# Sexism in the World



## Poetic Device

While PMing a new-found friend, I somehow or another got on the topic of sexism, meaning judging a person based soley on the fact that they are male or female.  I went on to this thread to see if anyone had ideas, and though the topic was close to what I had in mind it wasn't quite what I was thinking.

Here are my thoughts.  A lot of peole think that women should not be in military combat because (to put it bluntly) the war will not stop hjust because her Aunt Flo decided to pay her a visit.  Others don't think that a man should be a beautician or a nurse or a secretary because that is not manly enough.  There are times where a person won't get a job because they are of a certain gender.

My questions to you are these:  

1.  Does this happen in your culture?  How often?  Can you give examples?
2.  Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?


----------



## xarruc

Nobody should make a judgement on ability based on gender. We may not be the same in every way but we are equal overall. Our behaviour is also a spectrum and men and women overlap even in the characterstics where we are most distanced.

Personally I think that the hardest hurdle facing women in the workplace is the kids issue.

If you are child-rearing age, particulaly about 30, all employers are going to be suspicious of a women becoming a mother. The reasons are very simple:

Maternity leave
Disruption to the general workforce
Risk of never returning to work (after all that expensive training)
Disruption to the working day (phonecalls to nannies, doctors appointments, kids are sick,  etc.)
Change in life priorities.

You can't blame a company for that. But it is tough on the women involved. and there are laws in place in many countries to try and even it up for the mothers and I think a balance is required.

The other problem relating to this and sexism is that men are not able to take off time to look after the kids. I think it is still seen as the mother's job. Not necessarily by the husband but by the working environment. If it were not so, and parental dutes were more evenly shared then I think the pressure on, and fear of, working mothers would be less.


PS. Just to point out to other foreros that the euphamism Aunt Flo means menustration, something I didn't now until that recent thread.


----------



## luis masci

Poetic Device said:


> A lot of peole think that women should not be in military combat


Well... As a matter of fact I also think so.
But I think that any human being should not be in military combat. 
1- Yes, we are almost out of the map but our culture belowns to the Wester world.
I think many companies avoid hiring women due to what Xarruc said. Maternity and stuff related with it (by the way Xarruc gracias por la aclaración. No todos sabemos inglés como si fuésemos nativos) 
2- No, I think it is mostly a cultural stigma (except for works that require a lot of force)


----------



## danielfranco

*1.  Does this happen in your culture?  How often?  Can you give examples?*

Happens all the time. Both in my native and my adopted cultures. One example: for the job of a receptionist it's very likely that, all things being equal, if men and women both apply for it, the job will go to the woman if she looks more personable than the man.

_* 2.  Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?
*_ 
Yes. But it mainly has to do with physiological functions. It's undeniable: for example, I cannot mother a child, but I could father him.

 [I know, I know... I understand what the question meant to ask, but it's not what it actually says]

However, I am not a medical doctor, and I don't know how much sexism influences their findings in their research, but I remember reading somewhere that some kind of study or other found that there are definite and marked differences in the way brain chemistry works when it comes to the sexes. It would be remarkable if both sexes had the same approach to problem-solving if indeed the brain chemistry is different for each one.
Doesn't mean one sex cannot do what the other can (and we are talking about abilities and skills, yes?), but it probably means things will get done by different approaches. I suppose if you are particular to one brand of problem-solving it's very likely you will consider the other approach inefficient at best, and plainly wrong at worst.
So I guess my definite answer is that I don't know for sure what I believe about it.


----------



## Etcetera

Poetic Device said:


> 1. Does this happen in your culture? How often? Can you give examples?
> 2. Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?


1. Of course. For example, it's virtually impossible to find a male teacher in a Russian school. I had only two male teachers, and both were teaching us for very short time. 
2. Why, yes.
For example, I believe that women shouldn't build roads and carry loads in seaports.


----------



## zebedee

Poetic Device said:


> A lot of peole think that women should not be in military combat because (to put it bluntly) the war will not stop hjust because her Aunt Flo decided to pay her a visit.



More than the fact that neither the war nor the world stops when a woman has a period - a fact that a large majority of women already take in their stride - I'd been told by a member of the Armed Forces that the reason why women soldiers aren't normally in frontline fighting is that a male colleague would instinctively find it much more difficult to leave a female colleague to die than a male one, if needs be, and would feel too protective towards her putting his own life in danger for the sake of hers.

That comment stuck in my mind and lends another angle to the sexism idea in the Armed Forces.


----------



## Etcetera

zebedee said:


> <...>I'd been told by a member of the Armed Forces that the reason why women soldiers aren't normally in frontline fighting is that a male colleague would instinctively find it much more difficult to leave a female colleague to die than a male one, if needs be, and would feel too protective towards her putting his own life in danger for the sake of hers.
> 
> That comment stuck in my mind and lends another angle to the sexism idea in the Armed Forces.


Outside the Armed Forces, such behaviour would more likely be seen as an act of chivalry.
But I've always found it pretty strange that in Israel women should serve in the army. It really puzzles me.
At the same time, I have no problem with, erm, policewomen.


----------



## maxiogee

In many countries national service is compulsory.

If a man can lay down his life (or an enemy's) for his country - why should not a woman be required to do the same?
She lives in the same country, and enjoys the same privileges and benefits of citizenship as her brother.

Is it not sexism to preclude her from active duty in the front lines?


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> In many countries national service is compulsory.
> 
> If a man can lay down his life (or an enemy's) for his country - why should not a woman be required to do the same?
> She lives in the same country, and enjoys the same privileges and benefits of citizenship as her brother.
> 
> Is it not sexism to preclude her from active duty in the front lines?


During the Great Patriotic War, many women served in the Army. Most of them were nurses and doctors, but very often they had to fight alongside with men. 
But war is an exceptional event, and I don't see why women should serve in army during days of peace. Moreover, I strongly disapprove of women serving in the modern Russian Army.


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:


> During the Great Patriotic War, many women served in the Army. Most of them were nurses and doctors, but very often they had to fight alongside with men.
> But war is an exceptional event, and I don't see why women should serve in army during days of peace. Moreover, I strongly disapprove of women serving in the modern Russian Army.



Why?


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> Why?


The serving conditions are too bad. 
There have been numerous cases of violence in the army, of soldiers being tortured by the officers, and so on. Many families pay large sums to save their sons from serving in the army.


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:


> The serving conditions are too bad.
> There have been numerous cases of violence in the army, of soldiers being tortured by the officers, and so on. Many families pay large sums to save their sons from serving in the army.



Then why are you not against people serving in the modern Russian Army?


----------



## Lugubert

Poetic Device said:


> 1. Does this happen in your culture? How often? Can you give examples?
> 2. Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?


1. Most employers will very carefully avoid any bias that might lead to a court process. Our laws support what USAians might name "equal opportunity".
2. Not by definition, but women because of their statistically lower physical strength would normally be less suited for construction work (counter example: India) or as for example fire fighters. Diametrically opposite, my employer has on repeted occasions tried to hire males for translation coordinators. (They match customers' needs to translators' qualifications etc.) Boys don't last very long. ('Boy': You've gotta be fairly young to withstand the stress.)

"Personally", I believe that the average woman has a superior simultaneous capacity. Think of all the women who raise children, care for the pets, cook the meals, manage the house, and have a professional and/or a political/charity life of their own. How many men do all those things (or even dare to try?)

I tried (no children, though), and was rewarded by a stroke induced brain infarction. My two sisters (a total of 5 lovely nieces/nephews) have been rather more successful in those terms.


----------



## cuchuflete

Etcetera said:


> During the Great Patriotic War, many women served in the Army. Most of them were nurses and doctors, but very often they had to fight alongside with men.
> But war is an exceptional event, and I don't see why women should serve in army during days of peace. Moreover, I strongly disapprove of women serving in the modern Russian Army.



Etcetera is obviously sexist.  She has stated that when needed, women and men fought along side one another.  In the event of a future war, they could do so again.  If women do not serve in peacetime, they will be ill-trained and inexperienced in time of war, and as a result will likely suffer greater casualties.   That is anti-female.

She has also suggested that women should receive favorable treatment in peacetime, not having to suffer the bad conditions of the modern Russian Army, without stating that men should also not have to suffer such conditions.  This position favors women during times of peace (sexist in favor of women) and puts them at greater risk in times of war (sexist to the detriment of women).


----------



## cuchuflete

I think we need to hear opinions from a number of male midwives, and female professional football (US/Canadian style) players.

Of course men can be midwives, and women can play football, but in the former case the clients might not feel especially comfortable, and in the latter case, for purely physical reasons, most women would not fare especially well.  It is very difficult to think of any historically "male" job that women can not do well, or a "female" counterpart occupation. Most discrimination and exclusion of women is based on sexism, rather than rationality or fact.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> I think we need to hear opinions from a number of male midwives, and female professional football (US/Canadian style) players.
> 
> Of course men can be midwives, and women can play football, but in the former case the clients might not feel especially comfortable, and in the latter case, for purely physical reasons, most women would not fare especially well.  It is very difficult to think of any historically "male" job that women can not do well, or a "female" counterpart occupation. Most discrimination and exclusion of women is based on sexism, rather than rationality or fact.


Er, I don't know if Etcetera is sexist - she has not had the opportunity to say whether she approves of men having to put up with bad conditions in the Russian Army either!

My son is a male nurse (well, a student). This year, he is going to be doing obstetrics. Personally, I didn't want any men there when I was giving birth, and I believe that the patient is allowed to state whether she wants any particular person present so he may have difficulty finding cases to follow - on the other hand, I am sure there are women who wouldn't mind. (I had to have a male doctor present, but I would much rather not have had.. still in the 1980s, nobody asked.) 

So, I definitely feel agitated every time I hear someone say "men can't be/shouldn't be nurses". They most certainly can and do! 

Vicky


----------



## Etcetera

Victoria32 said:


> Er, I don't know if Etcetera is sexist - she has not had the opportunity to say whether she approves of men having to put up with bad conditions in the Russian Army either!


Of course, I disapprove. 
Most common people in Russia seem to disapprove. But the army still exists.


----------



## Poetic Device

So am I correct in thinking that the job should be blind as to sexal preference?  That it should be up to what you can handle?  But then, isn't that a little "once upon a time"-sih?


----------



## Victoria32

Poetic Device said:


> So am I correct in thinking that the job should be blind as to sexal preference? That it should be up to what you can handle? But then, isn't that a little "once upon a time"-sih?


Absolutely it should! There is the concept of the BFOQ, 'bona-fide occupational qualification' - you couldn't have a man modelling bras in a catlogue, or a woman donating sperm for instance! 

However, outside of that there are big beefy woman who can be lifeguards, football coaches and firefighters, and although woman generally have more manual dexterity than men, there are exceptions - jewellers and dentists are mostly men..

Vicky


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> Etcetera is obviously sexist. She has stated that when needed, women and men fought along side one another. In the event of a future war, they could do so again. If women do not serve in peacetime, they will be ill-trained and inexperienced in time of war, and as a result will likely suffer greater casualties. That is anti-female.
> 
> She has also suggested that women should receive favorable treatment in peacetime, not having to suffer the bad conditions of the modern Russian Army, without stating that men should also not have to suffer such conditions. This position favors women during times of peace (sexist in favor of women) and puts them at greater risk in times of war (sexist to the detriment of women).


 
Well, let me tell you that in most countries affected by sexism, it is always on both sides. Women just don`t realise how much they share these stereotypes and as long as everybody is fending just for himself/herself...

However, I would have to agree too that from the point of view of physiology conditions should not always be the same for men and women. Something like what Etcetera said about women carrying weights. Their muscular system is different and also that would simply kill their reproductive abilities. Apart from that... I don`t think I see any excuse for sexism whatsoever.


----------



## emma42

Oh, please.  If a woman is not able to carry weights, then why would she want a job doing so?  If she is, then why should she not have a job doing so?   Lifting weights does not "kill a woman's reproductive abilities".  Further, a woman may not want to reproduce.  I can hardly believe I am reading such material in this Forum.  This is not just directed at the posts of setwale charm.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

It`s a pity Emma you did not see those women in the Third World (and they were there in the middle of the past century in the Soviet land) who had to perform such jobs as carrying enormous weights (men were not there) and what happened to them after that. That normally would not happen to men although there are certainly ways to ruin anybody`s health with certain tasks, you can ask any doctor for that.
Besides. I do not see what your objection is. Nobody`s talking about a woman wanting or not wanting a job like this, she is free to choose as are men who might want or not want to do something traditionally "female" we are talking about the fact that men and women are just physically different in some respects and were made such. This does not in any way affect the amount of respect or rights which are given to anybody. If you don`t like it, please refer your complaint to Mother Nature.


----------



## emma42

I am well aware that many women and men have been, and are, forced to do things that are detrimental to their health.

We are, indeed, talking about men/women having or not having the "right" to choose, depending on gender.  That is why the thread is entitled "Sexism in the World", not "Are Men and Women Physically Different".


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I was simply elaboratinh on DanielFranco`s and Etcetera`s observations


----------



## ireney

One of the most blatant examples of sexism I ever encountered is the following: 
(this part is  just for giving context) We were talking about women in the police-force and someone said that he thought that police women should not be on beat because they didn't have the physical ability to subdue big guys. When I replied that 
a) there are women who are more than able to do so as their physiology (height, musculature etc)  is equal if not better than most policemen's I've seen and 
b) women who know martial arts well enough to subdue a charging bull

(that's the sexist part) I was told that "muscular women or too aggressive (!!) women are simply not women". I found out later on that he was not alone in thinking so.


