The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Giovenith]

I for one am not jumping on the RadFem surrogate horror-go-round again.

[Galloism]

You assume, without evidence, that radical feminists want women to have free choices.

This is clearly not true.

I now see the error of my ways

I mean, I'm being flippant, but it's true.

If they wanted women to have free choices, they wouldn't try to prevent women from taking jobs and using their bodies in ways they don't like.

Prostitution, pornography, surrogacy would all be ok even if not preferred. But they're not. They're outlawed (or trying to get outlawed). They aren't looking for freedom. They're looking to oppress in new and exciting ways.

[Chestaan]

I now see the error of my ways

I mean, I'm being flippant, but it's true.

If they wanted women to have free choices, they wouldn't try to prevent women from taking jobs and using their bodies in ways they don't like.

Prostitution, pornography, surrogacy would all be ok even if not preferred. But they're not. They're outlawed (or trying to get outlawed). They aren't looking for freedom. They're looking to oppress in new and exciting ways.

Oh I completely understand, and you are right. I doubt that Chess will answer my question and if she does it will be by tying herself in a twist with meaningless buzzwords such as "substantive equality".

[Chessmistress]

I mean, I'm being flippant, but it's true.

If they wanted women to have free choices, they wouldn't try to prevent women from taking jobs and using their bodies in ways they don't like.

Prostitution, pornography, surrogacy would all be ok even if not preferred. But they're not. They're outlawed (or trying to get outlawed). They aren't looking for freedom. They're looking to oppress in new and exciting ways.

Oh I completely understand, and you are right. I doubt that Chess will answer my question and if she does it will be by tying herself in a twist with meaningless buzzwords such as "substantive equality".

Quite the opposite, I'm going to give a very clear answer: the law is meant for all people, not for a very narrow minority.
Let's make an example about abortion: do you think that could exist cases where a woman is forced by her partner to have an abortion?
I think it happens, relatively few times, but it really happens.
Should we ban abortion on such grounds?
No, because, clearly, the overwhelmingly majority of women benefits from having reproductive rights.
That's why, at the opposite, surrogate "motherhood" (quotation marks because it's buying her child, not "motherhood") must be banned, because it benefits very few women and its legalization would hurt the overwhelmingly majority of women.
I hope it's clear.

[Hirota]

> Claims to be giving a "very clear answer"

> Utterly fails and utterly fails to see hypocrisy in own argument.

[Chestaan]

Oh I completely understand, and you are right. I doubt that Chess will answer my question and if she does it will be by tying herself in a twist with meaningless buzzwords such as "substantive equality".

Quite the opposite, I'm going to give a very clear answer: the law is meant for all people, not for a very narrow minority.
Let's make an example about abortion: do you think that could exist cases where a woman is forced by her partner to have an abortion?
I think it happens, relatively few times, but it really happens.
Should we ban abortion on such grounds?
No, because, clearly, the overwhelmingly majority of women benefits from having reproductive rights.
That's why, at the opposite, surrogate "motherhood" (quotation marks because it's buying her child, not "motherhood") must be banned, because it benefits very few women and its legalization would hurt the overwhelmingly majority of women.
I hope it's clear.

How does it hurt any woman if the surrogacy is done without payment?

[New Edom]

I think a lot of it is culture shock we're still experiencing. Women and men occupy different sub cultures in our society.

So how women customarily deal with one another tends to be different from how men deal with one another. I find some women don't know how to deal with the middle ground between shouting at people and being too soft spoken.

Another problem I've noticed is that some women grow up learnig to be literally bossy. I'm sure you've seen those women, and those tropes around women, who treat the men they are associated with like children. That can also be a problem.

A lot of it can be chalked up to cultural growing pains, yes. If that's the case, then the only real cure is time itself.

