Sexism = Sexism

[Slytovhand]

It depends on what you do with the information. Do you say "men in general have trait X... okay..." or do you say "men are better at X so we won't allow women to do anything that involves X?" Because that's what's been done historically, and that's what many people and cultures still advocate.

No no... only the first.

I'm more a humanist (actually... spiritist - the body doesn't actually matter to me - it's the spirit that runs it that's important).

So...what you can do.. you can do! If you can't.. well... you can learn if you want.. or not....


And I've done one of those 'masculine/feminine thinking' tests... I'm always somewhere in the middle.

Slyt

[blas87]

I can read a map just as good as a man. My dad works for a trucking company and travels all over Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota every day. Name a highway in Wisconsin and I can tell you where it is. When I give directions, I use highways and street names, I only use landmarks if it's really difficult to describe.

[aniwahya]

The problem I have with the argument that the strongest woman will never be as strong as the strongest man, is that it is irrelevant. As long as someone is strong enough to do the job, then what difference does it make that they have a male coworker who out bench presses them?

Sexism is subtle, pernicious and subversive. People get so hung up on differences that the concept of men and women working together gets lost along the way. Even with jobs like fire fighting where it is argued that "men" have the clear advantage, there are things that women add to a fire fighting team that make it stronger, not weaker.
Hell even working on cars, I have a small bone structure, notably I have very small hands. When doing some wiring on a cousin's car he found me to be extremely helpful. My smaller. weaker frame allowed me to work in spaces that he would have had to pull panels off to do.

I feel that a great many people fall into sexist lines of thought through not only ignorance, but laziness. If you think of the human race in terms of pack structure there always has to be an Alpha and an Omega. Sexist people (both men and women) feel safer when they have a sense of control. Women demanding true equality scares them because it takes away their perceived control. Abusive men (and women) in relationships have very specific means of taking control. Money, isolation, intimidation and dehumanization are very common tactics, in both abuse and sexism.

In recent years I think money is becoming less of an issue, but I remember starting working and making $0.70 for every $1.00 my male coworkers made. I remember being told it was fair because women aren't "head of the household".
Isolation is another big thing, and sadly women do it to themselves as much as men do it to them. There is a thing with guys I've noticed, that they have a concept of "team play" that a lot of women don;t get. I hypothesize that it has to do with more men being involved in team sports (even on a less competitive level) and learning how to out the team first and individuals second. Guys work together better than women work with each other in the workplace. This gives men the clear advantage, though as I said women do this to themselves. I bring this up just to point out something that women often deal with in the workplace.
Intimidation is a big one. The very first thing guys do when they aren't getting their way is to pull the "I'm bigger than you, therefore you should just go along with me lest I hurt you". In every job I have ever had, I have had at least one physical altercation in which, because a man didn't feel I was submissive enough, decided to "put the fear of god" into me so to speak. There is a great deal of intimidation via body language as well. A guy doesn't have to say "i am going to hit you" , just getting in someone's face aggressively crosses the line, especially if they are brandishing a weapon. I'm sure its all harmless though, I mean, boys will be boys, right?

Dehumanization is the most harmful of the four, if you ask me. It is when instead of referring to a female boss as "boss" or "name" they are referred to as "that bitch" or "ball buster". Reducing women to sex objects with graphic physical discussion of their attributes in an uninvited manner makes it easier to see women as less than human, which makes it easier to justify doing things that men otherwise wouldn't consider doing to another person. There is a great deal of peer pressure amongst men with this one. I mean, it's just harmless fun, guys do it all the time. dad did it, grandpa did it, what's the big deal? Women must just be too sensitive, that's all. Or if guys are joking around, a guy who stands up and actually points out that talking about women as meat with sexual orifices is then oftentimes that guy is ostracized. It is never easy to be the first/only person to stand up and do the right thing.

Please note that this is my perspective as a young female. Oh, being young seems to make you more of a target because then they feel that you won't know any better. Women can and are just as guilty as all of these things, Special consideration is not the answer, in my opinion. I don't want restitution for the things in the past, that's over with. What I do want is to be taken seriously and judged on my own merits. I may not be stronger than all of the men I work with (although since I have the build of a German peasant and I have worked out religiously since I was 14 I am quite strong, despite having a small bone structure.) but as long as I am strong enough to do my job, then what does that matter?

[Slytovhand]

The problem I have with the argument that the strongest woman will never be as strong as the strongest man, is that it is irrelevant. As long as someone is strong enough to do the job, then what difference does it make that they have a male coworker who out bench presses them?

Yes... and no.

While it is actually irrelevant, I totally agree. But there will be times where those differences (in this case, physical) are a determining factor...and in those cases, I don't see it as a form of 'sexism', but of 'practicality'. (presuming, of course, that if a male isn't able to do the required tasks either, then they don't get the job either!)

Btw... it's not a form of sexism to want to feel in control of a situation... it is a very human trait in any place... and probably for all other animals as well.

But I'm thinking the rest of what you have raised will get the stamp of approval from the Fratching crowd

Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

like the article I posted in the thread on rights of criminals----the 13 year-old girl who is free to entrap further males by claiming to be 19 and divorced when she's only 13----the very sexist law sees her as the "victim" of the evil males who slept with her, not them as a victim of her misrepresenting her age(with her parents knowledge), to get what she wanted. That is extremely sexist.

[Slytovhand]

Really BK?? I saw it more as 'ageist' rather than sexist.