----------



## TRG

Poetic Device said:


> While PMing a new-found friend, I somehow or another got on the topic of sexism, meaning judging a person based soley on the fact that they are male or female. I went on to this thread to see if anyone had ideas, and though the topic was close to what I had in mind it wasn't quite what I was thinking.
> 
> Here are my thoughts. A lot of peole think that women should not be in military combat because (to put it bluntly) the war will not stop hjust because her Aunt Flo decided to pay her a visit. Others don't think that a man should be a beautician or a nurse or a secretary because that is not manly enough. There are times where a person won't get a job because they are of a certain gender.
> 
> My questions to you are these:
> 
> 1. Does this happen in your culture? How often? Can you give examples?
> 2. Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?


 
I had made a comment earlier about Larry Summers and the comment was deleted as mere chat, so I will explain. The comment was intended to be humerous, and to remind people of the sensitivty that many people have to this subject. Larry Summers is the former president of Harvard University who started a raging controversy and subsequently resigned for comments he made to the effect that men and women have innate cognitive differences. Some have argued that these differences are the reason that men and women are not equally represented in certain academic professions. The counter argument is that the disparity is due to sexism. I'm not sure Mr. Summers necessarily takes the position one way or another on the matter, but I think he was mainly suggesting that it is a legitimate matter for scientific inquiry.

As to the questions, clearly sexism exists. A lot of men view women in general as inferior. The only examples that comes to mind right now are some unrepeatable jokes, but I don't think that men are sexist is a matter much in dispute.

Can a woman do the same job, task, whatever as a man. There is no question in my mind that on an individual basis they can. If you want to generalize about men and women, then I think it is fair to say that there are differences. Men and women are different creatures and have, on average, different innate capabilities. The important thing is to not treat an individual man or women based on the aforementioned average differences. Unfortunately, people do this. 

I will add one more thing which was true for me and probably many other men as well. When I was in the work force I did not particularly like working with women. Not because I thought they couldn't do the job or anything like that. It was just that with women, there is always a certain sexual tension lurking in the back of the mind. It made it more difficult to concentrate on work. Clearly, this was my problem and not the womens', but it's there.


----------



## emma42

Thanks for an honest post, TRG.  Definitely your problem!

I certainly have no problem with legitimate scientific inquiry into cognitive differences between the sexes.  Science is science.


----------



## agliagli

xarruc said:


> Personally I think that the hardest hurdle facing women in the workplace is the kids issue.


 
here too...



xarruc said:


> If you are child-rearing age, particulaly about 30, all employers are going to be suspicious of a women becoming a mother. The reasons are very simple:
> 
> Maternity leave
> Disruption to the general workforce
> Risk of never returning to work (after all that expensive training)
> Disruption to the working day (phonecalls to nannies, doctors appointments, kids are sick, etc.)
> Change in life priorities.
> 
> You can't blame a company for that.


(why not?  )



xarruc said:


> But it is tough on the women involved. and there are laws in place in many countries to try and even it up for the mothers and I think a balance is required.


 
There are laws in place... that do not work! Interwiewers can still find a way to worm any information they want out of the woman job applicant.  But, as far I as know, the Swedish model seems to work quite well in terms of maternity AND paternity leaves... 

Otherwise, there is no particular sex discriminations in this country. I saw male nurses and even a "man midwife." The only problem with the last case was a linguistic one: should he have changed the name of his profession into "midhusband"?


----------



## xarruc

> I certainly have no problem with legitimate scientific inquiry into cognitive differences between the sexes. Science is science.


 
There is a whole can of worms to be opened up here. Perhaps it should be in a new thread. There are differences between the sexes based on biological differences, and there are differences between races, and indeed any gene pools that are not well mixed, which result in scientifically measurable differences.

It is well known in pharmacology as the following quote, which came in a split second's look in google, shows,



> The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC[50]) values for T-suppressor cell-trafficking inhibition were higher in whites than in blacks, regardless of sex (by 125% in men and 208% in women, p < 0.01). The IC[50] or SC[50] values for effects of prednisolone on cortisol secretion and T-helper lymphocyte or neutrophil trafficking were not statistically different between men and women, blacks and whites.


 (link here)

More generally it is known that native Americans lack an enzyme used to digest alcohol and so generally become intoxicated on smaller quantities of alcohol.

This research is of obvious importance as it can lead to better treatment regimes with lower risk of side effects.

The trouble is that the underlying premise that we are DIFFERENT by birth goes counter to the philosophical premise that we are ALL BORN EQUAL. It's a very dangerous idea because of the potential extrapolation by racists and sexists who can use it to argue that their empirically observed gender/racial _defects_ are there by genetics and hence by God, or Mother Nature etc. 

Of course unless the differences they mark out are scientifically studied they can just be considered the self-serving opinions of a biggot. But what if they are studied? What if we do find out something that can be truly described as a defect? Or that implies that women are unable to do something as well as men, or indeed the reverse? Would that lead to a revival of eugenics? What if the world had to decide whether to have equality for all, despite knowing that it was not the most efficient way? What if the different reaction between sexes or races was used in a form of warfare - a chemical gas that only killed one gene pool.

I think that "legitimate scientific inquiry into cognitive differences between the sexes" or races is perhaps something that the modern world is too immature to deal with. "Science is science" - true, but Man's manipulation of the facts for his own agenda is older still.


----------



## xarruc

> You can't blame a company for that.


 


> (why not?  )



Simply because of the priorities of the company are to its shareholders not the well being of its employees. You might argue that thats not fair. Maybe it's not but, its the way it is. You can't blame the company, just the capitalist system.


----------



## emma42

Yes, xarruc.  I was tempted to write similar things, but didn't because it is off-topic.  That's why I limited myself to "science is science".


----------



## xarruc

> Interwiewers can still find a way to worm any information they want out of the woman job applicant.


 
I'll correct you;

Interwiewers can still find a way to worm any information they want out of the job applicant.

Discrimmination can always work two ways.



As it happens, I have a friend who was asked about plans for kids recently in an interview. She told them where to go and still got the job.


----------



## Etcetera

xarruc said:


> If you are child-rearing age, particulaly about 30, all employers are going to be suspicious of a women becoming a mother. The reasons are very simple:
> 
> Maternity leave
> Disruption to the general workforce
> Risk of never returning to work (after all that expensive training)
> Disruption to the working day (phonecalls to nannies, doctors appointments, kids are sick, etc.)
> Change in life priorities.
> 
> You can't blame a company for that. But it is tough on the women involved. and there are laws in place in many countries to try and even it up for the mothers and I think a balance is required.


The same thing in Russia.
My Mum once said that I might have problems with finding myself a job because of my age - many girls in Russia get married in their early 20s. 
Indeed, when I came to my work, I find out that a number of girls are on their maternity leaves.
Of course, there are various laws protecting women's rights, but... if the employers wants to dismiss a worker, they will always find a legal reason for that.


----------



## Poetic Device

A prime example of what I am/was talking about:  my best friend went for a job interview a few days ago.  She's twenty years old and very attractive.  She dressed appropriately and whatnot and has a fantastic resume, especially for someone her age.  When the gentleman that was going to interview her came out to greet her, he was reading her resume with a very big smile on his face.  When he saw who she was, however, it was apparent that the warm and fuzzy feeling that he felt dissapeared.  She just called today and they told her that she did not get the job because they wanted someone with more "experience".  (Meanwhile, because of her volunteer work and small temp. jobs she has been working in her profession for a little more than five years.)


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> A prime example of what I am/was talking about:  my best friend went for a job interview a few days ago.  She's twenty years old and very attractive.  She dressed appropriately and whatnot and has a fantastic resume, especially for someone her age.  When the gentleman that was going to interview her came out to greet her, he was reading her resume with a very big smile on his face.  When he saw who she was, however, it was apparent that the warm and fuzzy feeling that he felt dissapeared.  She just called today and they told her that she did not get the job because they wanted someone with more "experience".  (Meanwhile, because of her volunteer work and small temp. jobs she has been working in her profession for a little more than five years.)



Your friend may have been refused the job for any number of reasons:

—another, or other, better suited applicants were interviewed
—a more experienced applicant was hired
—she did or said something in the interview that created doubt or discomfort on the part of the potential employer.

Perhaps she was the best qualified, did nothing wrong, and was not hired for the reasons you imply.

That's all speculation.  


Anecdotal assumptions of sexism do not demonstrate, much less 'prove', sexism.

A smart employer will suit her or his own self-interest by hiring the best qualified applicant.
A not-so-smart or stupid or bigoted employer may hire somebody other that the best qualified applicant.  That your friend has a fine resume and other characteristics of age and appearance, and did not receive a job offer, is not sufficient evidence to accuse an employer of sexism.
That is sloppy reasoning.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

*1. Does this happen in your culture?* 
Are you kidding me?! Yes, it happens.  Latin America does not have this reputation of being the land of chauvinism just out of nothing! Venezuela is a crazy mingle, and an eternal contradiction (see why I'm like this, guys?  ), so you have both discrimination, and sexist/anti-sexist (is there any difference?) 'responses' to such discrimination.

-*How often?* 
Every day.

-*Can you give examples?* 
Sure. Here, there are some un-written rules on the matter. (Disclaimer: What you are about to read by no means expresses the forera's thoughts on the matter, it only represents the way society states it in Venezuela, and shall remain solely under the country's liability.) 

(a) No man can be a hairdresser, a model, a receptionist, a secretary, a professional dancer, a nurse, a kindergarden teacher, or a fashion designer (among some others). Unless he's gay, of course. And there are hundreds of gay guys out there totally willing to keep up the stereotypes... Oh, and every 'metrosexual' around, willing to have his nails done and get the highlights, is under severe risk of being called "danceeeeerrr!!" in the middle of the street. A major offense, no doubt.

(b) No woman can be a firefighter, a police officer, a plumber, a car repairperson, join the national guard, the army, the garbage collection service, or any other job that requires more physical effort than it would take to change a diaper, could potentially ruin her manicure, or could eventually impede her to prepare dinner on time for her hubby.

*2. Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?*
Not sure how to answer this without making somebody upset. I just think everything is relative. 

For example, if a woman really wants to be, say, a firefighter, she likes the profession, considers all the pros and cons, prepares herself physically as well as professionally and psychologically for it, then why the heck not? But if she is not prepared for it, then why the heck doing it? Again, wouldn't this apply to men as well? 

I know plenty of women who are ten times better prepared than many men to be a police officer, a train_person_, a taxi driver, or any other job that is considered to be "for men only". I just can't understand why in the world not giving those women the chance, and giving it to an underprepared guy, just because he's a _man_! But also, it would be a mistake giving an underprepared woman the job just because she is a woman and "thou shalt not be sexist".

In other words, I think the job and the fair salary should go to the one who can do the job, do it right, and not be waving a sexist/anti-sexist flag all around in order to get it/keep it.

Enough about that... Now I suggest you guys to take a look at this thread: Mujer moderna/modern woman and relax a little. It's not like: "geez, that's precisely what we're talking about!!", but it's somewhat related. Have fun!


----------



## agliagli

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> In other words, I think the job and the fair salary should go to the one who can do the job, do it right, and not be waving a sexist/anti-sexist flag all around in order to get it/keep it.


 
Well, I think "sexism" takes different forms according to the law people have to cope with and the cultural values that go with it. One of my friend COULD have the job she wanted, just because she denied having 3 children at home... afterwards, her daily life was a true hell. Afterwards, her husband had to manadge free time for the children. But, *HE* was NOT sanctioned for being often absent of his work... and this is not something taken out of fancy.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

agliagli said:


> Well, I think "sexism" takes different forms according to the law people have to cope with and the cultural values that go with it.


You're freakin' right. But honestly, that's not what I had in mind.  What I meant was simple: I think an anti-sexist woman can almost unadvertidly slip into (feminist) sexism within the blink of an eye...

Not that every anti-sexist woman does so, nor that fighting against what you consider unfair is wrong. Just a little comment, based upon what I've seen around.

PS: Please, this is not the main "debate" here. It was just a side-remark in response to the main topic, which I believe has been (very) clearly stated by Poetic Device already.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> Why?


 


cuchuflete said:


> Your friend may have been refused the job for any number of reasons:
> 
> —another, or other, better suited applicants were interviewed
> —a more experienced applicant was hired
> —she did or said something in the interview that created doubt or discomfort on the part of the potential employer.
> 
> Perhaps she was the best qualified, did nothing wrong, and was not hired for the reasons you imply.
> 
> That's all speculation.
> 
> 
> Anecdotal assumptions of sexism do not demonstrate, much less 'prove', sexism.
> 
> A smart employer will suit her or his own self-interest by hiring the best qualified applicant.
> A not-so-smart or stupid or bigoted employer may hire somebody other that the best qualified applicant. That your friend has a fine resume and other characteristics of age and appearance, and did not receive a job offer, is not sufficient evidence to accuse an employer of sexism.
> That is sloppy reasoning.


 
YOu are right, and I apologize, but why then would the smile turn into a scowl the minute he looked at her?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> he was reading her resume with a very big smile on his face.



… and none but he can say what put it there. Perhaps he… had been to the same school, had spotted a typo, had seen the same phrase in five other resumés that day, … who knows?


----------



## Poetic Device

Okay.  You win.  I tip my hat in defeat.  

So do you consider personal questions okay to ask in an interview?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Okay.  You win.  I tip my hat in defeat.
> 
> So do you consider personal questions okay to ask in an interview?



No, and as far as I know any such questions which might elicit answers about having children, or tending to sick relatives or such like are illegal in Irish employment law.


----------



## la reine victoria

Poetic Device said:


> Okay. You win. I tip my hat in defeat.
> 
> So do you consider personal questions okay to ask in an interview?


 
I don't consider deeply personal questions to be appropriate in an interview. Questions such as, "Do you have a boyfriend?" for example.

However, to gauge a prospective employee's potential, I fully approve of asking questions about interests and hobbies. This gives the candidate an opporunity to speak at some length and can give the employer a clue as to the personality of the candidate.