However, while I don't doubt that women who try too hard to be domineering exist, the issue here is how we distinguish between when it's actually them being unusually bull-headed vs. whether we're perceiving the behavior that way because it's coming from a woman whereas it would be tolerated more from a man. A lot of feminists jump to that conclusion, yes, and they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean the possibility isn't still there. People have been shown to carry double standards for the sexes even unconsciously, the problem is proving or disproving it in certain cases or environments, because otherwise you're just flinging around accusations about people's thoughts and behaviors.

I'm dubious about the whole unconscious bias thing. How do you measure something like that? And what is the real issue here? Are fewer women being hired for business, medical fields, academia, government work?

Looking at this from Statistics Canada, the trend steadily climbed until the early 2000s, where the growth began to only slowly incline upwards. There appears to be a slight dip around 2013.

Stats Canada also said "While about 73% of employed women worked full time in 2009, women were, nevertheless, more likely than men to work part time. In 2009, 2.2 million women worked part time. The share of women working fewer than 30 hours per week at their main job has risen slightly from 23.6% in 1976 to 26.9% in 2009. This contrasts with men, whose part-time rate in 2009 at 11.9%, was less than half that of women. The men's rate, however, has nevertheless more than doubled for men since 1976, when 5.9% of men worked part time.

Of all part-time workers in 2009, nearly 7 out of 10 were women. This proportion has changed little over the past three decades (Table 7)"

The report also refers to ways that women are affected differently from men in terms of employment loss. I quote: "Women in nearly all age groups were affected by the recent downturn in the labour market. Women aged 15 to 24 were particularly hard hit: their employment rate fell from 60.3% in 2008 to 57.1% in 2009. Even with this decline, they fared better than young men, whose employment rate dropped from 58.9% to 53.6% over the same period (Table 4)."

there are a few items I'd like to draw attention to.

1. There has been an economic decline which may have affected the incline of women's employment and wages.
This has also affected men badly.

2. Women have tended to take on traditionally feminine jobs--nursing and secretarial work, services and so on.

3. Before the slowing down of the incline of women's employment, there was a very sharp inline.

4. There is stiffer competition between men and women, which can only have been increasing since the 1950s.

So I would suggest that concerns about how people see male or female bosses often are presented in a vacuum without examining the economics surrounding such ideas.

Anyway to your question about how to measure the difference between being bossy and assertive, i can only give my personal examples.

In my experience, confident, effective female leadership is just that--leadership. One example was a shipping supervisor I had worked for at a warehouse. She was a serious hardass, but the complaints about her had little to do with her being a woman; it was that she was exacting and demanding. However a number of employees found her also helpful and fair; she just had high standards which were, to be fair, to keep the department safe, efficient and productive.

On the other hand, I had also worked with a female boss who was what I'd call bossy. She had a number of bad managerial habits; interruping people while they were asking her questions, rewarding sycophancy over honesty and integrity, treating ideas as challenges to her authority, and varying her standards so that it was hard to keep up with her. I've seen men do this too.

I would say that 'bossy' or 'pushy' are applied to women like 'jerk' and 'asshole' are to men, in my experience. I know that there are sexist people out there who don't like the idea of working for a woman, period, but I think it's possible to differentiate between pushy and effective in a leader.

[Lady Scylla]

Oh I completely understand, and you are right. I doubt that Chess will answer my question and if she does it will be by tying herself in a twist with meaningless buzzwords such as "substantive equality".

Quite the opposite, I'm going to give a very clear answer: the law is meant for all people, not for a very narrow minority.
Let's make an example about abortion: do you think that could exist cases where a woman is forced by her partner to have an abortion?
I think it happens, relatively few times, but it really happens.
Should we ban abortion on such grounds?
No, because, clearly, the overwhelmingly majority of women benefits from having reproductive rights.
That's why, at the opposite, surrogate "motherhood" (quotation marks because it's buying her child, not "motherhood") must be banned, because it benefits very few women and its legalization would hurt the overwhelmingly majority of women.
I hope it's clear.

I'm still waiting on the clarity.

