Paradigms Of Feminism

you didn't really disprove the boys club "meme"

>"Gender" is merely a social manifestation of the biological differences between sexes
no, that's "sex"

The boys club meme says that men systematically oppress women to prevent them to get in those types of professions.

>Surgery is a boys club because she can't have a family AND make 2 million dollars a year

Yeah, and I can't enjoy jerking off and take a shit at the same time.

Must be hard having to make a choice in your life, and not being able to do absolutely everything.

If anything he implied that it's enforced at least in part from external factors, like a woman's biology and cultural role as caretaker. Though again, it says nothing of internal factors.

I've read a study recently that used a sample size of about 120 students in law and I think biology; which found that men showed a consistent bias towards the work of other men, while women judged their classmates' work much more accurately.

And I'm aware of studies that illustrate a certain bias in test takers, that can be effected by their test giver, and can effect their performance on the test. If these kinds of invisible cues are present and effective in test-taking, how might they play out in a consistent class environment as opposed to a one-time test? It's understandable that many of these fields require a numbness to pressure and stress, but there's no telling how noticeable these effects actually are to a person.

Unfortunately, I can source neither. So take them with a grain of salt. But I invite you to look for yourself if any of you can find/have anything similar.

does it? i thought it just meant that men don't think that women are capable of the kind of commitment or other things it takes to fill these positions

Not him, but if you're an employer, and someone wants a job with a lot of responsibility and work hours, don't be surprised when they pick a man for it, because women will literally fuck one day and be gone from work for several months, even though they claim they don't want children.

didn't say that is untrue. it just doesn't disprove the other thing.

not an expert by any means but from my brief time spent on Tumblr I gathered this:
>most feminists lean towards either "Liberal feminism" or "radical feminism".
>the difference by definition has to do with to what degree society has to be changed for a male-dominated society to dissolve
>The de-facto differences involve shit like weather or not to abolish femininity or elevate it to the status of masculinity.
>Libfems are stupid because they think wearing high heels and compulsively applying makeup while their boyfriend coerces them into trying anal is "Liberation"
>Radfems are stupid because they think acting like anyone who disagrees with them about anything (or is male) warrants exclusion from the movement. They also yell marxist jargon and feminist theory at laypersons and expect them to think they're anything but crazy.
>both are too busy fighting to get anything done and the only thing this "wave" of feminism has managed to accomplish is slightly warp attitudes about consent and slut-shaming in the right direction.

Male feminist sympathizer here. AMA m8.

Do you think a sample size of 120 is a fair and accurate number to make a generalization about the entire population?

It kind of does disprove the other thing, because you're saying something being a boys club means that there is some glass ceiling where women are barred from being part of it, when that's not true at all.

The only form of feminism that is in any way shape or form legitimate, is the form of feminism that gives women the same legal rights as men.

Anything beyond that involves giving women tax money for just having a vagina, and is literally sexist.

The answer to your question about why they follow aspects of gender roles instead of deconstructing it is that you then need something to replace it with. Would you have women dress and behave like men? Then you are just eliminating femininity entirely.

Constructing something new might be an interesting but ultimately titanic endeavour, and to what end? To produce the 'perfect' female gender image?

The best answer to your question is in the idea that women should have agency to behave as they wish, and follow gender roles insofar as they choose to. We are all influenced by the cultural constructions around our identity, and women have as much right to fulfil those they wish as men do. Women should be able to dress as they wish without it being assumed that they are just a subject of male power, and treat as such.

Not really. I found it in a link on a tumblr post that pretty adamantly expressed that this was final and complete proof that millennial men are patriarchal shitheads and the such.

The small sample size, and the fact that it was limited to two areas, was one of the first things I did notice. The people who post that shit usually aren't even critical about the abstract. But it's a good foray into a larger question. And more studies with different, or larger samples can be made to either qualify or disqualify it. It's just kind of unfortunate that our system of incentivizing scientists awards positive, controversial studies like this instead of pushing people to qualify or disqualify existing ones.

Even if that study is correct, and lets assume it is generalizable, so fucking what?

Implicit bias barely means anything anyone, and judging people based on implicit bias is literally thoughtcrime.