LRV

_____________________________
* We are frequently amused*.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> *1. Does this happen in your culture?*
> Are you kidding me?! Yes, it happens.  Latin America does not have this reputation of being the land of chauvinism just out of nothing! Venezuela is a crazy mingle, and an eternal contradiction (see why I'm like this, guys?  ), so you have both discrimination, and sexist/anti-sexist (is there any difference?) 'responses' to such discrimination.
> 
> -*How often?*
> Every day.


 
This woman has not been to Russia as yet. But, seriously, this is interesting. I always had an impression at the same time that Latin American sexism is very different in its nature from let`s say, Arabic. Latin American women, quite similarly to Russian women, tend to be very strong at once, they often bring up children on their own while making a career and many seem to be rather...assertive, even bossy.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Setwale_Charm said:


> This woman has not been to Russia as yet. But, seriously, this is interesting. I always had an impression at the same time that Latin American sexism is very different in its nature from let`s say, Arabic. Latin American women, quite similarly to Russian women, tend to be very strong at once, they often bring up children on their own while making a career and many seem to be rather...assertive, even bossy.


Well, I don't personally know too many women from Russia (and even if I did, is that a basis for a generalization?).

Our society is very, very chauvinist, but yet, it is a matriarchy (am I using this word correctly?  ). 

Down here, women must be super-women and be in charge of everything. It is women's duty to be always: pretty, great employee/boss, perfect housewife, better mother, even better wife/girlfriend/lover/mistress/whatever-the-man-in-her-life-wants, smart, graduated from at least one universitarian career, in perfect body shape, and of course be careful not to have wrinkles, nor stretch-marks, nor god-forbid cellulitis!  And even being so impossibly perfect (if no nerve collapse beats the poor girl in the meantime), it is still socially acceptable for the man to have another woman, you know, just in case...

The result: some (well, a considerable amount) of Venezuelan women are what here we call "_cuaimas_" (a species of snake ). That is, stunning women with integral personalities and countless capacities, that generally scare out men, or at least, dominate the ones who dare to come any close. The amazing thing is that you can find "cuaimas" everywhere, talking to their girlfriends and telling things like "O_f course I didn't take that! You know I'm a cuaima, so I almost swallowed him alive!! No man ain't taking me for no fool!_" 

-- PS: Again, just vox populi, not my personal opinion...  --



maxiogee said:


> No, and as far as I know any such questions which might elicit answers about having children, or tending to sick relatives or such like are illegal in Irish employment law.


Those questions are illegal here, too. But since the whole legal system is nothing but a big black spot of corruption in this land of bureaucratic nepotism, it is of no use to even mind the question...

By the way, I'm trying to remember one single job interview in which I have not been asked "are you married?", "do you have a boyfriend?", or "do you have any children?", and I think the only one was precisely the one I had with my current boss. Ironically, I am about to get married and will probably switch to a part-time job...


----------



## Poetic Device

I have been asked if I had any children, but that was when I was 16!  

I'm trying to figure out how and how often men are discriminated against when it comes to a profession.  I know it happens...  Can I hear from that?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Poetic Device said:


> I have been asked if I had any children, but that was when I was 16!
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how and how often men are discriminated against when it comes to a profession. I know it happens... Can I hear from that?


Not in Venezuela, I think. Or at least, not that I've heard of. Women are (in general lines) responsible for the kids, the housekeeping, sick relatives, and every other thing that an employer could possibly "concern" about, so what could possibly be the basis of discrimination against men?

Although there are some professions that are considered "women's stuff" (see post Nº 38), but it's not like the future employer would ask the male applicant "are you gay?", or something like that...


----------



## la reine victoria

Poetic Device said:


> I have been asked if I had any children, but that was when I was 16!
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how and how often men are discriminated against when it comes to a profession. I know it happens... Can I hear from that?


 
There have been quite a few kerfuffles in the UK on religious grounds.  Muslim women are not allowed to be intimately examined by a male doctor, even if he were the top obstetrician/gynaecologist in the land.

So, if a female doctor isn't available, the patient has to be sent to a hospital where there is one.

This is discrimination within a profession.  But if that is the Muslim way, then I see nothing wrong with it.

LRV
_____________________________
* We are frequently amused*.


----------



## Outsider

Setwale_Charm said:


> I always had an impression at the same time that Latin American sexism is very different in its nature from let`s say, Arabic. Latin American women, quite similarly to Russian women, tend to be very strong at once, they often bring up children on their own while making a career and many seem to be rather...assertive, even bossy.


I'd wager that that's a relatively recent thing. In the old days, Latin women were very much put (well, forced into) 'their place'.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Outsider said:


> I'd wager that that's a relatively recent thing. In the old days, Latin women were very much put (well, forced into) 'their place'.


It depends on what you call "recent".  For more information, check out this link.  It started as a joke (in Spanish), but it turned more and more serious with every post (and more and more English was added in, too).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

la reine victoria said:


> There have been quite a few kerfuffles in the UK on religious grounds. Muslim women are not allowed to be intimately examined by a male doctor, even if he were the top obstetrician/gynaecologist in the land.
> 
> So, if a female doctor isn't available, the patient has to be sent to a hospital where there is one.
> 
> This is discrimination within a profession. But if that is the Muslim way, then I see nothing wrong with it.
> 
> LRV
> _____________________________
> * We are frequently amused*.


 
Provided they do not impose it on others. But there is another problem of many women wanting to integrate and not wanting it the same old way anf trying to break away form the tradition and that brings them many problems, on the Continent.



Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Well, I don't personally know too many women from Russia (and even if I did, is that a basis for a generalization?).
> 
> Our society is very, very chauvinist, but yet, it is a matriarchy (am I using this word correctly?  ).
> 
> Down here, women must be super-women and be in charge of everything. It is women's duty to be always: pretty, great employee/boss, perfect housewife, better mother, even better wife/girlfriend/lover/mistress/whatever-the-man-in-her-life-wants, smart, graduated from at least one universitarian career, in perfect body shape, and of course be careful not to have wrinkles, nor stretch-marks, nor god-forbid cellulitis!  And even being so impossibly perfect (if no nerve collapse beats the poor girl in the meantime), it is still socially acceptable for the man to have another woman, you know, just in case...
> 
> The result: some (well, a considerable amount) of Venezuelan women are what here we call "_cuaimas_" (a species of snake ). That is, stunning women with integral personalities and countless capacities, that generally scare out men, or at least, dominate the ones who dare to come any close. The amazing thing is that you can find "cuaimas" everywhere, talking to their girlfriends and telling things like "O_f course I didn't take that! You know I'm a cuaima, so I almost swallowed him alive!! No man ain't taking me for no fool!_"


 
Why, but this is almost exactly the way it is in Russia!! I guess, the pattern is the same anywhere and such social mentalities always include the same attitudes. It is also prestigious to treat a man like a child and a fool, to take advantage of him. 
And here is a lot victimization of the weaker, milder women despite the fact that they allegedly crave for such. And when these young women are completely "spoilt" by the pressure and become real "B-I-T-C-H", they complain about women not being womanly. And older women are even worse towards younger and weaker women. And sexism is always both ways in reality.

P.S. And is not sleeping for two days part of the social requirement for Venezuelan women?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Setwale_Charm said:


> Why, but this is almost exactly the way it is in Russia!! I guess, the pattern is the same anywhere and such social mentalities always include the same attitudes. (...) And older women are even worse towards younger and weaker women. And sexism is always both ways in reality.


Well, yes. More and more women (all over the world, I mean) are dragged into this "culture" every day (although "dragged" wouldn't be the most fitting word to describe the attitude of many women...  ). 

The funny thing about Venezuelan women being this way (yes, a generalization indeed) is that the whole culture kind of propiciates such attitude. There are some certain behaviors that are socially accepted in here, which are not accepted (at least not so openly) in other places around the globe. I'm talking about some sort of moral codes that allow people to do virtually whatever they want (especially on the field of abusing on other people's rights), but I think that belongs to a different thread...


----------



## Poetic Device

How about when the rules, regulations, and requirements are lowered? (Example: part of the United States military requirements have gone down because women wanted to join the fighting ranks yet were not able to carry 200 pounds on their back.) I feel that this is reverse discrimination towards the people (mostly men) that can do the job they way it should and needs to be. Am I wrong in this thinking?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> How about when the rules, regulations, and requirements are lowered?  (Example:  part of the United States military requirements have gone down because women wanted to join the fighting ranks yet were not able to carry 200 pounds on their back.)  I feel that this is reverse discrimination towards the people (mostly men) that can do the job they way it should and needs to be.  Am I wrong in this thinking?



Well, sometimes one needs to ask why a 'requirement' for applicants exists. Is there a need for soldiers to be able to carry 200 lbs on their backs? Is there a need for them to be over a certain height? 

Soldiering isn't what it used to be back when the requirements were established - nor are many other jobs.


----------



## TrentinaNE

I suspect that (a) there are many positions in the U.S. military that do not depend on the ability to carry 200 pounds on one's back, and (b) the U.S. military is not turning away able-bodied men because of this change. I do recall there was a movemet some time back to re-evaluate the long-standing "rules, regulations, and requirements" of certain job positions to ensure that said Rs were not needless barriers to the participation of females or any other traditionally under-represented groups. In instances where the Rs weren't really necessary, they often were changed.


----------



## Poetic Device

They may not be turning-away able bodied men because of the regulation changes and all that, but they are allowing people that I feel will endanger the survival of the company/unit.  I hate to say it and sound like a witch, but most of those people that don't have any right being there are the women.  (I do not mean that no woman should be there, what I mean is if you want to be in the military, that is fine, but you have to do everything that the men have to do.  The war does not stop because you have to change your tamopn.)


----------



## emma42

Would you kindly explain what evidence you have for the statement, "most of those people that don't have any right being there are the women"? and what evidence you have that a female soldier would think that a war would stop because of her period?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Poetic Device said:


> They may not be turning-away able bodied men because of the regulation changes and all that, but they are allowing people that I feel will endanger the survival of the company/unit. I hate to say it and sound like a witch, but most of those people that don't have any right being there are the women. (I do not mean that no woman should be there, what I mean is if you want to be in the military, that is fine, but you have to do everything that the men have to do. The war does not stop because you have to change your tampon.)


No, you don't sound like a witch. At least, not to me. I agree with you, darling. In fact, that's what I've been saying, ever since post Nº38, especially this part:


> For example, if a woman really wants to be, say, a firefighter, she likes the profession, considers all the pros and cons, *prepares herself physically as well as professionally and psychologically for it*, then why the heck not? But *if she is not prepared for it*, then why the heck doing it? Again, wouldn't this apply *to men as well*?
> 
> I know plenty of women who are ten times *better prepared* than many men to be a police officer, a train_person_, a taxi driver, or any other job that is considered to be "for men only". I just can't understand why in the world not giving those women the chance, and giving it to an underprepared guy, just because he's a _man_! But also, *it would be a mistake giving an underprepared woman the job *just because she is a woman and "thou shalt not be sexist".


PS: I might be totally wrong (I haven't done any research on the matter yet), but I thought female soldiers were given pills based on hormons in order to control (temporarily supress) their period.  I know for sure female astronauts do get those pills while on duty (imagine having your period with no gravity!), so maybe I just thought army women would get them, too.  If anyone has some information on that respect, I would very much appreciate hearing about.  I know it's off-topic, but PM's are perfect for those things... Thanks in advance.


----------



## Poetic Device

emma42 said:


> Would you kindly explain what evidence you have for the statement, "most of those people that don't have any right being there are the women"? and what evidence you have that a female soldier would think that a war would stop because of her period?


 
I used the idea of the woman's period to get my point across.  That point is that there is always so many things going on with women--be it mental or physical--that is not right for either sex for them to be in the field.  While I am touching on the mental part, think of it this way:  a woman, by nature, cares for and about so many things and so many people because she is built in order to have unconditional compassion.  When they are on the field, it will be more difficult for them to pull the trigger than it would be for a man.  (NOTE:  I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEN HAVE NO EMOTIONS!!!  AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED, I FEEL THAT THEY ARE MORE PRONE TO THINK LOGICALLY. I'll let you decide which is better.)

I'm not sure if they are given the pill or not.  Regardless, I would tend to think that there are at least some that are not on it just because their bodies cannot handle it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

I can point out a number of female participants in this forum who think and express themselves much more logically than an equally large number of male participants. I also know many women who are much better at shedding distractions and focussing on the thing at hand than are an equally large number of men. Even if a stereotype is true on average (and I'm not conceding that they are), there is a great range of variability within groups. Look at one difference that I will concede: Men, on average, are taller than women. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of women who are taller than plenty of men.


----------



## emma42

On the evidence proffered (vide #59) I concede that some women would not be of too much use on the battlefield.


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> On the evidence proffered, I concede that some women would not be of too much use on the battlefield.


Thousands of years of experience tell us that this is the case for most blokes.

Robert


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Some days ago an Islamic funeral was celebrated in Tunisia after the homicide of an Italian woman and her baby who were brutally slaughtered by a mental couple who were only seeking for revenge on the mum and her son.
Italian journalists reported that women could not attend the Islamic funeral (only men can to do that) and would only be allowed to go to the cemetery and pray on the dead's tomb three days after the burial.
That's one of the worse form of sexism, by my opinion.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

TrentinaNE said:


> I can point out a number of female participants in this forum who think and express themselves much more logically than an equally large number of male participants. I also know many women who are much better at shedding distractions and focussing on the thing at hand than are an equally large number of men. *Even if a stereotype is true on average (and I'm not conceding that they are), there is a great range of variability within groups.* Look at one difference that I will concede: Men, on average, are taller than women. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of women who are taller than plenty of men.


(Highlights are mine)
TrentinaNE, I remember one of our dearest foreros (cuchu, to be precise) posted once that "a statistician can have his head in an oven and his feet in ice, and he will say that on the average he feels fine".  

Even if a stereotype is true on average (and sometimes, it is), every case must be taken individually, and every person must be treated as a person, not as a "person with(out) an X choromosome".

Am I making myself clear? 