[Galloism]

Quite the opposite, I'm going to give a very clear answer: the law is meant for all people, not for a very narrow minority.
Let's make an example about abortion: do you think that could exist cases where a woman is forced by her partner to have an abortion?
I think it happens, relatively few times, but it really happens.
Should we ban abortion on such grounds?
No, because, clearly, the overwhelmingly majority of women benefits from having reproductive rights.
That's why, at the opposite, surrogate "motherhood" (quotation marks because it's buying her child, not "motherhood") must be banned, because it benefits very few women and its legalization would hurt the overwhelmingly majority of women.
I hope it's clear.

How does it hurt any woman if the surrogacy is done without payment?

I'm not sure how it hurts a woman when surrogacy is done with payment.

Unless work is dangerous so we're going to outlaw work.

[Chestaan]

How does it hurt any woman if the surrogacy is done without payment?

I'm not sure how it hurts a woman when surrogacy is done with payment.

Unless work is dangerous so we're going to outlaw work.

Well I can sort of see the argument that poor women are going to feel forced into it, similar to how it is undesirable to have women become prostitutes because they feel they have no other choice.

[Galloism]

I'm not sure how it hurts a woman when surrogacy is done with payment.

Unless work is dangerous so we're going to outlaw work.

Well I can sort of see the argument that poor women are going to feel forced into it, similar to how it is undesirable to have women become prostitutes because they feel they have no other choice.

I mean, by that definition, we should ban logging, mining, garbage collecting, fishing, constructions, farming, truck driving, steel working, powerline construction/maintenance, and taxi driving.

Those are the most dangerous professions in America and, interestingly enough, are occupied almost entirely by men who happen to be poor.

(this also explains why 94% of workplace deaths are men)

[Finswedeway]

Hi, I'm new here. I like surrounding myself with opposing opinions just so I can stay informed (I have problems). Tumblr wasn't very receptive s here I am. I have mixed views on feminism. I would call myself a feminist, but I don't like labels in general.

This is the part where I say some stuff about me, but I'd prefer your first impressions be determined by what I sayelsewhere, not here. But if you really want just a HUGE generalisation, I'm a centrist.
Normally, I RP. So this is a big change for me.

[Chestaan]

Well I can sort of see the argument that poor women are going to feel forced into it, similar to how it is undesirable to have women become prostitutes because they feel they have no other choice.

I mean, by that definition, we should ban logging, mining, garbage collecting, fishing, constructions, farming, truck driving, steel working, powerline construction/maintenance, and taxi driving.

Those are the most dangerous professions in America and, interestingly enough, are occupied almost entirely by men who happen to be poor.

(this also explains why 94% of workplace deaths are men)

Well its pretty horrible that people have to risk death in order to earn a living, and I think such economic conditions need to be challenged. However, in general, I'm not opposed to the legalisation of prostitution, because the reality is that its going to happen anyway and making it illegal just means the work quality will be particularly low. I was more trying to counter Chess' point that the surrogate mothers were being bought.

In any case, I think its safe to say that the real reason behind Chess' opposition to surrogacy is because it has the potential to benefit men and allow men to have kids into a home where no mother is present.

[Lady Scylla]

Hi, I'm new here. I like surrounding myself with opposing opinions just so I can stay informed (I have problems). Tumblr wasn't very receptive s here I am. I have mixed views on feminism. I would call myself a feminist, but I don't like labels in general.

This is the part where I say some stuff about me, but I'd prefer your first impressions be determined by what I sayelsewhere, not here. But if you really want just a HUGE generalisation, I'm a centrist.
Normally, I RP. So this is a big change for me.

Just make sure to familiarize yourself with the rules

[Lady Scylla]

I mean, by that definition, we should ban logging, mining, garbage collecting, fishing, constructions, farming, truck driving, steel working, powerline construction/maintenance, and taxi driving.

Those are the most dangerous professions in America and, interestingly enough, are occupied almost entirely by men who happen to be poor.