The only kind of bias people should care about is explicit if you ask me.

barely means anything anyway*

Can we use our understanding of implicit bias to design environments where people can learn unhindered by it? Can we change the environment instead of policing thoughts?

Apparently we can't, because if you haven't noticed, people are more interested in policing language, and using their ethnicity as a political device, than they are to actually solve problems.

I mean, if you're white, male and straight at a university in America, what do you even imagine happens if you voice even a fleeting opposition to these ideas?

I'm also realizing that I effectively just advocated for safe spaces. I need time to think.

well, we could return to, like, caveman civilization. if there are no high paying jobs women can't be excluded. OP's problem would be solved because there would be no make-up. fuck industrial society, yo.

No, boys' club generally means that women aren't hired women for jobs because they a) want to hang out and socialize with other dudes either consciously or unconsciously, maybe based on stereotypes, or b) the environment of a workplace is stereotypically masculine (crude sex jokes, going to sports events as an outside-the-office way of bonding with your coworkers or meeting with clients) such that women find it difficult to fit in and they either quit or their performance suffers.

For example, my neighboring state recently had a public scandal when it was revealed that several members of the attorney general's office were sharing porn with each other on workplace email accounts. The reaction from some people was "This is a good old boys club, how could any woman advance in such a disgusting locker room environment?" The employees were mostly men, but some women were involved in the exchange of emails, which is why I have an issue with the boys club idea; it assumes, based on stereotypes, that women are repulsed or just not into stereotypical man stuff.

The chidcare/family life issue is separate from the boys club thing, and I think the former contributes to the pay gap in a much more significant way.

>I've read a study recently that used a sample size of about 120 students in law and I think biology; which found that men showed a consistent bias towards the work of other men, while women judged their classmates' work much more accurately.

Without a source it's impossibly to judge the validity of such a study. Where they informed of the gender of the person whose work they were judging? Where they ever told that work was from a gender it wasn't actually from? Where any comparisons made between groups that were informed, groups that were not and groups that were given incorrect information in order to see what effect that had? If the goal is to judge bias then the study has to be conducted in such a way as to tease out that variable from all others.

Not only that, very often it is a sample size of 120 american students.

Psychology knows a great deal about the psyche of an american student, but unfortunately not as much about other groups of people.

colips.org/journals/volume21/21.4.3-objectvsrelationsinal.pdf

That isn't true. There are plenty of feminists who are trying to use the insights of behavior science to create a more just society.

Pic related.

>Women should be able to dress as they wish without it being assumed that they are just a subject of male power, and treat as such.

It's funny you say that in an age where a woman with any kind of pants doesn't get a second glance and yet a man in a skirt would be stared at if not outright harassed, for example.

>a more just society

Just according to whom?

Darwin

This is part of the same problem, though - men, too, should be able to dress as they wish. Men are looked down upon for wearing a skirt for its feminine connotations, they also would be treat as the subject of the abstract "male power".

You got to be trolling.

Why is that funny?

The reason that men would be stared at and harassed is because of misogyny, with the sexist idea being that if a man wears something that is considered "feminine" it's negative men being "feminine" makes them weak or wrong. Yay misogyny.

I won't admit to that, I might get banned.

I would argue that having sample sizes that are set up to confirm the bias that you are looking for are not a good foray into a larger question. If the methods aren't sound it undermines your entire argument and only causes controversy.

First wave?

>Female professions earn less due to lack of class conscience
Not at all, one of the most unionized professions is teaching, and at least here they are the majority of teachers. Guess what? They don't earn that much because they go for stable, low risk (of all kinds), low demand professions.
You will find a lot of female dentists or teachers but you won't find many female oil rig workers or computer engineers.

That's weak, though, because men don't choose when they want to conform to gender norms and when they don't any more than women do. Our preferences when it comes to this are some mix of biology, culture, society and experience. The only way to give a person truly free choice in this area is to destroy the concept of gender norms entirely, which would involve erasing any historical evidence of their existence.

He didn't say they aren't capable, he said they are less likely, and then some people go and blame it on the so called boys club.
Men and women have different trends in behavior that can be seen even in early childhood.

It means a statistical disparity, but is in no way an excuse to have prejudice against women, or even a belief that an individual woman or man can't go against the trend (it's a trend, not a rule).