Paulfromitaly said:


> That's one of the worse form of sexism, by my opinion.


In my opinion, that's just religious differences... Whether we like them or dislike them, is not up to those who practice them.


----------



## Poetic Device

TrentinaNE said:


> I can point out a number of female participants in this forum who think and express themselves much more logically than an equally large number of male participants. I also know many women who are much better at shedding distractions and focussing on the thing at hand than are an equally large number of men. Even if a stereotype is true on average (and I'm not conceding that they are), there is a great range of variability within groups. Look at one difference that I will concede: Men, on average, are taller than women. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of women who are taller than plenty of men.


 
I agree with you on that.  I am not saying that every woman is a blubbering idiot and every man is a regular McGyver.  It IS a generalization.  For those of whom are tough and have a good head on their shoulders, if they want to do something like the armed services, then I do not have a problem with that.  They are not the ones that will possibly or probably endanger the rest of the company.  The ones that I am against aare the ones the board has lowered the standards for.  Is that understandable?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> In my opinion, that's just religious differences...  Whether we like them or dislike them, is not up to those who practice them.



When a "religious difference" always discriminate the same sex, that is the female sex, I call it sexism.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Paulfromitaly said:


> When a "religious difference" always discriminate the same sex, that is the female sex, I call it sexism.


And, you are in your right to call it whatever you want...  To yourself.  According to your reasoning, many other religions would be sexist, and would fall into far stronger "rankings" according to what they accept/reject.

But hey, that's not the topic of this thread.  Check this one out, it was nice, and adressed to some of the thoughts that could lead to your statements.

Enjoy!


----------



## .   1

Paulfromitaly said:


> Some days ago an Islamic funeral was celebrated in Tunisia after the homicide of an Italian woman and her baby who were brutally slaughtered by a mental couple who were only seeking for revenge on the mum and her son.
> Italian journalists reported that women could not attend the Islamic funeral (only men can to do that) and would only be allowed to go to the cemetery and pray on the dead's tomb three days after the burial.
> That's one of the worse form of sexism, by my opinion.


I will consider this to be a form of compassion.  I have been to one funeral in my life and I hope that the next one I attend will be mine.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Poetic Device said:


> I agree with you on that.  I am not saying that every woman is a blubbering idiot and every man is a regular McGyver.  It IS a generalization.  For those of whom are tough and have a good head on their shoulders, if they want to do something like the armed services, then I do not have a problem with that.  They are not the ones that will possibly or probably endanger the rest of the company.  *The ones that I am against aare the ones the board has lowered the standards for.  Is that understandable?*


*

*Please at least try to employ some consistency in this anti-female rant.  Are you against women in the military because they cannot carry 200 pounds, because they are too compassionate, or because they have periods?  Or perhaps because a battlefield is no place to replenish one's lipstick?


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> A prime example of what I am/was talking about: my best friend went for a job interview a few days ago. She's twenty years old and very attractive. She dressed appropriately and whatnot and has a fantastic resume, especially for someone her age. When the gentleman that was going to interview her came out to greet her, he was reading her resume with a very big smile on his face. When he saw who she was, however, it was apparent that the warm and fuzzy feeling that he felt dissapeared. She just called today and they told her that she did not get the job because they wanted someone with more "experience". (Meanwhile, because of her volunteer work and small temp. jobs she has been working in her profession for a little more than five years.)


This seems to support an allegation of ageism rather than sexism.  The resume must have listed the gender of the applicant quite clearly.  This is implied by the given name and title.  The age of the applicant is often not so prominently displayed and even when it is it is often given as a date of birth which is not always accurately mentally translated.
I think that this story indicates that the boss wanted someone with more life experience and this is possible only by aquiring age.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Why the sensitivity about calling religious sexism "sexism"?   The usual excuse is to attribute the obvious sexism of some religions to "tradition".  Duh!   Isn't that also the source and/or justification given for other forms of sexism?

This post is not an attack on anyone's religion, or any one religion.  It is a statement of fact.  Many major religions discriminate against women.   It's fine to try to excuse that or explain it away by saying, "Oh, but that's different...." but it is not different if it bars women from employment in the upper ranks, or any ranks, of the clergy. That is sex discrimination.


----------



## Poetic Device

It's illegal in NJ to ask one their age.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> It's illegal in NJ to ask one their age.


This is eveh more evidence to support my contention that your friend was the victim of ageism not sexism.
It is not illegal to ask for the gender of a prospective employee so that was not a surprise but the age was and she lost the job because she was not considered to be old enough.

.,,


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

cuchuflete said:


> This post is not an attack on anyone's religion, or any one religion. It is a statement of fact. Many major religions discriminate against women. It's fine to try to excuse that or explain it away by saying, "Oh, but that's different...." but it is not different if it bars women from employment in the upper ranks, or any ranks, of the clergy. That is sex discrimination.


Oh wait a second! Nobody has said to be in favor with that. I personally dislike that type of things. Ok, let's be honest, I consider it discrimination, and I don't know what my reactions would be had I been raised in any of those contexts.

What I'm saying is (a) the reasons for those discriminations are not socials, but religious, and we all know that threads which start "flirting" with religious topics end up with a lock, and (b) I somehow felt we were getting off-track.

But if I'm mistaken, then feel free to ignore my previous post.


----------



## la reine victoria

Paulfromitaly said:


> When a "religious difference" always discriminate the same sex, that is the female sex, I call it sexism.


 
Agreed, Paul. But if the culture so determines then it will be ever thus, provided the women are happy with the situation. There have, of course, been many examples of *lowly* women trying to break away from their culture but without much success.

I spent six months working with Iranians in a small fishing village on the Persian Gulf. While the men laboured for us, earning some much-needed money, the women happily went about their work - caring for the children, fetching water, tending sheep and goats, cooking, washing, gathering huge bundles of wood for the fire, sweeping out their one-roomed, very sparsely furnished houses. To me, theirs was a blissful life. They had big, happy smiles on their faces and always the time to stop and have a chat with me when I wandered into the village. 

My boyfriend and I became close friends of the local doctor and were often invited to his home for dinner. He once made a very interesting comment - there wasn't a single person there who suffered from mental illness.

I envied their way of life. Compared with all the ills of the developed world, I know which one I would choose.

What's more, they didn't mind us wearing bikinis while we worked.  Naturally we asked for their permission first.  Neither the women nor the men objected, nor did the men ogle us.  For Muslims to allow us this privilege was quite exceptional.  

LRV


----------



## Paulfromitaly

. said:


> I will consider this to be a form of compassion.  I have been to one funeral in my life and I hope that the next one I attend will be mine.
> 
> .,,



You chose to attend just one funeral in your life and you were allowed to do that whereas some women around the world are not free to decide whether to do it or not.




cuchuflete said:


> Why the sensitivity about calling religious sexism "sexism"?   The usual excuse is to attribute the obvious sexism of some religions to "tradition".  Duh!   Isn't that also the source and/or justification given for other forms of sexism?
> 
> * This post is not an attack on anyone's religion, or any one religion.  It is a statement of fact.  Many major religions discriminate against women.*   It's fine to try to excuse that or explain it away by saying, "Oh, but that's different...." but it is not different if it bars women from employment in the upper ranks, or any ranks, of the clergy. That is sex discrimination.



I thoroughly agree with you.


----------



## Outsider

la reine victoria said:


> But if the culture so determines then it will be ever thus, provided the women are happy with the situation.  There have, of course, been many examples of *lowly* women trying to break away from their culture but without much success.
> 
> I spent six months working with Iranians in a small fishing village on the Persian Gulf.  While the men laboured for us, earning some much-needed money, the women happily went about their work - caring for the children, fetching water, tending sheep and goats, cooking, washing, gathering huge bundles of wood for the fire, sweeping out their one-roomed, very sparsely furnished houses.  To me, theirs was a blissful life.  They had big, happy smiles on their faces and always the time to stop and have a chat with me when I wandered into the village.


How do you know those women who smiled at you during the day weren't beaten up by their husbands at night?

I don't believe that women are ever really content with being second-class citizens.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

LRV, that's one of the reasons why it's great you didn't leave us in the end. That's precisely the type of contributions that one needs to hear. Thank you, dear, for allowing us to keep on enjoying them.

Paul, I do believe (firmly) that one should have at least the power of choice, in life. Sexism very often reduces that possibility. That is a topic I would encourage to roll on (  ). Anyway, I'm gone for today. I'll keep on mis-typing and propiciating misunderstanding about my words tomorrow.   

Have fun, everyone!


----------



## Athaulf

la reine victoria said:


> I spent six months working with Iranians in a small fishing village on the Persian Gulf.  While the men laboured for us, earning some much-needed money, the women happily went about their work - caring for the children, fetching water, tending sheep and goats, cooking, washing, gathering huge bundles of wood for the fire, sweeping out their one-roomed, very sparsely furnished houses.  To me, theirs was a blissful life.  They had big, happy smiles on their faces and always the time to stop and have a chat with me when I wandered into the village.
> 
> My boyfriend and I became close friends of the local doctor and were often invited to his home for dinner.  He once made a very interesting comment - there wasn't a single person there who suffered from mental illness.
> 
> I envied their way of life.  Compared with all the ills of the developed world, I know which one I would choose.



I am highly skeptical towards this pastoral idyll you're describing. Where I come from, a similar rural way of life based on subsistence agriculture and occasional wage work was prevalent in my grandparents' generation. Also, it was still widespread in my parents' generation, and could be found in some backward places until very recently. Consequently, I've heard many first-hand accounts of life in such an environment, and they're nowhere as pretty as you describe. Violence (both towards women and in other ways), extreme drunkenness, madness, poisoned relations between people, etc. were certainly more prevalent than in the modern society, and I won't even get into the material poverty and all its other ugly consequences. 

I would also point out that from all I've ever seen and heard, in backward rural environments such as the one you describe, a stranger (especially a foreigner!) is never treated as an insider to whom the internal issues in the community, either public or private ones, should be presented openly and honestly. People are also very skillful in making happy faces regardless of what's going on in their heads and in their lives when you're not looking. 

Admittedly, I've never been to Iran, but I'm pretty sure that what I've described are very universal human traits.


----------



## la reine victoria

Outsider said:


> How do you know those women who smiled at you during the day weren't beaten up by their husbands at night?
> 
> I don't believe that women are ever really content with being second-class citizens.


 
Because they weren't veiled and showed no signs of being beaten.  Why should they have been?  The elders would soon have dealt severely with any wife-beater, anyhow.  Rather a cynical question, Outsider.

These women knew virtually nothing of the world beyond their village.  There was no electricity when I was there, so no televisions.  No newspapers;  just a few transistor radios tuned to the Arab stations across the Gulf.

Until they became used to my presence, they would stroke my blonde hair and touch my skin (to see if I were real), so unused were they to outsiders.

There had been a community in this place for centuries and I doubt if what I saw of their way of life had changed very much.  Simple, happy, fishing folk.  I doubt that the words "second-class citizen" existed in their vocabulary.

LRV


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> How do you know those women who smiled at you during the day weren't beaten up by their husbands at night?
> 
> I don't believe that women are ever really content with being second-class citizens.



I don't see a connection between these two sentences.  

People get beaten up by their family members all over the world, and it is usually the woman who gets hit. But, it can be the elderly or the young, and it is rarely a matter of being a second-class citizen. It is usually a case of outright bullying.

As to the "how do you know…?" part of the question - how does anyone know what goes on behind closed doors? We don't and we can't ask - especially when in LRV's situation of being a stranger in the country and there being a language barrier.


----------



## la reine victoria

Athaulf said:


> I am highly skeptical towards this pastoral idyll you're describing. Where I come from, a similar rural way of life based on subsistence agriculture and occasional wage work was prevalent in my grandparents' generation. Also, it was still widespread in my parents' generation, and could be found in some backward places until very recently. Consequently, I've heard many first-hand accounts of life in such an environment, and they're nowhere as pretty as you describe. Violence (both towards women and in other ways), extreme drunkenness, madness, poisoned relations between people, etc. were certainly more prevalent than in the modern society, and I won't even get into the material poverty and all its other ugly consequences.
> 
> I would also point out that from all I've ever seen and heard, in backward rural environments such as the one you describe, a stranger (especially a foreigner!) is never treated as an insider to whom the internal issues in the community, either public or private ones, should be presented openly and honestly. People are also very skillful in making happy faces regardless of what's going on in their heads and in their lives when you're not looking.
> 
> Admittedly, I've never been to Iran, but I'm pretty sure that what I've described are very universal human traits.


 
Be as sceptical as you wish, Athaulf.  I spoke as I found.

I feel we are veering off topic.  It's the "R" word again.

LRV


----------



## TrentinaNE

Poetic Device said:


> For those of whom are tough and have a good head on their shoulders, if they want to do something like the armed services, then I do not have a problem with that. They are not the ones that will possibly or probably endanger the rest of the company. *The ones that I am against aare the ones the board has lowered the standards for.*


Well, I'm glad we're agreed on the non-highlighted sentences, because some of your posts did not give that impression.  As to the highlighted sentence, what is your evidence that this problem actually exists? How do you know that changing the standards didn't simply identify a number of women who could do a perfectly good job in the armed services who previously would have been prohibited from serving for no good reason?


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> People get beaten up by their family members all over the world, and it is usually the woman who gets hit. But, it can be the elderly or the young, and it is rarely a matter of being a second-class citizen. It is usually a case of outright bullying.


Call it what you like. 



maxiogee said:


> I don't see a connection between these two sentences.


Well, I don't see how you fail to see the connection between them, so you're in good company.  



maxiogee said:


> As to the "how do you know…?" part of the question - how does anyone know what goes on behind closed doors? We don't and we can't ask - especially when in LRV's situation of being a stranger in the country and there being a language barrier.


