My name's Jamie. Here's a quote that I like: “The first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is curiosity.” -Edmund Burke
- Women can do everything men can do.
- Men can do everything women can do.
- Women are not a special interest group.
- Women should not be given any special privileges men don’t get.
- Men should not be given any special privileges women don’t get.
- Women have every opportunity in society men do.
- Men have every opportunity in society women do.
- Women deal with being called sluts sometimes.
- Men deal with being called creeps sometimes.
- Women stop fighting men about “male privilege.”
- Men stop fighting women about “female privilege.”
- We all stop talking about gender inequality
Professor : Of all of the women in here, how many of you believe that you have the opportunity to go into any field that you want?
Student : I think its an issue that women are still being paid a fraction of what men are being paid. I have a problem with not seeing women as business majors, business owners and economists
Me : Umm, maybe YOU don't, but not only am I a business major, but many of the women in my family are in high paying corporate positions.
Professor : After years of working at NBC, ABC and other major networks, I can tell you that you're right -- but to a certain extent. The current owner of NBC is female and most journalists running my industry are women. In the entertainment industry especially.
Student : While that might be true, there's obviously still a glass ceiling that prevents them from going further.
Professor : I completely agree with you, especially on Wall Street. But that, "Old Boys Club," - idea mostly affects Wall Street. I can tell you that 90% of the stock traders on Wall Street are all men and some of them being my friends has allowed me to see that a woman wanting to do something as simple as eat lunch with them causes them to change their entire demeanor. But despite that, know that women HAVE taken many strides through out history, especially now.
Student : Well if that's the case, its blatantly obvious that women are being prevented from getting into high paying positions.
Professor : No, that isn't true. In fact, many businesses aren't prejudiced towards women that want to work for them. You also should realize that its very difficult for women to maintain a high paying job once they've become mothers. I've had many female friends in corporate positions that HAVE managed to balance the two, my wife being one of them, but it was definitely a struggle for them. Men are not as likely to be given paternal leave at nearly the same rate as women are given maternal leave. In some areas, women are even able to breastfeed at the office in order to merge the two together. But generally speaking, some of the disparity in wages between men and women is due to women deciding to spend more time with their children.
Professor : You need to understand that like many things, its a choice.
Feminist misconception: It implies that men are the default and women are an alternative!
Feminist alternative: Womyn
Why it’s bullshit: The word originates from archaic English where “man” referred solely to “human being”, males being “wer-man” and females being “wif-man”. That word eventually morphed into “woman” (wifman -> wimman -> woman; in pronunciation it even retains its older form). Therefore not only is it linguistically incorrect, it also erases the meaning of humanity from the term.
Feminist misconception: It has “his” in it; those three letters MUST refer to men and imply that only men’s history matters!
Feminist alternative: Herstory
Why it’s bullshit: History is the English form of the archaic French word “estoire” meaning “chronicle”, converted to English spelling by its pronunciation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the English male pronoun “his”, and is in fact perfectly gender-inclusive.
Voila! Armed with this brand new knowledge, you too can stop butchering the English language!
So idk if you guys heard about that cop who raped a woman while he was “drunk’ and “off duty”
- First of all the nypd has this record of protecting their “people” so i already don’t trust those two verdicts. How did they know he was drunk..maybe because he told them and he was probably trying to make his crime less horrible(if that is even possible), and off duty….? I don’t believe that shit one bit.
- Second of all while i was reading the New York Post, they had an article about it. And at the end of the article(and im not fucking with you either, i have the article rite next to me) it said ” Pena(the cop) was charged with rape and criminal sexual act. The NYPD suspended him without pay”
- “SUSPENDED” how can this criminal(he committed a criminal act) be only SUSPENDED. Shouldn’t he be kicked the fuck out. And he was charged so it wasn’t like they were under investigation. And without pay, like it makes this shit right.
This post just talks about the way the POLICE DEPARTMENT is corrupt, and how women’s justices is still not taken seriously. Any criminal act done by a police officer should be punished worse, than a criminal act done by civilian. Police officers are sworn to protect. And people are suppose to/or do trust them. And this is disgusting and i hope people read this and makes them aware. Feminists ( i hope) are already aware of the injustice women are done everyday, but this is injustice by law which is worse.