But men should be able to, as well. It is not right that anyone should be forced to follow gender norms that they don't wish to.

Perhaps you misunderstand me - I'm saying that since you cannot, as you say, totally erase gender, the best possible thing is if everyone can engage with it on their own terms. If you are saying that I preferences are pre-determined, then I think that's true only insofar as society causes us to identify certain basic desires with certain cultural behaviours. Those cultural behaviors can be changed, reconstructed or shifted and people should have the ability to do so themselves without being marginalised.

>forced to follow

I'm really tired of hearing that shit.

We live in a free society. You're not forced to do shit, unless you break the law.

What you're essentially saying is that there shouldn't exist any social or peer pressure in society, which is ridiculous.

Thanks, this is basically what I meant. And agreed, just because women are more likely statistically to prioritize family/childcare than men does not then justify assuming all women are like that. That’s just a prejudice and holds back women who do prioritize their professional lives.

What is the positive effect of being pressured, as a man, to not wear makeup? What is the positive effect of being, as a woman, pressured to wear makeup?

What is the actual purpose of these social pressures?

When I say forced, I mean that you would have a much harder time achieving your personal aims in life if you do certain things - you may also receive harassment or abuse. This may not be "active" force, but it is unnecessary force unless you can answer my first two questions.

(my first two questions are simple examples, others more or less extreme obviously exist).

But if the majority of women act like this, it is a sensible thing to assume. It's not like being extra careful in a black neighborhood is racist.

Basically, the reason we function as a species is the fact that we act socially. There isn't a purpose for many evolutionary shit we do, but it works to create tall these societies we can build on.

Women wear makeup of their own volition, because it makes them feel and be more attractive, which is exactly the same reason men go to the gym to gain muscle.

Furthermore, yes, if you behave in a particular way that is considered eccentric or weird by the rest of society, don't expect society to change for you. That's called narcissism.

Nobody has an obligation to like someone who tattoos their face or has 500 piercings in it.

I think we're saying the same thing, but that you are more optimistic about the potential for true freedom of choice than I am. To me, if society and the environment is redesigned so that people can pick how they want to come to terms with gender norms (which is questionable, given the lack of clarity as to what role genetics play), then they are no more free than they were previously; the environment is still dictating how those choices are presented and made, even if the potential choices may be different.

>You will find a lot of female dentists or teachers but you won't find many female oil rig workers or computer engineers.

Statistically, the rise of women as dentists is new. In 1968, only 1.1% of dental students were women, in 1978 only 16% of first year dental students were women, whereas in 2014 47.7% of dental students were women. In 2004 only 19% of practicing dentists were women. Not sure about a more recent statistic.

The reason for the gender difference in professions isn't just "oh women always pick low risk low demand professions for no reason whatsoever." Women are typically encouraged into those types of professions from the start, while being discouraged from physical professions, scientific professions, academic professions, and so on. Likewise, men are encouraged into physical professions and higher academic professions like engineering, science, doctors, etc, while being discouraged from artistic professions and professions associated with women (nursing, baking, teaching to a certain extent, etc).

For example, take a look at children's books and toys from the 1950s-1960s that relate to 'what you want to be when you grow up' and compare them to today. In the 1950s-60s, it's typically: 'Billy wants to be a fireman! Sally wants to be a teacher!' 'Gary wants to be a doctor! Susie wants to be a nurse! 'whereas today it's not unusual to see children's play costumes marketed towards girls and boys regardless of the profession (Melissa & Doug is good with this) and there's more of an active movement to promote the idea that gender shouldn't matter in your profession. Boys can be nurses, girls can be police officers, and anyone can cook.

>while being discouraged from physical professions, scientific professions, academic professions, and so on

But that isn't true at all, and women are openly encouraged to pursue those fields, and in my country even get quota'd into them.

Stop talking bullshit.

It is of course true that we are a social species, but again why should we roll over and accept elements of our social order without a positive or with a negative effect? We can justify them through appeal to our "nature", but it doesn't wipe away the problem.

Nobody is attacking the right of men or women to wear makeup or go to the gym - what I am saying is why should they be pressured to do so? Or, to take a less marked example, why should women be pressured to look "pretty" if they do not want to, or men to look "manly" if they do not want to?