(this also explains why 94% of workplace deaths are men)

Well its pretty horrible that people have to risk death in order to earn a living, and I think such economic conditions need to be challenged. However, in general, I'm not opposed to the legalisation of prostitution, because the reality is that its going to happen anyway and making it illegal just means the work quality will be particularly low. I was more trying to counter Chess' point that the surrogate mothers were being bought.

In any case, I think its safe to say that the real reason behind Chess' opposition to surrogacy is because it has the potential to benefit men and allow men to have kids into a home where no mother is present.

Really, if some of my friends came up to me and asked if I wouldn't mind being a surrogate because they couldn't conceive, I might consider it -- even without being paid. I'd want to do it through the proper channels though. I have a hard time seeing how that amounts to being pressured or anything like that.

[Chestaan]

Well its pretty horrible that people have to risk death in order to earn a living, and I think such economic conditions need to be challenged. However, in general, I'm not opposed to the legalisation of prostitution, because the reality is that its going to happen anyway and making it illegal just means the work quality will be particularly low. I was more trying to counter Chess' point that the surrogate mothers were being bought.

In any case, I think its safe to say that the real reason behind Chess' opposition to surrogacy is because it has the potential to benefit men and allow men to have kids into a home where no mother is present.

Really, if some of my friends came up to me and asked if I wouldn't mind being a surrogate because they couldn't conceive, I might consider it -- even without being paid. I'd want to do it through the proper channels though. I have a hard time seeing how that amounts to being pressured or anything like that.

And I expect that a lot of women would say the exact same thing. I think the fact that even in these cases Chess opposes it that it cannot be about women's rights.

[Finswedeway]

Hi, I'm new here. I like surrounding myself with opposing opinions just so I can stay informed (I have problems). Tumblr wasn't very receptive s here I am. I have mixed views on feminism. I would call myself a feminist, but I don't like labels in general.

This is the part where I say some stuff about me, but I'd prefer your first impressions be determined by what I sayelsewhere, not here. But if you really want just a HUGE generalisation, I'm a centrist.
Normally, I RP. So this is a big change for me.

Just make sure to familiarize yourself with the rules

Okay, Im not THAT new here

[Galloism]

In any case, I think its safe to say that the real reason behind Chess' opposition to surrogacy is because it has the potential to benefit men and allow men to have kids into a home where no mother is present.

Bingo.

[Galloism]

Well its pretty horrible that people have to risk death in order to earn a living, and I think such economic conditions need to be challenged. However, in general, I'm not opposed to the legalisation of prostitution, because the reality is that its going to happen anyway and making it illegal just means the work quality will be particularly low. I was more trying to counter Chess' point that the surrogate mothers were being bought.

In any case, I think its safe to say that the real reason behind Chess' opposition to surrogacy is because it has the potential to benefit men and allow men to have kids into a home where no mother is present.

Really, if some of my friends came up to me and asked if I wouldn't mind being a surrogate because they couldn't conceive, I might consider it -- even without being paid. I'd want to do it through the proper channels though. I have a hard time seeing how that amounts to being pressured or anything like that.

Stop oppressing yourself.

[Lady Scylla]

Really, if some of my friends came up to me and asked if I wouldn't mind being a surrogate because they couldn't conceive, I might consider it -- even without being paid. I'd want to do it through the proper channels though. I have a hard time seeing how that amounts to being pressured or anything like that.

And I expect that a lot of women would say the exact same thing. I think the fact that even in these cases Chess opposes it that it cannot be about women's rights.

That's been well established for some time. The fact Sweden supposedly goes along with this crap makes me not want to visit that country, and has negatively affected how I view them.

[Lady Scylla]

Just make sure to familiarize yourself with the rules

Okay, Im not THAT new here

Didn't look at the founding date. Mah bad.