So, the appropriate thing to do when a woman makes a claim of rape is to fire the guy, regardless of any investigation? Smooth. There are actually a surprising number of false claims made against police officers, because the alleged victim often has a clear motive. (In fact, the advent of the dash cam on police cruisers really brought this to light, as it was used in many cases to prove that no interference had occurred. The number of claims disproved this way was….considerable. There’s no reason to believe that there are fewer in other situations.)
If this man is convicted, he should certainly be fired. However, if he is found “not guilty” there is no way in hell he should lose his job over an accusation that was at best unprovable and at worst fabricated to attack him. All you want is the typical misandrist bullshit: Fuck due process, accused is as bad as guilty. Because women never lie, right?
… that I am not as vicious as I once was. I’ve been reading these tumblr posts on misogyny and patriarchy, on anti-choice women and rape-apologists, and I realized: Five years ago, that would have been me berating these people who, although they differ so greatly from my own, have formed their own opinions based on the information they have been given in their lifetime. I would have been the loudest, more sardonic replier to their posts of “I’m a pro-lifer but that doesn’t mean I don’t support women!”
But here’s the thing: I have grown and learned since my rabid fanaticism of college that people are inherently more responsive to calm rationality than they are to verbal attacks. When this anti-choice person posts about supporting anti-choice legislation but “supporting” women, THEY TRULY BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE. Belitting them, talking down to them, callously calling them out does nothing but ingrain this belief in them, and feed the fire of hatred they have toward all who disagree with their view.
Now, you are free to disagree with me, which, in large part, is the foundation of this post. You are free to turn on me with those same sarcastic, angry words and tell me I must not be a feminist or a humanist, that I am using ablist language and feeding the right-wing propaganda because I refuse to continue cruelly criticizing people JUST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW ANY BETTER.
Now this next part may sound patronizing (which is something I admit am still guilty of from time to time), but I view the Pro-Life, Tea Party, Heteronormative people in this world as children. Children who, when they turn on the T.V., open a magazine, hear their religious officients speak, or reflect on the teachings of their parents, are bombarded with the notions we so adamantly work to disprove. And, as with any child, do we punish with coarse words and screaming tones their lack of overall knowledge? When a child comes to us and says “the sky is blue because it’s filled with millions of tiny bluebirds,” do we immediately cast them off as less-than, moronic, invalid? NO. We educate them.
We educate our children to see the world through different eyes, expanding their minds and giving them the opportunities for a well-rounded life. Why is it different with our brothers and sisters who have strayed from humanity and turned to bigotry and violent phobias in their stead? Should we not use compassion, EDUCATION even, to attempt to bridge the gap between us and their ignorance and intolerance? And if we do not, are we really any better than the anti-choice protesters hurling eggs and screaming “baby killer” at every Planned Parenthood across America?
I will leave you with this small story of the first time I realized we must take the “higher road” if we are to rise above the hate in this world:
When I was in college at a small public university in the border state of Arizona, during a time in which the issue of illegal immigration was very prominent (it still is), the Young Republicans Club assembled a giant wall made of cardboard boxes in front of our Student Union. On each box, there were “facts” written about how “awful” illegal immigrants were, how many jobs and much social security they were siphoning away from hardworking American families, and why we should BUILD A WALL between Mexico and Arizona to deter them from entering. Multiple student organizations, including MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán), the Young Dems, the Associated Students for Women’s Issues, the Queer Student Union, the Jewish Student Union, and the Black Student Union came to counter-protest against this blatant racism and these bold-faced lies.
It became loud and hostile very quickly in this environment. At the time, I was on the forefront, screaming louder than anyone else, shaking my sign like a fist at those who would dare spread such fearmongering hatred. It took me some time to step back and observe the situation from a distance. It was at this point that I realized no one was getting anywhere with this tactic. In fact, we were both so entrenched in our own political mindsets that the act of protesting one another was creating a larger rift between us.