You say it's narcissism to "expect" society to change, but we are discussing here a social or even philosophical problem. Is it right to have these pressures, and if not, is it right to have a society which permits them?

Nobody says you have to like anyone, but we function professionally or even personally with people who we dislike for whatever reason. The problem is that society specifically engenders discrimination against people dependent on how they look or behave - this may indeed have a cost to society, for example in that potentially talented people, who could contribute to society, will be held back for a triviality of image

>what I am saying is why should they be pressured to do so? Or, to take a less marked example, why should women be pressured to look "pretty" if they do not want to, or men to look "manly" if they do not want to?

But it isn't true that they are. Women and men can do whatever they want, but you are saying it is "force" when someone dislikes your lifestyle.

And I'm saying that's retarded narcissism.

I'm not a stereotypically masculine male either, and I don't work out, or look particularly manly either(I'm blonde), but you're not hearing me whining that the rest of society has to change.

From what sources, though? Just because the government, which people barley listen to in any case, encourages these things doesn't mean much. If young girls are brought up in a culture where the image of the academic, the scientist, the doctor or the worker is male, then they will not consider that profession as much. Furthermore, there is cultures within these professions that hinder female advancement. How would a women be treat if she tried to become a worker on an oil rig, for example? It wouldn't be easy.

I don't think so, it's still a prejudice against the individual.
I wouldn't judge unless I have actual concrete reason to believe something is applicable to an individual.

e.g. just because a lot of politicians are corrupt, it doesn't mean I should treat every politician as if they are (until they give me further reason to).

Mostly because it's too vague for you to have certainty.

I think you have misunderstood me again. You are thinking in personal terms of if you "like" somebody - this is another matter entirely. As I say, do you really "like" everyone in your professional or social group? Probably not, but it is no hindrance to their broader advancement in life (I imagine).

What I am pointing out is that *society* applies force, or "pressure" if you prefer, to specific "abnormal" groupings with which to hinder them. Nobody is demanding that you, yourself, like a man who wears makeup, but that it should instead be expected that you treat them decently as you probably do those in your own life who you personally dislike (particularly in a professional sense).

>But that isn't true at all, and women are openly encouraged to pursue those fields, and in my country even get quota'd into them.

There is a reason they are quota'd into them.

this.

>encourages these things doesn't mean much

Yes, of course. It doesn't mean much, and yet feminists are constantly lobbying the government for them to change society all the time.

>How would a women be treat if she tried to become a worker on an oil rig, for example?

No one knows, not even you, because women don't want to work on oil rigs, and you know that they don't. There's a reason all the whining about "boys clubs" only applies to the most powerful and lucrative professions.

>There is a reason they are quota'd into them.

Yes, and the reason is that feminists and women in general think that all men hate women, and apply that fantasy to reality.

>yet feminists are constantly lobbying the government for them to change society all the time.
>There's a reason all the whining about "boys clubs" only applies to the most powerful and lucrative professions.

>Yes, and the reason is that feminists and women in general think that all men hate women, and apply that fantasy to reality.

Oh! You're a misogynist. Sorry, I thought I was speaking to a normal human being. I'm done responding now, I don't entertain misogynistic piss babies.

Look, I'm not saying social pressure doesn't exist.

But you can't legislate away social pressure. The government can't remove social pressures from society, and the belief that it can is incredibly authoritarian.

>Oh! You're a misogynist. Sorry, I thought I was speaking to a normal human being. I'm done responding now, I don't entertain misogynistic piss babies.

No, I'm not at all.

But why do you think quotas exist, if not for the reason that feminists think men will always choose men over women(i,e because they think hate them and want to marginalize them)?

Stop shitposting.

>i will label you and this will validate me to ignore any arguments you might make

pure ideology

The actions of feminist lobbyists don't have any baring on my point. In any case, as says, the purpose of this lobbying is to have things like quotas which might, in time, change the culture.

You have dodged the oil rig question, but I think we can both agree it would be very difficult for a women in oil rigging. You are right that women probably don't especially desire to work on oil rigs, but if the culture wasn't as it is some women would make the same rational choice men do to do so in certain situations.