[Costa Fierro]

Let's make an example about abortion: do you think that could exist cases where a woman is forced by her partner to have an abortion?
I think it happens, relatively few times, but it really happens.
Should we ban abortion on such grounds?
No, because, clearly, the overwhelmingly majority of women benefits from having reproductive rights.
That's why, at the opposite, surrogate "motherhood" (quotation marks because it's buying her child, not "motherhood") must be banned, because it benefits very few women and its legalization would hurt the overwhelmingly majority of women.
I hope it's clear.

It's clear that radical feminism clearly doesn't have a damn clue about "reproductive rights" or give two shits about the agency of women. If an abortion is a woman's choice, then the decision to have a baby for another couple, for financial gain or not, is a woman's choice. That's it.

Considering that abortions also benefit a few women, that argument doesn't fit because not all women are going to be surrogates and not all women are going to have abortions. And once again, as of yet, radical feminists (unsurprisingly), have not provided a rational argument as to why surrogacy should be banned. "Because it would hurt women" is not an argument, it is an emotive statement. And as someone as dead inside as I am, it's not a particularly good statement to make.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm suspicious of surrogacy and think it should only be allowed in states which are putting grants toward artificial womb development.
Not as a statement on individuals, but as a consequence of their charity on society.

Suspicion of food banks under right-wing governments is a similar feeling.

[Finswedeway]

I'm certain you've already talked about this several times over, but I want to make a point about the wage gap.

It isn't "fake" as many suggest. But it isnt accurate to say that if a man and a woman had the same job, worked the same hours, had the same education, and experience would make different amounts of money (it's guaranteed by law, you think a male/female colleague is making more simply because gender? Take it to court). It's simply that, overall, women choose lower-paying jobs to men. Why? Idk. But they do.

Look at me, I want to be a teacher, when I graduate. Teachers make crap money, but I still want to be one.

What do you think?

[Giovenith]

I'm certain you've already talked about this several times over, but I want to make a point about the wage gap.

It isn't "fake" as many suggest. But it isnt accurate to say that if a man and a woman had the same job, worked the same hours, had the same education, and experience would make different amounts of money (it's guaranteed by law, you think a male/female colleague is making more simply because gender? Take it to court). It's simply that, overall, women choose lower-paying jobs to men. Why? Idk. But they do.

Look at me, I want to be a teacher, when I graduate. Teachers make crap money, but I still want to be one.

What do you think?

No, I would not automatically assume that. There are tons of more variables at play than just the ones you've listed. One could, for example, simply be a better worker: maybe one of them takes on extra projects, or helps out around the office, or volunteers to do more difficult tasks. One may be more open about asking for raises. There are so many little day-to-day factors that can go into this issue. Let me paint an example.

Sam and Ally are both professional ballet dancers. They went to the same school, have the same experience, and are working together on the same show and thus have the same hours. Hell, they're even both the stars of the show, making their roles of equal importance. Sam, however, is making significantly more money than Ally. DISCRIMINATION! Right?

It may seem that way until you consider that the number of professional male ballerinas is extremely low compared to professional females. Putting aside the whole debacle of this being because ballet isn't considered manly, the facts as they are are that male ballerinas will be in much, much higher demand than females when putting on shows that require male roles. A male ballerina will have many productions fighting over him because his kind is so rare but so necessary, so of course they're going to try to fish him in with high payments. On the other hand, there are plenty of female ballerinas all probably vying for the same jobs, so the dancers can't exactly afford to be picky.

So in such a case, while Sam technically would be getting paid more because he's male, it's not as simple as the ballet industry thinking "male = better," and anyone proposing that would be blatantly ignoring reality. It's not favoritism of gender at play, it's the consequence of a disparity in the workforce. Yes, we can ultimately trace it back to sexism in the lack of men becoming ballerinas, but in the simple, isolated question of "Why is this man getting paid more despite working the same as his female counterparts?" no, it isn't a case of "men deserve more because men are intrinsically worth more as human beings" like the kind we're primarily concerned with in the question of the wage gap.