I decided to approach one of the Young Republican protesters, holding a sign that said “Immigrants, Go Home!” I was calm in my demeanor, and took no aggressive steps toward him. I quietly asked him if he could explain to me the reasoning behind his sign. He looked at me, startled and speechless, as if no one had ever asked him point-blank about his views before. He could not answer. He became angry with me then, and reverted quickly to a child-like state. I began to inform him that my father, a retired professor from the very institution where we stood against one another that day, is an immigrant, albeit from a European country, and tried to ask him why my father’s career as an educator was not “stealing jobs and social security” from American families, but a Mexican man’s career of the same ilk would.
This boy (I don’t use ‘man’ because he was not acting as such) physically shoved me back, dropped his sign, and put his hands over his ears. When I regained my balance and opened my mouth to speak, he screamed at the top of his lungs “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” and ran behind the cardboard-constructed wall, out of my sight and protected by a line of his fellow protesters.
And so I ask you: are we, screaming over the opposing side, shouting our views over theirs, berating, belittling, begrudging, any better than this boy who, when confronted about his own beliefs, could not answer? Are we not better off trying to rationally, objectively explain our thoughts, our beliefs, and our cause to children who know nothing but bigotry, hatred, and anger?
To quote Ayn Rand, “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.” I like the way you think, but how do you deal with people who absolutely refuse to entertain any other opinion than their own? They counter reason with emotion, logic with religion. They’ve abdicated their own ability to think, and defend that abdication with tooth and nail.
While I agree that reason is far better than simply screaming, reason is tiring. I spend huge amounts of time reasoning against people who wouldn’t understand logic and rational thought if it was dropped on them from a very great height. I spend this time, energy, thought, and it’s met and dismissed with thirty seconds of screaming. At some point I have to ask myself, “why do I bother?” Why spend all this time to do it “right” when you’re arguing against the intellectual equivalent of a donkey? It’s like arguing against a brick wall.
Argument only functions when dealing with people who consider reason. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and believe that they are in fact behaving in a reasoned fashion. I’m wrong about that all too often.
Take your example, for instance. You applied reason, and what did this person do? He covered his ears and ran away screaming. Do you think you changed his views? Do you think you “won” from his perspective? Sure, it’s a moral victory in that you know you’re right, but moral victories are worthless when it comes to generating change. People like him, and all people who behave in such a manner do not function according to reason, and one has to wonder how useful it is to approach them in such a way.
Huh. I agree with the OP, yet I also agree with permutationofninjas. In my opinion, people with uneducated opinions can rarely be guided to a higher understanding, they have to want to know the truth first. Only when one desires knowledge of the truth do they drop their prejudice and listen to the arguments of others. (This goes for educated people as well.)
Professor Roy F. Baumeister gave this interesting talk way back in 2007. Prof. Baumeister mentions Larry Summer and his comments about the Lack of female Physics Professors at Harvard:
Stereotypes at Harvard
I said that today most people hold more favorable stereotypes of women than men. It was not always thus. Up until about the 1960s, psychology (like society) tended to see men as the norm and women as the slightly inferior version. During the 1970s, there was a brief period of saying there were no real differences, just stereotypes. Only since about 1980 has the dominant view been that women are better and men are the inferior version.
The surprising thing to me is that it took little more than a decade to go from one view to its opposite, that is, from thinking men are better than women to thinking women are better than men. How is this possible?
I’m sure you’re expecting me to talk about Larry Summers at some point, so let’s get it over with! You recall, he was the president of Harvard. As summarized in The Economist, “Mr Summers infuriated the feminist establishment by wondering out loud whether the prejudice alone could explain the shortage of women at the top of science.” After initially saying, it’s possible that maybe there aren’t as many women physics professors at Harvard because there aren’t as many women as men with that high innate ability, just one possible explanation among others, he had to apologize, retract, promise huge sums of money, and not long afterward he resigned.
What was his crime? Nobody accused him of actually discriminating against women. His misdeed was to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought, namely that there might be more men with high ability. The only permissible explanation for the lack of top women scientists is patriarchy — that men are conspiring to keep women down. It can’t be ability. Actually, there is some evidence that men on average are a little better at math, but let’s assume Summers was talking about general intelligence. People can point to plenty of data that the average IQ of adult men is about the same as the average for women. So to suggest that men are smarter than women is wrong. No wonder some women were offended.
But that’s not what he said. He said there were more men at the top levels of ability. That could still be true despite the average being the same — if there are also more men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women. During the controversy about his remarks, I didn’t see anybody raise this question, but the data are there, indeed abundant, and they are indisputable. There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.