Which is precisely my point, right?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

. said:


> I will consider this to be a form of compassion. I have been to one funeral in my life and I hope that the next one I attend will be mine.
> 
> .,,


 
I am surprised to hear somehting like that from you. Well, yes, it may be a form of "sparing". I have exactly the same feelings as you and I often thought that the old English tradition of not letting women attend the funerals, even of their kinfolk, was not so bad after all BUT it is still sexism. Because you can find a similar justification for any instance of sexism. Let us not have too much compassion on people who are able to decide for themselves. If women feel unable to attend, they don`t have to.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> (Highlights are mine)
> In my opinion, that's just religious differences... Whether we like them or dislike them, is not up to those who practice them.


 
 Well, religions are sexist, for better for worse. Not all of them, that depends on the epoch when they evolved, I guess.


  cuchuflete, I think, sensitivity mostly relates to the fact that we are discussing the Islamic faith. For some reason, we are not able sometimes o treat Islam as one of religions, on an equal footing wih others, but feel need for some "special reament".


----------



## .   1

Setwale_Charm said:


> I am surprised to hear somehting like that from you.


Why?  Am I generally a hard nose?

.,,


----------



## winklepicker

Poetic Device said:


> is not right for either sex for them to be in the field.


 
Tell that to Anne Bonny and Mary Read. (And then duck. )



Poetic Device said:


> a woman, by nature, cares for and about so many things and so many people because she is built in order to have unconditional compassion.


 
This is a generalisation so massive that one can only admire its sheer bulk!  

The point here is surely about choice. If a woman chooses to serve in the armed forces, she should not be prevented from doing so. Ditto becoming a waitress, managing director of a football club, housewife, president etc. And men the same.


----------



## Victoria32

Typo, thanb





Poetic Device said:


> (NOTE:  I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEN HAVE NO EMOTIONS!!!  AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED, I FEEL THAT THEY ARE MORE PRONE TO THINK LOGICALLY. I'll let you decide which is better.)


That is an egregious generalisation, PD! In my experience, women are the more practical and logical sex... take my parents... she was so logical as to appear very cold often, whereas my father was a very emotional person, and the same is true of my sons, especially the younger one =- Mr Spock is_* not*_ his friend! 


. said:


> I will consider this to be a form of compassion.  I have been to one funeral in my life and I hope that the next one I attend will be mine.
> 
> .,,


I have been to too many family funerals and I feel the same! (That I hope the next one is mine, oh yes!) That being said, funerals have (or are meant to have) a cathartic effect... so I see Paul's point. 

Vicky


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Victoria32 said:


> That is an egregious generalisation, PD! In my experience, women ate the more practical and logical sex... take my parents... she was so logical as to appear very cold often, whereas my father was a very emotional person, and the same is true of my sons, especially the younger one =- Mr Spock is_* not*_ his friend!
> Vicky


 
 This is an egregious generalisation!!  with taking some very particular examples for illustration of global phenomena


----------



## cuchuflete

Setwale_Charm said:


> cuchuflete, I think, sensitivity mostly relates to the fact that we are discussing the Islamic faith. For some reason, we are not able sometimes o treat Islam as one of religions, on an equal footing wih others, but feel need for some "special reament".


  Please don't include me in your use of "we".  I used religion*s*, plural.  I pointed to the lack of opportunity for women to become members of the higher echelons of the clergy, or to have any place in the clergy.  That is by no means limited to Islam.  I have never heard of a female Cardinal or Pope, and until quite recently, the Anglican Church and most of Judaism had no female clergy.   I see no need for any sort of special treatment in stating facts about religions that are sexist in their practices.  That is not a condemnation of the spiritual parts of anyone's faith, but a comment on the human institutions.  Facts are facts.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> Please don't include me in your use of "we". I used religion*s*, plural. I pointed to the lack of opportunity for women to become members of the higher echelons of the clergy, or to have any place in the clergy. That is by no means limited to Islam. I have never heard of a female Cardinal or Pope, and until quite recently, the Anglican Church and most of Judaism had no female clergy. I see no need for any sort of special treatment in stating facts about religions that are sexist in their practices. That is not a condemnation of the spiritual parts of anyone's faith, but a comment on the human institutions. Facts are facts.


 
   I used "we" as a term of political correctness for not saying "they"!


----------



## Victoria32

Setwale_Charm said:


> This is an egregious generalisation!!  with taking some very particular examples for illustration of global phenomena


That is true... However, women are in my experience, the practical sex - it is a matter of having to be! 

Vicky (I admit is a generalisation...)


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Hey, you guys!

Funny that we bring up those "men = logical & women = emotional" stereotypes in a sexism thread, don't you think?

I'm sure all of us have something to say on the matter, in the style of "yes, my mum was just like that"; "maybe, but mine was just in the other way around"; "Ok, but my ex-wife on the other hand...", and so on.

What I'd say about it is just that there are hundreds of psychological/social studies that discuss, confirm or deny such generalizing (patronizing?) statements. If we were interested in discussing such, why not run a search on that through the net?


----------



## Poetic Device

winklepicker said:


> Tell that to Anne Bonny and Mary Read. (And then duck. )
> Let me break out my Ouiji board.
> 
> 
> This is a generalisation so massive that one can only admire its sheer bulk!  True. Sorry.
> 
> *The point here is surely about choice. If a woman chooses to serve in the armed forces, she should not be prevented from doing so. Ditto becoming a waitress,** managing director of a football club**, housewife, president etc. And men the same*.


 
(I really have to work on being more clear.) *PLEASE* know that I am not saying that we should stop every single woman that wants to joing the military. What I am saying is that if they cannot meet requirements then they should not be accepted. This should go for both men and women. I am saying this because every person in my family was in the military (myself excluded) and they were in every branch, from army reserves to seals special ops. Even though I am very proud of that, there are some that had no business being in there, be it because of physical or mental capabilities. Back in the day, you had a series of rigorous tests that you HAD to complete. Nowadays you just have to do 25 push ups and 50 sit ups.


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> (I really have to work on being more clear.) _*
> 
> *_What I am saying is that if they cannot meet requirements then they should not be accepted.


 What proof do you have that any woman accepted into military service cannot meet requirements?   Not opinion, but factual proof?



> This should go for both men and women.  I am saying this because every person in my family was in the military (myself excluded) and they were in every branch, from army reserves to seals special ops.  Even though I am very proud of that, there are some that had no business being in there, be it because of physical or mental capabilities.  Back in the day, you had a series of rigorous tests that you HAD to complete.  Nowadays you just have to do 25 push ups and 50 sit ups.


  OK. There were what you call rigorous tests.  Let's assume your family members passed those tests.  You still declare some of them as having "had no business being in there". This leads me to wonder if you find fault with the past 'rigorous tests'.  There seems to be an assumption that you are better than military recruiters at deciding who does and who does not belong in military service.   Maybe you should write to the Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and tell him how to correct these problems.  I'll be sending a note to the Secretary of State, to advise her on how to fix foreign policy.  We will both be ignored.  Equality of the sexes!  Bravo!


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> What proof do you have that any woman accepted into military service cannot meet requirements? Not opinion, but factual proof?


 
Did I say that every single woman should not be allowed in the military?  Can you show me the quote?



cuchuflete said:


> OK. There were what you call rigorous tests. Let's assume your family members passed those tests. You still declare some of them as having "had no business being in there". This leads me to wonder if you find fault with the past 'rigorous tests'. There seems to be an assumption that you are better than military recruiters at deciding who does and who does not belong in military service. Maybe you should write to the Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and tell him how to correct these problems. I'll be sending a note to the Secretary of State, to advise her on how to fix foreign policy. We will both be ignored. Equality of the sexes! Bravo!


 
When the tests were harder and more strict, if you passed them then you had a right to be there.  However, They lowered the standards so much now that a person who is asthmatic, bipolar, and schitzophrenic can be in there.  (Cuchu only:  If you want the proof for that, PM me.)  These are the people that I am talking about when I say that they have no business being there.

(Smarty!  )


----------



## cuchuflete

> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> 
> 
> What proof do you have that any woman accepted into military service cannot meet requirements? Not opinion, but factual proof?
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that every single woman should not be allowed in the military?  Can you show me the quote?
Click to expand...


I wasn't clear. Sorry.  I was requesting factual proof of any single instance of a woman being accepted into military service who did not meet military requirements at the time of acceptance.


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> However, They lowered the standards so much now that a person who is asthmatic, bipolar, and schitzophrenic can be in there.  (Cuchu only:  If you want the proof for that, PM me.)  These are the people that I am talking about when I say that they have no business being there.


 There is no sign of sex discriminatin in these statements; they would apply equally to both men and women.   Are you suggesting that no male bipolar soldiers exist, and that any bipolar soldier in the army is female?


----------



## emma42

Poetic Device said:


> Did I say that every single woman should not be allowed in the military? Can you show me the quote?


 
*"The point is that there are always so many things going on with women - be it mental or physical - that is not right for either sex for them to be in the field".*

*"...a woman...is built to have unconditional compassion"*


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> When the tests were harder and more strict, if you passed them then you had a right to be there. However, They lowered the standards so much now that a person who is asthmatic, bipolar, and schitzophrenic can be in there.


I am a little confused here.
Are you saying that the American Military accepts recruits in the prior knowledge that these people are either bipolar or schizophrenic?
The asthmatic link is confusing. Many elite athletes compete at the highest level while managing their asthma. I know of a huge number of professional Rugby and Rugby League players who are capable of playing 80 minutes of one of the most bone jarring, physically demanding sports in existence yet these blokes have asthma.
I served in the Australian Army with soldiers who had to whip out a 'puffer' every now and then and no one thought twice about it.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> *"The point is that there are always so many things going on with women - be it mental or physical - that is not right for either sex for them to be in the field".*
> 
> *"...a woman...is built to have unconditional compassion"*



There's a difference, Emma, between being "in the military" and "in the field".


----------



## cherine

*Mod note :*
*There's almost twenty posts about the army in this thread. I'd like to see a link of this "aside" to the thread's topic, or else we'll have to make a wide cleaning operation here. *
*In other terms : would you please not focus in the army standards per se, and try to link them to the thread's topic ?*

*Thank you **everyone**.*


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> There's a difference, Emma, between being "in the military" and "in the field".



Follow that course, Cpl. OhGee!  If women can be in the military, but not in the field, they are
back to sexist stereotyped jobs, while real men do the 'real men's work' of killing.  Shall we bring back the Women's Army Corps and the like?  Women can clean the barracks, iron the uniforms, cook the meals, and the fully capable (!) soldiers can go out into the field to talk about the women and take potshots at whatever moves in 'no man's land'.


----------



## vince

la reine victoria said:


> These women knew virtually nothing of the world beyond their village.  There was no electricity when I was there, so no televisions.  No newspapers;  just a few transistor radios tuned to the Arab stations across the Gulf.
> 
> Until they became used to my presence, they would stroke my blonde hair and touch my skin (to see if I were real), so unused were they to outsiders.
> 
> There had been a community in this place for centuries and I doubt if what I saw of their way of life had changed very much.  Simple, happy, fishing folk.  I doubt that the words "second-class citizen" existed in their vocabulary.
> 
> LRV



There is a quote attributed to Goethe:
_
 "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

_In this way, sexist people can argue that women are and have always been equal to men in all societies and cultures of history, including that of the Taliban.

You can teach women that their role is to stay at home, get married, take care of the kids, and obey the husband, while it's the man's role to get educated, protect his wife, and make money for the family. And you can argue that women and men are equal in this situation because they have distinct complementary roles: that society couldn't function without women making babies and raising them, neither could it function without the men being the brains and leadership. 

If women are led to believe that these roles are set in stone, then they won't believe that these are limits to their freedom. "If I am killed for being raped, then maybe it's alright because it's the woman's virginity that determines the honor of the family". But yet to many men and women in their society, there is no sexism.

The danger to such strong patriarchal societies is the education of women: what if women find out that they too can be leaders and make money? And that it's not a crime against their female sex to do so? What if they are exposed through literature and the Western media to more modern societies like our own, where women do have these freedoms that don't exist in their home countries, and actually take advantage of them (at least to a degree)?

The key to maintaining the status quo is to convince the oppressed that they are by nature in the subservient position. In this way you get peace: the oppressed don't care that they may be beaten or killed because they believe this is the way things are and therefore try to think about other everyday issues instead, and the oppressors are happy because there is no rebellion to challenge their power. The women in Iran you mentioned are in the ignorant oppressed category: why be unhappy if there is no perceived injustice?

You see, any society and person can claim that they are not sexist. But equality should not be measured only by the number of roles each gender has, but by how much freedom there is to breach these roles. Thank goodness that the status of women here is hundreds of years ahead of that in Iran.


----------



## emma42

I could not agree more.  The idea of comparatively wealthy, western women cooing over the simplicity and loveliness of the lives of women living in such poverty and oppression makes me want to throw up.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

And I find it simply laughable!!! For goodness` sake, how ignorant should be those people who believe in the supremacy of their values and lifestyles and the unhappiness of those who differ!!
 No less than President Bush in his strife to share "democratic values" of his with the rest of the world!!

  I too have lived in Iran and elsewhere, enough to understand how much concepts like rights and oppression depend on your angle of view with which you were brought up.
 It is a matter of perception of every single individual, whether they feel that they are oppressed and restricted in their rights, nothing more.  The concept of oppression can only exist alongside the concept of rights and duties. 
  It is like trying to compare who is more oppressed: a housewife having to care for a bunch of children and not having time to leave her house or a business woman who is working day and night trying to save her company and never getting any sleep - Both if they are unhappy with their present situation and cannot change it and neither of they are happy with their choice. But again it is a matter of perception, not standards set from the outside. 