It is probably wrong that most "whining" goes towards only wealthy professions - in that it makes it harder for women who may not have in interest in those professions, or who need work like oil rigging to be opened up to give them a starting point

How often do you enjoy being fucked in the ass by bbc?

I'd say that is related to the actual liberation of women into the professional market, but after that happened what else is stopping it?

Culture? Most parents and schools seem to encourage girls to pursue their desires, quite a bit. So do universities, the government, and many associations.
Despite that, the behavior and personality that makes someone become say, a compsci major, seems to be underrepresented on the female pop.

I agree that women are encouraged to take domestic jobs. But, I think their mothers and other women around them are encouraging them to, not men who want to protect their "boys club". I don't have any statistics or evidence to back it up, but it's a gut feeling.
Also, being encouraged to take a certain profession is just a suggestion and if you think women choose jobs because they are suggested to rather than that they want the job, you're assuming women are not adults capable of making their own decisions.
I don't get it, why can't women be happy that they take domestic and nurturing jobs? These fools (men and women!) are doing mental gymnastics to try and rationalize around the statistical fact that women don't do and don't want to do (on average) the same type and level of hard work that men do.

>but if the culture wasn't as it is some women would make the same rational choice men do to do so in certain situations.

Sure, and they do today. It's not like there's zero oil rig working women, it's just that there are few of them, compared to other professions.

The point I'm trying to make is that feminists are more interested in getting women in to positions of power and privilege, than they are to make society more gender-equitable.

This is an extremely materialistic perspective though, as it presumes that social forces are the only means by which people make choices. Social norms do impact all of our choices, but not just ones related to gender. If your purpose for being against the social pressure of gender norms is that it denies people of their choices, then you have to believe there is something else motivating people's choices and that we're not just products of social pressure, right? Furthermore, why aren't you objecting to other social norms, including legal ones, given that they restrict choices too?

>There is a reason
Yeah. Because they don't join those fields.

Trust me, everyone would love if more joined, even the mysogynistic spergs.

The government can engage in legislative action to change the societal structure in a way that is conducive to lessening social pressures, however, as well as pass legislation with which to crack down on professional discrimination which has, in any case, a negative economic effect.

It is also important that the government pass legislation to protect people from physical abuse or harassment, as the government has a duty of care to all its citizens.

why do people on Veeky Forums speak of feminism as a monolith?

All of which it already does.

It's illegal to harass people at work, and it's illegal to pay women less than men and vice versa, and it's illegal to physically abuse people.

I'm pretty sure that this thread suggests otherwise.

How then is the government not just creating new social pressures?

>I don't have any statistics or evidence to back it up, but it's a gut feeling.
>I don't get it, why can't women be happy that they take domestic and nurturing jobs?

Have you perhaps considered that there is a correlation between making society more gender-equitable, and getting women into positions of power? You are going to have a harder time influencing society as an oil rigger than as a politician, academic or CEO, for example.

You may be right, but I would coutner that I am only attacking gender norms as they are the subject of this discussion - I would attack all other forms of social pressure that I see as being unjust, too.

We are all products of social pressure to some extent, that is true - but some forms of social pressure are more harmful or negative than others, and more obviously so, thus I would say we should limit or eliminate these particular pressures.

It is creating new social pressures, but as has been covered in this debate, social pressure is unavoidable in some forms. The point is that the new social pressures which include things like "don't harass", "don't discriminate" are, I would argue, more just and positive than those they are pushing against.

>The point I'm trying to make is that feminists are more interested in getting women in to positions of power and privilege, than they are to make society more gender-equitable.

That's a really stupid point, though. Feminists are interested in eliminating gender bias, which applies to jobs with power, privilege, and wealth.

>Have you perhaps considered that there is a correlation between making society more gender-equitable, and getting women into positions of power?

Yeah, because of gender nepotism, or what are you implying?

>You are going to have a harder time influencing society as an oil rigger than as a politician, academic or CEO, for example.

Sure, but isn't the point to get more women into professions where they are too few? Or am I mistaking the mission statement here?

>which applies to jobs with power, privilege, and wealth.

Which *mostly* and *only* applies to jobs with those things.

There is no feminist group that advocates more women become garbage disposal workers, because that job is viewed, ironically by feminists themselves, as a shit job, ergo a job that men should do.