All those retarded boys are not the handiwork of patriarchy. Men are not conspiring together to make each other’s sons mentally retarded.
Almost certainly, it is something biological and genetic. And my guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.
Again, there is a reason for this, to which I shall return.
For now, the point is that it explains how we can have opposite stereotypes. Men go to extremes more than women. Stereotypes are sustained by confirmation bias. Want to think men are better than women? Then look at the top, the heroes, the inventors, the philanthropists, and so on. Want to think women are better than men? Then look at the bottom, the criminals, the junkies, the losers.
In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.
Continue reading here.
I honest to God don’t know how I feel about this right now. On one hand, this could very easily be exploited to justify a glass ceiling, but on the other hand I personally don’t like sweeping empirical evidence under the carpet. The intelligence quotient is not the end-all-be-all test, either. Generally, I find men thrive within the terms of academic intelligence while women thrive within emotional intelligence (something which is sadly underemphasized in current society.)
As for the professor, that’s not thought policing. That’s saying something in a public sphere and suffering from a backlash. It would have been better to challenge him rather than crucify him, in my opinion, but it’s easy to say that afterwards. There are also theories floating around that the “hard sciences” or science in general were created by men for men, and since women don’t think the same as they do, it’s inherently sexist.
In my experience, men and women’s strengths are complimentary. Both sexes have their advantages and disadvantages, but that doesn’t make one superior over the other. So while I don’t agree with everything in the OP, I do agree that men shouldn’t be exploited under the guise of Feminism, which is supposed to stand for inclusivity and freedom.
FFF, I’m actually really glad to have seen this thing come up. I’ve been wondering when I’d see it here, and it really is quite important. The key with this kind of research is that it should never be used to justify keeping women out. However, the point of it is to say “50/50 is not going to happen, and this is not inherently sexism or discrimination, it’s just biology.” We’re not going to see women as 50% of executives, or even 40%, because beyond even the raw intelligence figures at that level there’s also a pattern of choices made by women that favor low-risk, low-reward over high-risk, high-reward. (While many of the choices women make are culturally influenced, most research shows that even in a relative vacuum women will tend to balance work/life more and are less willing to make sacrifices for their careers.)
“There are also theories floating around that the “hard sciences” or science in general were created by men for men, and since women don’t think the same as they do, it’s inherently sexist.”
I do have a bit of a problem with this. I’ve seen this a couple times, and never any kind of even remotely scholarly evidence or citation to go with it. I’d really like to see a citation, because this really does look a little fishy to me. We use science because it’s proven (despite trying many other things) to be the only method that yields reliable data and then parses it to provide meaningful descriptions and observations of the physical universe. It seems to me that if science is sexist, than the universe is sexist and I really don’t think that makes sense.
I personally think that the reaction to the professor was absolutely unacceptable. If I recall correctly, he actually specifically referred to research in that speech. For the scientific establishment, an institution founded on the free debate and exchange of ideas to behave this way is utterly unconscionable. This is not politics, this is not business, this is academia. The entire point is that someone can say something unpopular and let the evidence bear it out. If we didn’t do it that way, we would still think that things fall because….well, that’s just what they do (and that objects of different mass will fall at different speeds), that the earth is flat (yes, long before Columbus and such, but still, we did at one point) and that the stars are painted on the inside of a great bloody glass ball. (Can you tell I’m a bit of an academic?) Basically, I consider that particular event to be a ridiculous perversion of the sanctity of academia. Academia and academics must base their actions and words on evidence, and what happened there was the subordination of evidence to dogma and political correctness. Frankly, it dealt a huge blow to the reliability of academia in general.
Sorry for the rant.
When someone is brave, people say he/she’s got balls. When someone is a coward, people say he/she is a pussy. I just noticed the inherant sexism now. Why aren’t the feminists on this??? Come on people!!!
Well it has to do with the production hormones each respective genitalia generates. Testosterone increases the aggressiveness, “braveness” and overall masculinity of humans. Testicles is where the male human produces testosterone. On average, men produce ten times more testosterone.
I LOVE FRIENDLY SOVIET FOR THIS