 And do you seriously believe that Irani women are more miserable than American or European women?!! They may well be far happier on average(that depends but...). Now what an honour: to live in the way the Western society is offering!! They would rather opt for performing their much more "natural" duties like cooking, getting married, caring for your husband. And as for some unpleasant practices, I am sure, one can find so much of it within our culture if one looks at it from the outside and sees the things we do not notice because we are no less accustomed to them than Afghan women to having to wear a burqa or stay indoors.   Irani women are miserable when abused just in the same way as Western women, no more no less, and happy when loved just in the same way.
And this is the only possible way to evaluate the situation of women probably: by the detriment cause to their health by the lifestyle of the community or by their self-evaluation. Do you know where the most optimistic peole live? According to doctors, the first positions are held *not* by the First-World countries. 

   I have to stress: I am not speaking in defence of the Irani way of life or Afghanistani over the Western way of life or vice-versa and I am not being pro-Western or ani-Western!! I am only saying that we should stop being so narrow-minded and judge the whole world in its diversity with our own token as the only measure. Such a thing as oppression exists only in the case when people feel that their natural rights and opportunities are restricted and that they are treated unfairly. Otherwise, the whole matter makes no sense. I can quite imagine that somebody from Mars is looking down on us and thinking: oh poor things! They are so oppressed, they are living with these conditions and know no other and that is why they are feeling that they are free, content and at their right place...
 And the main goal is that people, men,women, children, may be happy and content in whichever way they choose and not in making them conform to the standards of happiness and equality held by a particular culture. This "pity" for the "oppressed" women always sounds very much like the eternal religious: oh these poor things! They do not know the truth, they are not as happy as us because they are not living like us, let us go and save them (teach them)....(that may refer to any religious group)


----------



## afabafa

In my personal experience. I´m 19 years old, once I was on vacation so I wanted to look for a job. The person to attended me was a woman, she said me that if I wished to work there I need a negative test of pregnate (I don´t know if it´s the correct word for write that, but I hope you understand me). Well, it´s incorrect, it´s sexism and I was very angry of that, however it´s real and in this 2007 this kind of things are horrible. Here in México all the women, or almost all, need to work, and there are some women-driver and there are women working building houses and roads, or women to repairs cars. It´s amaizing. And they do that because they don´t have a chance to choice a better job. It´s only a job. The thing is that the women in the future will be more productive than the men.


----------



## danielfranco

afabafa said:


> [...] the thing is that the women in the future will be more productive than the men.


 
I was in the act of writing my opinion about how outraged I was at such a preposterous and blatant show of sexism, about asking a woman for a negative proof of pregnancy, when I read the last statement and thought:

[schreeching noise of tires braking...]

Wait a tick: come again?

Estaba justo en el acto de escribir mi opinión sobre qué escandalizado me encontré frente a un acto de sexismo tan ridículo y descarado, eso de pedir a una mujer que demuestre una prueba de embarazo negativa, cuando leí la última oración y pensé:

[sonido de un enfrenón de llantas...]

Aguanta un cacho: ¿Cómo estuvo eso?


----------



## cuchuflete

Daniel--
¿Estás asombrado por lo de "en el futuro"?  O sea, a mi parecer ya existe esta condición.  Muchas mujeres hoy en día son más productivas.


----------



## afabafa

Es una realidad que si no estás preparada desafortunadamente no tienes opción para escoger el trabajo que quieres realizar, ni modo. Así está el mundo. Por eso la mejor manera es prepararte, estudiar y superarte para no tener que conducir un taxi o un autobús. En efecto he de seguir estudiando y superándome.


----------



## afabafa

cuchufleta:
En efecto, tienes toda la razón. La imagen de la mujer está sobresaliendo. Simplemente en lo que yo estudio hay 30 mujeres por cada 10 hombres. ¿Por qué los hombres no se avientan a estudiar una carrera un poco pesada? Afortunadamente cada día las posibilidades de que la mujer estudie siguen en aumento. Sin embargo aún hay muchos atrasos y somos constantemente relegadas, y hechas a un lado. Todavia no tenemos la oportunidad de alcanzar puestos tan altos como los hombres pero lo lograremos.


----------



## danielfranco

cuchuflete said:


> Daniel--
> ¿Estás asombrado por lo de "en el futuro"? O sea, a mi parecer ya existe esta condición. Muchas mujeres hoy en día son más productivas.


 
No, Mr C. No surprises there (been married for many years now, so I KNOW it's a fact). I was just very interested to find out where the statement came from, or what would be it's follow-up, is all. And also, thinking of all the beloved forer@s out there who thrive on dissecting every post and arguing about the intended and actual meaning of every single word ever written, I wondered if that sentence would open the discussion to the direction of speculation as to, when women actually are not discriminated against in the workplace because of their gender, once it's obvious to everybody else that women can be more productive than men, if reverse-sexism might not arise like a behemoth from the depths.

Is all, I mean to say.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

afabafa said:


> cuchufleta:
> En efecto, tienes toda la razón. La imagen de la mujer está sobresaliendo. Simplemente en lo que yo estudio hay 30 mujeres por cada 10 hombres.


 
  What is this due to? Is the situation in Mexico similar to that in Russia: excessive male mortality leads to a "deficit" of males?

  Also, may I ask los estimados foreros not to write in other langaues here since not all participants may be able to read Spanish.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Setwale_Charm said:


> And I find it simply laughable!!! For goodness' sake, how ignorant should be those people who believe *in the supremacy of their values and lifestyles and the unhappiness of those who differ*!!
> No less than President Bush in his strife to share "democratic values" of his with the rest of the world!! (...) I too have lived in Iran and elsewhere, enough to understand how much concepts like rights and oppression _*depend on your angle of view*_ with which you were brought up.
> It is _*a matter of perception of every single individual*_, whether they feel that they are oppressed and restricted in their rights, nothing more. (...)But again it is a matter of perception, _*not standards set from the outside*_. (...)And do you seriously believe that Irani women are more miserable than American or European women?!! (...) Irani women are miserable when abused just in the same way as Western women, no more no less, and happy when loved just in the same way.(...)Do you know where the most optimistic peole live? According to doctors, the first positions are held *not* by the First-World countries.
> (...) _*we should stop being so narrow-minded and judge the whole world in its diversity with our own token as the only measure*_. Such a thing as oppression exists only in the case when people feel that their natural rights and opportunities are restricted and that they are treated unfairly. Otherwise, the whole matter makes no sense.(...) And the main goal is that people, men,women, children, may be happy and content in whichever way they choose and *not in making them conform to the standards of happiness and equality held by a particular culture*. (...)
> (Sorry, too long if I quote it all)


Darling, it was so bold of you to express all this, especially since (for some reason still unknown, against common sense and rational thinking) your opinion is not shared by many.

You've inspired me, SC!  I was about to click on the "submit reply" after three paragraphs of praise and support, properly backed-up with facts and conceptions on the matter, until I noticed it was all in Spanish...  

I'll post back when I translate it, or when I switch my brain to "English mode" and come up with arguments in that language...


----------



## Outsider

I agree very much with what *Vince* wrote above, but I think *La Reine Victoria* also had a point when she called my views "cynical" a few pages back. I accept that some women may be happy in more traditional societies -- genuinely happy, not just resignedly so, as in Vince's examples. 

However, I am convinced that such happiness is not for everyone. There will always be some women who will aspire to have something more for themselves, to be more independent. I even believe that these cases will be the majority, _provided that an alternative way of existence is available_.

The advantage of modern democratic societies (which comes with many shortcomings, to be sure) is that they offer more choices, and greater freedom to make those choices. In my view, this is essentially a human universal, not a foreign cultural imposition.


----------



## emma42

Yes,outsider, it is essentially a "human universal".  I am certainly not advocating that all women in all societies should  be able to adopt _my _lifestyle or the all the cultural values of _my _society, and I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated such.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

SC, after reading your post, I can't but congratulate you for daring to honestly express yourself that way. (*The following statements might seem off-topic, but they're not. Please go over them twice...*) Actually, I believe most Western standards are overrated, and a considerable amount of people tend to think that if others don't live according to them, those must be (a) opressed, (b) unhappy, (c) living an inferior kind of life, or (d) all of the above; therefore those people are in need of a superpower in order to "rescue" them from their offensively lower-quality lives. That is, not just regarding to what we could consider sexism, but it also extends to other aspects of life, such as politics, religion, family values, customs, sexuality, use of vocabulary, order of priorities, and many other things that are so often times determined or at least influenced by cultural factors.

Some people/nations seem to tattle-tell other cultures as sexist and oppressive without really being into it, leave alone understanding it and being capable of telling what the people really need -in order to tell what they are lacking of. Who gave them that right, anyway? I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that a woman can be/feel happy and satisfied with her life and not to feel opressed/discriminated in a lifestyle as the one described by LRV, without lying to herself. No lifestyle or culture is *per se* a promise of (un)happiness.

I've never been in Iran, nor I know anybody from there, but I am familiar with life in the African continent, as well as in the most hidden, remote rural areas in my own native land. Life 'over there' is quite different from the one that 'city girls' are used to, and both opression and satisfaction come from very different sources than those we know.

I believe it is very disrespectful from us to state that a woman who has not had the chance of getting a PhD in whatever career is an opressed woman. What can we say about those who have not had the chance of seeing her own child grow up, by being a slave of her career (since she did have the choice of getting that PhD)? They could perfectly well be (or not) opressed, by her own choice or not. Who would be in right of questioning how valid their principles are? Who would be entitled to credit or discredit a whole lifestyle? How much ignorance is needed, in order to pretend that women from other places are unhappy, just because they don't have some things that we consider basic, elementary, indispensable *within*_* our*_* context*? Only goodness would know how those women see us, from our stands of slavery to the hair-blower, manicurists and gyms...

A woman (actually, an individual) can be/feel opressed as well as happy in any culture. Each culture provides its members with the means to happiness and suffering as well. To me, it is just not logical thinking to state that culture XXX is in general lines happier than culture YYY since it has the Z element for its women. How come we can't see that culture YYY has element P, for example, which women from that culture find indispensable for happiness, which is unexistant in culture XXX (which of course doesn't make women in there unhappy)? It just doesn't make sense...

How arrogant of us, to come around pretending to impose on others our own (context-limited) vision of things, just like that... True, there are specific places in the world in which some circumstances limit happiness (for both genders), such as civil war, extreme poverty, excessive pollution, and so on. But then, it is not the culture itself, its values, its constitution, as it has been suggested. The problem then is formed by other factors.

Hope I'm making sense in here...


----------



## emma42

This thread is about sexism, not happiness or imposing one's own culture on another.  Sexism is discrimination against either sex on the basis of sex.  No more, no less.  I don't happen to think sexism is a good thing - others may disagree.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> This thread is about sexism, not happiness or imposing one's own culture on another. Sexism is discrimination against either sex on the basis of sex. No more, no less. I don't happen to think sexism is a good thing - others may disagree.


I'd like to meet those "others", darling. Perhaps we could have a talk... 

My previous post was in defense of LRV and support to Set_Charm, not advocating for sexism! What I meant is that we tend to think that women who don't have _*what we have*_ (things _*we*_ consider good, necessary, and a symbol of freedom, satisfaction and happiness) actually want those things, and since they don't have those things, we call them opressed. That is of course, no excuse to sexism in cultures other than our own, but we must realize that the means for happiness are not seen the same way all over the world. 

We tend to forget that, and as a result, we sometimes tag some cultures as sexist when they are not. Or, we tag some women as unhappy, when their lives are filled with satisfaction. That was my point. Hope I'm being clear enough...


----------



## .   1

G'day Venezuelan_sweetie
You made perfect sense.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Yes, I understand you VS, and don't really have an argument with what you say.  Where we probably will differ is in our definition of "sexism".


----------



## la reine victoria

Thank you Venezuelan_sweetie.  

You completely grasped the point I was making.

A very succint post.  

LRV


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> Yes, I understand you VS, and don't really have an argument with what you say. Where we probably will differ is in our definition of "sexism".


Mmmmmhhh...  Perhaps.

That could explain why threads that deal with "...isms" tend to be polemic, as Tony said once (Interesting remark, by the way.  Did you notice the guidelines have been modified, in order to include that?)


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

. said:


> G'day Venezuelan_sweetie
> You made perfect sense.
> 
> .,,





la reine victoria said:


> Thank you Venezuelan_sweetie.
> 
> You completely grasped the point I was making.
> 
> A very succint post.
> 
> LRV


(Bowing)  Thank you, thank you...    

Now, seriously.  I agree with you, LRV.  If one has the chance of talking to women living in entirely different ways than what one is used to, one could be really surprised on how much happier they could be.

Sometimes, one even gets a bit jealous (in the good sense  ), if one gets to co-exist with them and ascertain that they are not hipocritical: their happiness is as real as it gets...


----------



## Setwale_Charm

emma42 said:


> This thread is about sexism, not happiness or imposing one's own culture on another. Sexism is discrimination against either sex on the basis of sex. No more, no less. I don't happen to think sexism is a good thing - others may disagree.


 
 I totally agree that sexism is bad, what I meant is that it all very much depends on *what *sexism is in each individual`s view. It is bad as long as it is humiliating and degrading and is demeaning a person`s sense of dignity but what if one does not feel a certain practice is part of this?


----------



## emma42

If one doesn't feel that a certain practice is carried out with discrimination against one's sex, then it's not sexist.  I agree that individuals differ in their definitions of "sexism", but I don't see why they should.  Surely, it's an objective test?

X is male and his boss expects him to give her his seat in the boardroom if no more seats are available.  She would not expect this of another woman.  That's sexist (all other things being equal).

Y is female and is happy to make coffee for her male superiors, but not her female superiors.  That's sexist (all other things being equal).

Z is female and is asked if she has any children at her interview.  The interviewer does not ask this question of any male candidates.  That is sexist (all other things being equal).


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Setwale_Charm said:


> I totally agree that sexism is bad, what I meant is that it all very much depends on *what *sexism is in each individual`s view. It is bad as long as it is humiliating and degrading and is demeaning a person`s sense of dignity but what if one does not feel a certain practice is part of this?


