to university is to get treatment for your mental health issues.

[Yuropah]

One of the central points that popular modern feminists like to stress is that women are oppressed everywhere, and that this justifies just about any action that feminists choose to take. And to some progressives and liberals, even some conservatives, this is a given. I believed it for many years until I began to question it.

Emma Watson, one of the flag bearers for modern feminism, belongs to UN women and is one of their special envoys to the world. The United Nations describes oppression in this way:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Now looking through the above, I'm not seeing a single article which states anyuthing atht women are denied inthe way of rights anywhere in the West. Women clearly have the right to pursue any career they want to, have th right to live where they want o, eat what they want to, belong to a religion if they want to, get an education, vote, run for office.

No, infact, if you were to argue someone was oppressed, men would take the cake.
Mmm... Cake.
I have heard some talk about the fears women claim to have about harassment, abuse, rape and being belittled. That these fears are corroborated by popular entertainment and ideas. I have hard that unofficially there is proof that women are oppressed in spite of legal rights.

Well, here is an opportunity to prove it. Not with particular cases--history shows us injustice will probably always exist--but in some capacity that is broadly society: are women oppressed in the West?


I would like to ask the following of those who post here:
1. Please follow the rules and be polite. There is no need for discourtesy even if we disagree strongly. Let's focus on facts and thoughts.
2. Please provide a reason for your choice if you voted in the poll.
3, For the information of those posting here: I am an egalitarian but I have a lot of skepticism about how what appears to be the vocal majority of modern feminists conduct their activism and present their ideas and intend to challenge these ideas and activism in their different aspects.

I will not respond to posts that are trying to be accusatory or inflammatory.