Because of the ability to affect cultural change through changing the image of professions and the internal cultures.

The point is to give women the same freedom as men to pursue that which they wish to. Perhaps governments should create gender quotas for garbage disposal workers, as you say, but they are obviously a lower priority for now. No feminists believe that men should do all the shit jobs, this is a silly view and basically expects feminists to act counter-productively by prioritising garbage-disposal over politics, for example, as a means of changing society.

>Which *mostly* and *only* applies to jobs with those things.

Those darn feminists! Wanting to eliminate gender bias that exists with high paying jobs and culturally esteemed jobs that can encourage cultural change to reduce misogyny, sexism, and gender bias overall. How dare they!

>The point is to give women the same freedom as men to pursue that which they wish to

But you see. They *have* that freedom.

You just think that there is some invisible wall that stops them, and there's no evidence or reason that suggests that invisible wall exists.

I think it's much more likely that women choose a profession that they like, and less that society tries to stop them.

I mean, if you want, I can show you a documentary about my country Norway, which is called the most gender-egalitarian country in the world for the last 20 some years, and yet, there's still 98% male engineers, and 98% female nurses.

>Only an upper-class high paid job can encourage cultural change, because rich people and politicians have no limit to their power, and can literally change society at their whims.

You're really showing your worldview here. Let me guess, 20 year old female, at university, sociology major, and purple hair?

Getting warm?

>You just think that there is some invisible wall that stops them, and there's no evidence or reason that suggests that invisible wall exists.

No one has said there is some magical invisible wall that stops them. It is CULTURAL. Women are not encouraged to join "male" professions, starting from childhood through their academic or professional career. The women that do make it into those "male" professions experience sexism and gender bias, which makes advancement and even staying in the profession difficult. The more difficult it remains for women to be hired in a profession, or experience the type of advancement their male peers experience due to gender bias, the less likely women are to be encouraged into that profession or push themselves into it.

Why do you keep implying that there's something wrong with women wanting to be doctors, scientists, politicians, etc? Are you afraid of women in a position of power? Sounds like it to me.

>We are all products of social pressure to some extent, that is true - but some forms of social pressure are more harmful or negative than others, and more obviously so, thus I would say we should limit or eliminate these particular pressures.

>It is creating new social pressures, but as has been covered in this debate, social pressure is unavoidable in some forms. The point is that the new social pressures which include things like "don't harass", "don't discriminate" are, I would argue, more just and positive than those they are pushing against.

I appreciate the forthrightness here. I would say that if you believe social pressures can have that dramatic an effect on an individual's choices and perspective, then wouldn't your evaluation of whether or not a norm or behavior is harmful, how harmful it is, or what constitutes "justice" be determined by already existing social norms? Do you think there is a natural instinct to some specific idea of justice, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the idea that the material elements of society have such a large impact on how choices are made and perspectives are formed?

Also, I'm aware that this is going down a nihilistic rabbithole. I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not denying that some women experience that, but so what?

Do you think a male nurse doesn't experience it?

Do you think anyone would care if a male nurse experienced it?

Except literally everyone in my professional field, the employers and the educators, as well as the students: they all want to encourage more girls, not less, not the same.
And yet? It has zero results.

I've never said anywhere in this thread that it's wrong for women to want, or to be in those positions.

>"mysoginist" user argues that "feminists and women in general think that all men hate women, and apply that fantasy to reality"
>feminist user tries to refute this by literally accusing the other user of hating women

...

>which is called the most gender-egalitarian country in the world for the last 20 some years, and yet, there's still 98% male engineers, and 98% female nurses.

So if it's been called the most gender-egalitarian country in the world for 20 years, why would you think that would show an impact on gender in professions right now? Nurses and engineers aren't going to be all 20-25 years old, having been raised in "the most gender-egalitarian country" which, by your own implications, apparently has zero bias regarding gender ever.

Also your statistics for nursing, at least, are from 16 years ago and relatively small sample sizes (1814 people of varying professions working in hospitals).

So, 1814 people in a statistical analysis is too few, but the earlier study posted in this thread which was about gender implicit bias in 120 college students, is somehow proof that men hate women.

>can't spell misogynist

stay in school, kids