Exactly my point. For example, if my fiancé *expected *me to quit my professional life in order to stay home and cook for him, you bet, I'd call him a sexist pig and make sure he would never get to have another date in his life, after sending him straight to the cave he came out from.

But, in some other cultures, *expecting* that a woman works out of home would be just too much, if she has chosen to get married and have kids.

The way I was raised, the one thing that makes the difference is having the right of making your own choice. As long as I have that, I'm fine. Other women need other things in order to be fine. Shall I think myself in the right to impose my view on them? No way!


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> If one doesn't feel that a certain practice is carried out with discrimination against one's sex, then it's not sexist. I agree that individuals differ in their definitions of "sexism", but I don't see why they should. Surely, it's an objective test?


You don't see why? Well, I might be wrong, but I think it is for the same reason we don't share the same view in politics, religion, professions, and others. I think they call it diversity...

---
Oopsss, you edited your post before I got to post mine... What you say in the rest of it is quite interesting. But I maintain my position: many things are culturally bound. We cannot see everything in the same way, since this is a culturally diverse world.


----------



## emma42

An objective test is an objective test.  It has nothing to do with cultural diversity.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

emma42 said:


> An objective test is an objective test.  It has nothing to do with cultural diversity.



In fact _objective_ means  based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings, hence cultural diversity cannot bias a text, if it's objective.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> An objective test is an objective test. It has nothing to do with cultural diversity.


Sure about that? Let's try to give general answers to it, then.

If you ask your questions to a woman from my city, she would say that those things are perfectly normal, but she of course would accept only X's point (whatever is an advantage to her). Respecting Y, she "ain't no cookin' outside o'home!", and about Z, they can "get those personal questions right up their ***"

If you ask the same questions to a woman from a city that's just some 160 Kilometers from my home town, she would wonder how it is possible that X would expect the seat from a male subordinate only. Y should prepare coffee for everyone, just as any other employee. And Z should be proud of talking about her family, just like any other person in the world who has children.

If you ask exactly the same things to a woman from the countryside, she would start up by asking: "how come X has a male subordinate?" "well, if that's all right, then what kind of a stupid question is that? Everybody knows a gentleman must give up his seat!" "you mean, that Y's job is not preparing the coffee? Ooohhh... And why should anybody do that, if not getting paid for it?" Probably she wouldn't get Z's example.

That, just within the same coastline of the same country. Go figure how it goes all around the world...


----------



## emma42

I think you misunderstand me, VS.  I wasn't making any value judgements about the situations of X, Y and Z.  I was simply trying to illlustrate sexism, ie discrimination on the basis of sex.  Whether the situations of X, Y and Z are morally, legally, culturally acceptable, is another matter.  I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's see if we can bridge the gap between these conversations...

In most of the "western" world, sex discrimination is considered bad or wrong (except by the tens of millions who practice it!).  In some cultures, the same thing we call sexism in the West is not perceived as bad or wrong...it's simply part of the way things have been for a very long time, and continue to be today, and are looked upon, when noticed at all, as "normal".  

We may need to accept that what, in our own society, we classify as "sexism=bad" has a different status as
"how things are=ok" in another culture.  If I were to move to a place with a matriarchal society, and carry my current values with me, I would be offended by the inherent sexism.  The matriarchal society might function perfectly well for its members, while still seeming wrong or misguided or bad to me, as an outsider.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Paulfromitaly said:


> In fact _objective_ means based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings, hence cultural diversity cannot bias a text, if it's objective.


Well, I've always believe _objective_ means not to let *your* beliefs or feelings get in the way, especially when giving opinions about topics that other people might see differently (in other words, prejudices out!).  

But, finding any topic in this forum that is not influenced by cultural diversity at all is, to me, virtually impossible.



emma42 said:


> I think you misunderstand me, VS. I wasn't making any value judgements about the situations of X, Y and Z. I was simply trying to illlustrate sexism, ie discrimination on the basis of sex. Whether the situations of X, Y and Z are morally, legally, culturally acceptable, is another matter. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.


Oh, so you're saying some things are right, and some others wrong, no matter what the cultural context is...  Am I getting it straight?  'Coz if I am, then it's very confusing...


----------



## Poetic Device

So if the human sacrifices that were practiced by the Myans were still being done, even though I look at it as grotesque it's okay?  Just trying to understand you view.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

cuchuflete said:


> Let's see if we can bridge the gap between these conversations...
> 
> In most of the "western" world, sex discrimination is considered bad or wrong (except by the tens of millions who practice it!). In some cultures, the same thing we call sexism in the West is not perceived as bad or wrong...it's simply part of the way things have been for a very long time, and continue to be today, and are looked upon, when noticed at all, as "normal".
> 
> We may need to accept that what, in our own society, we classify as "sexism=bad" has a different status as
> "how things are=ok" in another culture. If I were to move to a place with a matriarchal society, and carry my current values with me, I would be offended by the inherent sexism. The matriarchal society might function perfectly well for its members, while still seeming wrong or misguided or bad to me, as an outsider.


No one could have said it better...


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Poetic Device said:


> So if the human sacrifices that were practiced by the Myans were still being done, even though I look at it as grotesque it's okay? Just trying to understand you view.


Funny that you mention that, since something alike was brought up in another thread about cultural differences, not too long ago.  The funny thing is that examples like that ended up taking that thread waaaaay off-topic.  So off-topic, that it ended up closed...

Is it me, or we're mixing up two entirely different values in here?


----------



## AngelEyes

Poetic Device said:


> 1. Does this happen in your culture? How often? Can you give examples?
> 2. Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?


 
First of all, I define sexism as an attitude or belief system that includes the idea that one sex is superior over the other and, therefore, should have the privilege and right to make decisions for all in political, social, and personal areas.

Well, isn't that just dumb? What does having a certain set of genitals have to do with anything? 

In American culture, there are opportunities for anyone, male or female, to do what they want, be what they want, accomplish what they wish to accomplish. Work hard, study hard, never give up...those qualities are what determines whether you succeed or not in the US.

Is it a perfect system? No. Does this theory prove true in all cases? Of course not. But it's a goal that we at least strive to reach in my country, one that the majority of Americans believe is good for the benefit of all of us. 

The second question is more complex, because men and women are physically fashioned differently. Even here, though, some women are physically stronger than some men.

So when it comes to brute strength, there are variables to be considered. Some work is more suited to muscles. In some instances, then, a man would better handle the job. Still, in some circumstances with a particularly robust woman, she would be able to compete right along side any man. If that's the case, why not? She should have every right.

When it comes to mental strength based on brain aptitude, it's fairly easy to gauge if men and women are equal in any given situation. Based on individual men versus women intellectual pursuits, if you're smart enough, you should be able to be judged on that alone.

Sexism is really a simple theory, then. Take the genitals out of the equation and dispassionately look at people without them, and it no longer even seems like a viable way to live together, based on this mindset. Sexism viewed through the prism of men and women without the sexual differences reveals that the theory is weak, illogical, unfair, unproductive, unequal. 

The choice seems simple to me. Anything that stunts any human being's ability to grow as a person and realize his or her dreams is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated by any of us.

In a perfect world, this is all there would be.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

emma42 said:


> I think you misunderstand me, VS.*  I wasn't making any value judgements *about the situations of X, Y and Z .



I don't know how much clearer I can be.


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> Sexism is really a simple theory, then. Take the genitals out of the equation and dispassionately look at people without them, and it no longer even seems like a viable way to live together, based on this mindset. Sexism viewed through the prism of men and women without the sexual differences reveals that the theory is weak, illogical, unfair, unproductive, unequal.
> 
> The choice seems simple to me. Anything that stunts any human being's ability to grow as a person and realize his or her dreams is wrong and *shouldn't be tolerated by any of us*.
> 
> In a perfect world, this is all there would be.



Reading this thread, so full of statements I agree with, I thought, "How nice to find a person who sees it the way I do, in my culture.  But what about how these statements would be received by another, different culture?"  Then I got to the part I have put in *bold.*  Aha, I thought, now she is preaching intolerance of societies with different viewpoints and practices.  Not so easy to agree with that.

Finally, I stepped back from the thread, and tried to think of a culture, any culture, in which exposure to the notion of sexual equality had not led to discontent with time-honored sexism, and eventually to change.

I have not yet thought of one such instance.

Could it be that sexism, regardless of its standing as part of a culture, is inherently in opposition to freedom?   That may not give me the right (elusive concept, except for the self-satisfied) to try to impose my cultural values on another culture.  It does help explain why people who have been exposed to cultures that allow or promote sexual equality seem to want to adapt that to their own lives.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> I think you misunderstand me, VS. I wasn't making any value judgements about the situations of X, Y and Z. I was simply trying to illlustrate sexism, ie *discrimination* on the basis of sex. Whether the situations of X, Y and Z are _morally, legally, culturally acceptable_, is another matter. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.


What you and me would consider discrimination might well differ from what my fellow countrymen from Puerto Ayacucho would...

Moral, legal, and cultural acceptation vary on the same matters, depending on where we are. So who's to say that what I consider discrimination is not, in the end, or that some people don't know they're discriminated and I do see it, for example?

Sorry, but if we get inflexible and (a little) absolutist, it's hard to even have a topic in common, much less discuss...


----------



## AngelEyes

First of all, Cuchuflete, are you sure you and I agree on anything? Say it isn't so!  

I don't know if you can give the power to judge the right and wrong of sexism over to any culture. In order to succeed, it has to stay at the person-to-person level...sometimes an impossiblity in those cultures that don't support individual freedoms to begin with.

It's a Catch-22 sometimes. If you live in a culture where one sex already dominates the climate of that country, sexism grows unbound. Some people don't ever even have the luxury or option to decide for themselves what's fair and what's not. The culture itself becomes the enemy to pursuing individual freedoms. 

In such a repressive atmosphere, it seems it's already a fated outcome to those people born into that environment. How can they ever have the opportunity to become who they want if their culture already prohibits that choice?

When that happens to any man, woman, or child, it's the culture itself that allows sexism to proliferate. I couldn't support that happening to anyone. I believe we should find it intolerable that any human being is forced to live that way especially when, if given one, they would choose something else for themselves. Namely, the freedom to be who they wish.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> What you and me would consider discrimination might well differ from what my fellow countrymen from Puerto Ayacucho would...
> 
> Moral, legal, and cultural acceptation vary on the same matters, depending on where we are. So who's to say that what I consider discrimination is not, in the end, or that some people don't know they're discriminated and I do see it, for example?
> 
> Sorry, but if we get inflexible and (a little) absolutist, it's hard to even have a topic in common, much less discuss...



At the risk of repeating myself, the verb, _discriminate, _is objectively defined:

"..._to distinguish...to treat differently..."

_Where is the value judgement in that?  What has this to do with subjective opinion?

I buy apples, not oranges - I discriminate

I prefer a male doctor to a female doctor - I discriminate

I buy blue shirts, not red shirts - I discriminate

I give jobs to women, not men - I discriminate

In some societies, only women are expected to wash the family's clothes - society is discriminating (on the basis of sex)

In some societies, only men are expected to care for children - society is discriminating (on the basis of sex)

Perhaps, VS, you are interpreting "discriminate" as "discriminate against"?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, the verb, _discriminate, _is objectively defined:
> 
> "..._to distinguish...to treat differently..."_
> 
> *What's the problem with that?  I like to read books about civil wars in Africa.  I don't like to read books about civil war in the US (South vs. North).  Am I doing something wrong, whoever it is to decide what's right or wrong for me to read in this diverse world?  Does it mean some bigotry from me?  Does it mean I favor Africans vs. Americans?  Does it mean US citizen are not safe when around me?  Does it mean I should be punished for my conceptions?*
> 
> *Sorry, but I don't see what your examples have to do with this thread, nor why to bring them up, then...*
> 
> Perhaps, VS, you are interpreting "discriminate" as "discriminate against"?
> 
> *Maybe.  Not being a native speaker has disadvantages, doesn't it?  --Oopss, I might be self-indulging... Uh-oh, prejudices!  Turn on the red lights, please!  Make sure somebody dials 911!  *
> 
> *Oh wait, we don't have that in my country...*


----------



## emma42

I think you are misinterpreting the word, VS.  Never mind, I could not begin to have a debate like this in Spanish.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> I think you are misinterpreting the word, VS. Never mind, I could not begin to have a debate like this in Spanish.


Right.  And if you did, this thread's rating would hit the ground...  

I didn't mean to engage into an A-B discussion here.  I just found funny how we might differ in our conceptions...


----------



## emma42

Well, we got there in the end (as far as it went!)


----------



## .   1

I am glad that everybody else is satisfied.  My eyes are still revolving in opposite directions trying to work out what happened .

.,,


----------



## afabafa

Setwale_Charm said:


> What is this due to? Is the situation in Mexico similar to that in Russia: excessive male mortality leads to a "deficit" of males?
> 
> Also, may I ask los estimados foreros not to write in other langaues here since not all participants may be able to read Spanish.


 
I´m very sorry about writting in spanish, and I want to say that here in México there aren´t excessive mortality of male, no no no, the thing is I´m studyng chemical so in my career there are 30 women for 10 men It´s amazing taking in consideration that México is a country with a lot of problem in sexism. here the women are discriminate and It´s so bad, in a place where there are capable women by all around.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> Reading this thread, so full of statements I agree with, I thought, "How nice to find a person who sees it the way I do, in my culture. But what about how these statements would be received by another, different culture?" Then I got to the part I have put in *bold.* Aha, I thought, now she is preaching intolerance of societies with different viewpoints and practices. Not so easy to agree with that.
> 
> Finally, I stepped back from the thread, and tried to think of a culture, any culture, in which exposure to the notion of sexual equality had not led to discontent with time-honored sexism, and eventually to change.
> 
> I have not yet thought of one such instance.
> 
> Could it be that sexism, regardless of its standing as part of a culture, is inherently in opposition to freedom? That may not give me the right (elusive concept, except for the self-satisfied) to try to impose my cultural values on another culture. It does help explain why people who have been exposed to cultures that allow or promote sexual equality seem to want to adapt that to their own lives.