And just goes to show how stupid the law can be...but then, that's an example of why you get carded when you're 30 for cigarettes!

(and what's a 13 year old girl doing being divorced???)*

Slyt





(*...yes - a poor attempt at humour....)

[BlaqueKatt]

Really BK?? I saw it more as 'ageist' rather than sexist.

It is sexist because, the male teachers that have sex with younger female students get jail time, while the females usually serve no time whatsoever. Also the fact that her prior deception is not allowed in trial, and she is not forced to change her myspace page,(which is how she finds her victims) while any male "predator" gets their computer seized and is usually ordered to not have any access to a computer or internet for x amount of years. This "child" quite obviously fits the definition of a sexual predator-but because she is female there are zero consequences for her actions-if she committed murder she would possibly be tried as an adult-but because she is entrapping men to prosecute them for "rape"---she's just a child, she doesn't know any better---and due to having no consequences to her actions-I highly doubt this will be the last we hear of her.


Quite simply-reverse the situation-13 year old boy lieing to have sex with a 20 year old woman-do you think the woman would be charged? Do you think the male would go running to the police when the woman broke up with him after discovering his real age(that's what happened with the first male-he broke up with her after finding out her age-she ran to the cops out of revenge)



Also we could add in that when a female claims rape-the male is automatically assumed guilty-merely on the females word,(duke LaCrosse team anyone?)-and if her story is proven to be false the female is NEVER charged with obstruction of justice or filing a false police report---because it may keep others from coming forward. Even if a woman has a history of false allegations of rape, every one of her victims has to defend themselves and put their lives back together. That is sexist.

A very close friend of mine is going through this right now-there are two accusers-one was 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday, she has put all 10 of her ex-boyfriends in jail for "statutory rape"(she files charges when they break up with her, and she always dates guys over 18-and lied about her own age-she has a fake ID), the second accuser has changed her story 4 times*. My friend has two STDs(both untreatable-neither "victim" has either one-and they both claim he didn't use a condom, they are also claiming this happend 3 years ago----BUT HE IS STILL BEING PROSECUTED!!! The arresting officer has said (this was printed in 4 different area newspapers)"the community is safer with men like him off the streets"----he has not been tried yet-he has not even been arrainged--but the police and community are already acting as though he has been found guilty. My friend is facing 40 years in prison because of these girls' lies. You would think that the history of the one, and the obvious lies of the other(changing story=lying)would make them totally uncredible witnesses-but the state is proceeding with ABSOLUTLETLY NO EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE-His lawyer is trying to get him to pleabargin due to the news reports comletely tainting the jury pool. And once he is proven innocent-nothing will be done to his accusers, but his life is still ruined.

Presumed innocent unless you're a male accused of rape.


*first story-only touching of breasts
Second story-over 200 vaginal penetration rapes-without a condom
third story-only 50 rapes with vaginal penetration-without a condom-GYN exam showed intact hymen--which necessitated changing to...
fourth story-20 occurances of forced oral sex without a condom

[aniwahya]

The women BK brought up are exactly the reason us girls out to have our own type of SWAT-like team in order to weed out the,er, impurities.
A little genetic cleansing shall we say. >.>

Unfortunately when it comes to "sex crimes", the law is almost always sexist. Either it's the good 'ole boys club, or because they want to appear non-sexist, they do everything short of executing guys based on accusations alone. Short of secretly (and illegally depending on where yu live) videotaping all of your interactions with someone, it can be very hard to find things that sufficiently prove your innocence to an overzealous prosecutor. Sort of off topic, but BK has your friend contacted male defense organizations? I know there are organizations that advocate for male rights against things like false accusations and media crucification. Which men truly need, unfortunately when a pendulum has been swinging too far one way, you release it and then it goes too far the other way.

[Slytovhand]

It is sexist because, the male teachers that have sex with younger female students get jail time, while the females usually serve no time whatsoever. Also the fact that her prior deception is not allowed in trial, and she is not forced to change her myspace page,(which is how she finds her victims) while any male "predator" gets their computer seized and is usually ordered to not have any access to a computer or internet for x amount of years. This "child" quite obviously fits the definition of a sexual predator-but because she is female there are zero consequences for her actions-if she committed murder she would possibly be tried as an adult-but because she is entrapping men to prosecute them for "rape"---she's just a child, she doesn't know any better---and due to having no consequences to her actions-I highly doubt this will be the last we hear of her.

Hmmm - dunno.

Obviously, speaking from this part of the planet... there have been a couple of incidents recently of female teachers getting involved with underage males, and going to jail for it (yes... admittedly for less than a male involving with a female underage student). But 'consent' has been a part of it as well...and 'remorse' or at least acknowledgement that it was wrong...

As for the not allowing her past come into things, and also not touching the myspace page... again, a) the law is stupid, and b) I'd still say it's the age as the prominent point. If it was a 13 year old boy, I don't (perhaps in my naivete) think it would go much different - other than less time for the 'criminal'. But there does seem to be a difference in the definition of 'rape', as used in 'statutory rape'...(is there really a difference? Is that a sexist issue in itself?)

If the predator in question was a 13 yo male entrapping 20yo females, would they take away his computer? Would they poll his myspace page?

BTW - I'm only debating that specific example.. I do agree that when it comes to sex crimes, males are always going to lose out (even if the victim happens to be male!)


Slyt