 
 Well, didn`t you know cuchuflete: tolerating the intolerant is suicide
 and this viewpoint has a lot of argument in its favour.
 However, I perfectly see your point.


----------



## .   1

Setwale_Charm said:


> Well, didn`t you know cuchuflete: tolerating the intolerant is suicide
> and this viewpoint has a lot of argument in its favour.
> However, I perfectly see your point.


Blind Freddy wearing a mask at midnight of the new moon in a coal cellar during a blackout could not fail to see that concept with utter lucidity.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Dear afabafa, please do not apologise for writing in Spanish.  The Cultural Discussions Forum is multi-lingual and you may write in any language you choose.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

. said:


> Blind Freddy wearing a mask at midnight of the new moon in a coal cellar during a blackout could not fail to see that concept with utter lucidity.
> 
> .,,


 

Thank you, .,,, but this Freddy is not among acquaintances of mine. Pity! A nice guy?

I only mean that not everybody will be able to profit from what certain foreros write should they choose to do it in a language other than English.


----------



## emma42

Setwale charm, the CD forum is multi-lingual.  If people don't understand a post, they can always PM a friend for a translation.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

But that is more complicated, you must admit The CD Forums are multi-lingual but usually not in one thread. Anyway... It would be nice if those who choose to write in another language, could provide a translation as well, like Danielfranco did.


----------



## emma42

I fear we are going off-topic.  Actually, there is another thread ongoing at the moment dedicated to this very topic.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Setwale_Charm said:


> But that is more complicated, you must admit The CD Forums are multi-lingual but usually not in one thread. Anyway... It would be nice if those who choose to write in another language, could provide a translation as well, like Danielfranco did.


Sorry to be the party pooper, guys...  But isn't this thread about sexism?

I know, I know, it is important to clear out what has been mentioned, but we have a thread on that topic, right here.

Shall we take a look?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

(Pulling her moderator toque well down over her ears),

Thank you, Emma and Venezuelan Sweetie, for  your stalwart efforts at bringing this thread back to topic.

I'm beginning to think that it has died a natural death, but further posts will determine that.


----------



## AngelEyes

cuchuflete said:


> Reading this thread, so full of statements I agree with, I thought, "How nice to find a person who sees it the way I do, in my culture. But what about *how these statements would be received by another, different culture?*" Then I got to the part I have put in *bold.* Aha, I thought, *now she is preaching intolerance of societies with different viewpoints and practices.* Not so easy to agree with that.


 
Cuchuflete, first of all, I must be sitting in the "Stupid Section" because the rest of your post, which two other members have thought was stunningly accurate and supremely erudite, totally flew right over my head. So maybe the surprising has happened again and you and I agree in totality. I don't know. Use simpler words and give it to me once more, maybe. I don't even understand the posts that were written in support of your original hypothesis. Maybe I'm even dimmer than I think.

Anyway, I can and do want to comment on the above. I'm commenting about it because I want to explain how I see it.

There's nothing wrong with intolerance. Sometimes.

Not when it's directed at a philosophy that stunts and hinders the growth of any human being. So I attack the cultural environment, not the people who are born into it. 

Our right as a human being, living on this earth, is freedom. Freedom to choose who we want to be, what we want to be, and where we want to be. Some of us are lucky. We're born into a culture that allows us those freedoms.

Some of us are not. Some of us never know what's it like to do whatever it is we want to do.

Some of us don't even know it's supposed to be our right to choose. It never occurs to some of us that freedom belongs to us. Everyone on this earth is entitled to live in freedom, because none of us is better than the other, none of us own another. We belong to ourselves. This is the saddest part of all: some people don't even know that everyone should live in freedom. 

That their souls belong to them. 

And they're never given the gift of choice to choose their dreams. Some cultures are sewn with the threads of Sexism. The weave is tightened in stitches made with the pattern of repression and fear, and the knots that bind the negativity of Sexism into any culture are fashioned to last. Sexism itself is the gun of violence that assures the culture everything's under control.

So who in their right mind who shuns Sexism could support any culture who is made from it and uses it to beat human beings down to nothing but puppets and slaves?

But I'm shunning the culture, not the people. The society, not its inhabitants.

So there's distinction in my intolerance. Not directed toward a human being, who's right *AS *as a human being is to live free unto themselves. I can never support a culture that cradles its citizens in prisons that never feed them freedom. 

Intolerance was made to be used against any culture who would kill another human being before they've even had a chance to live. 

This is the greatest human sadness: human beings who are never allowed to fly within their souls. 


*AngelEyes*


----------



## .   1

Setwale_Charm said:


> Thank you, .,,, but this Freddy is not among acquaintances of mine. Pity! A nice guy?
> 
> I only mean that not everybody will be able to profit from what certain foreros write should they choose to do it in a language other than English.


Setwale,
May I give you some context for Blind Freddy and the coal cellar.
Blind Freddy is a person who is as thick as a post, not the brightest spanner in the tool kit, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You get the drift, this bloke was a world class under-achiever. The chap would have had a hard time finding his own bum if you gave him a route map and a compass.
Blind Freddy is said to be based on an English toff, a baronet named Sir William Pottinger who was sent from London to Australia's colonial goldfields to catch a bushranger, Ben Hall. It is not known if Sir Bill was really stupid or if it was just a case of a city bloke sent to catch a bushranger in unmapped bush that Ben Hall was born in. In any event it is said that Ben Hall could be on one side of a tree and Blind Freddy on the other and Ben Hall could smoke a pipe with no fear of capture.
The coal cellar is a reference to the darkest place possible. A coal cellar at midnight with no moon and a blackout is the most utterly dark place that I could imagine.
So the stage is set. We have the dim witted Blind Freddy blundering about in the stygian darkness of the coal cellar yet even he can see the absolute clarity of the statement made by Cuchuflete that you had agreed with and to which I was supplying a concomitant compliment.

Is that clearer?

.,,


----------



## Thomsen

AngelEyes said:


> Our right as a human being, living on this earth, is freedom. Freedom to choose who we want to be, what we want to be, and where we want to be. Some of us are lucky. We're born into a culture that allows us those freedoms.


 
I totally agree with you.  But you must recognize that that is based on personal conjecture and at most moral values.  X is right because it is right can be inspirational, but it's still not a persuasive argument.  If you want to argue cultural sensibilities effectively you must do it from within that culture (whatever that means) not from outside.


----------



## AngelEyes

Question:

Do you believe that every human being born on this earth has one inalienable right: 

_To be able to choose who they want to be, what they want to be, and in which way they want to be?_

If your answer is yes, then you and I agree.

If your answer is no, then you are a supporter of one of the main means by which control and power and the withholding of those rights is achieved: Sexism.

There are other ways, I suppose, but that's this thread's topic.

And one final note:
To be able to live as you wish and be who you wish, and fulfill whatever dreams you wish can't be obtained at the expense of someone else. If you do that, then you're looping right back around to trying to control and manipulate others to gain your own goals.

Living in freedom can only work if you allow others to live in freedom, as well.

Once again, Sexism takes away that option, too.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Thomsen said:


> I totally agree with you. But you must recognize that that is based on personal conjecture and at most moral values. X is right because it is right can be inspirational, but it's still not a persuasive argument. If you want to argue cultural sensibilities effectively you must do it from within that culture (whatever that means) not from outside.


Now, that is a persuasive argument! Although, according to it, maybe I should think differently, so that I can see whether it is persuasive to me or not...  

Thomsen, that's precisely my point, not only about sexism, but also about whatever opinion we pretend to give on other cultures... Thanks for setting it so clear.


----------



## emma42

AngelEyes said:


> Question:
> 
> Do you believe that every human being born on this earth has one inalienable right:
> 
> _To be able to choose who they want to be, what they want to be, and in which way they want to be?_


No, I do not believe that every human being born on this earth has any rights whatsoever. I don't believe in the concept of natural rights. Rights are what are conferred by whatever group one happens to be living in.


----------



## Poetic Device

AngelEyes said:


> Question:
> 
> Do you believe that every human being born on this earth has one inalienable right:
> 
> _To be able to choose who they want to be, what they want to be, and in which way they want to be?_
> 
> If your answer is yes, then you and I agree.
> 
> *If your answer is no, then you are a supporter of one of the main means by which control and power and the withholding of those rights is achieved: Sexism.*
> 
> There are other ways, I suppose, but that's this thread's topic.
> 
> And one final note:
> To be able to live as you wish and be who you wish, and fulfill whatever dreams you wish can't be obtained at the expense of someone else. If you do that, then you're looping right back around to trying to control and manipulate others to gain your own goals.
> 
> Living in freedom can only work if you allow others to live in freedom, as well.
> 
> Once again, Sexism takes away that option, too.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
How do you find it fair to say that?


----------



## AngelEyes

emma42 said:


> AngelEyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> Do you believe that every human being born on this earth has one inalienable right:
> 
> _To be able to choose who they want to be, what they want to be, and in which way they want to be?_
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not believe that every human being born on this earth has any rights whatsoever. I don't believe in the concept of natural rights. Rights are what are conferred by whatever group one happens to be living in.
Click to expand...

 
So if you're born into slavery, you deserve and must continue to live your whole life in slavery.

If you're born into a society who treats women as second-class citizens, then...hey, tough luck...you drew the short straw in this game. Live with it.

If I understand you correctly, and maybe I'm not, but if I am...then not everyone who is born on this earth is as good and worthwhile and important as the next person.

You can't possibly be saying this, can you?

What, to you, does the term *Natural Rights* mean?

To me, that means that I am just as important as you. You are just as important as me, and no matter what culture either of us is born into, it can't prohibit this right from belonging to both of us.

You and I are both human beings, inhabiting this same earth. 

No group or culture has the right to take that away from either one of us. Through the use of sexism or something else.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## AngelEyes

Poetic Device said:


> How do you find it fair to say that?


 

Well, my main point is that you and I are equal, both born on the same planet, just in different parts of this world.

I have the right to live my life exactly the way I want, as long as it doesn't hurt you.

*YOU*, too, have that same right: to follow your dreams and become whoever you want to be.

We should all be against whatever denies all our fellow human beings these exact same rights.

It belongs to all of us because all of us have value and are important, just by the very fact that we've been born.

My attitude is *not* to judge who is and who isn't good enough, or special enough to have access to these freedoms.

That's the whole point of my point: we should all be free to choose, and no culture should have the power to deny us.

Sexism in some cultures is precisely one way of accomplishing that denial.

How can any of you be against personal freedom for all?

*AngelEyes*


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> Question:
> 
> Do you believe that every human being born on this earth has one inalienable right:
> 
> _To be able to choose who they want to be, what they want to be, and in which way they want to be?_


Nope.  I do not.
It would be lovely were this the case but it is obviously and transparently demonstrably not the case.
A berber tribesman can wish upon a star for as long as he likes but he will never be an astronaut.
I can train for my whole life but I will never be World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.
What is the point of such a question?

.,,


----------



## AngelEyes

. said:


> Nope. I do not.
> It would be lovely were this the case but it is obviously and transparently demonstrably not the case.
> A berber tribesman can wish upon a star for as long as he likes but he will never be an astronaut.
> I can train for my whole life but I will never be World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.
> What is the point of such a question?
> 
> .,,


 
1. A berber tribesman can wish upon a star for as long as he likes but he will never be an astronaut.

_But he should have the opportunity to choose to leave his tribe and try, if he wants to. No one in the tribe should have the power to tell him he has to stay, or can never leave._




2. I can train for my whole life but I will never be World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.

_Maybe you won't become a champion, but I have no right - and neither does anyone else here on this board - to tell you that you can't try._


*That's my point.*


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

AngelEyes said:


> That's the whole point of my point: we should all be free to choose, and no culture should have the power to deny us.


Look, darling, your post is wonderful. It reminds me of earlier days, when my idealism would unadvertidly make me tread upon other people's cultural background.

The deal is that, if you're right, then what should you do? Intervene? That's precisely my worst and biggest fear, darling. <_Meaning that I don't want to start thinking that way, nor I would like any other culture even try to mess up with mine or any other's_...> And that's also the stupid excuse that some politicians wield against some superpowers...


----------



## cuchuflete

Where do rights, natural rights, unnatural rights, aberrant rights, or any other kind of rights come from?
Societies or cultures come to agreements about what they believe to be fundamentally 'correct', and more often, efficient for the general welfare of that particular society or culture.  Rights do not fall from heaven or from the lips of Rush Limbo or Norman Thomas or Dick Cheney or Karl Marx.  They did not emerge from the primordial ooze.  They are human creations, and as dozens upon dozens of fascinating threads in this forum demonstrate, the definition of a right is a moving target.  

Citizens of the US do not (yet) have a right to state sponsored medical care in all circumstances.  Citizens of many European nations and Canada do have broad rights in that regard.  AngelEyes just introduced, for the first time, the notion of what people "deserve".   That has nothing to do with the definition of sexism or sex-based discrimination.  It is a non-objective value judgement.  So is the notion of how 'important' or 'unimportant' a person may be.

I disagree with sexism.  I don't like sexism.  I would prefer that all societies and cultures, starting with my own, dispense with it.   I have no "right" to impose my viewpoints on other societies and cultures.   I may have a 'right' to disagree with them, to find fault with them, to criticize them, from my viewpoint, but I have no grid-given 'right' to enforce my views on other societies.  

Forget 'rights' for a moment, and consider what I said in an earlier post, trying to link the absence of sexism and freedom.  I pointed out that members of sexist societies, once exposed to an alternative, tended to prefer the non-sexist alternative.  That is a lot different from stating that anyone is born with a right to this or that.  People often coincide in their wishes, their desires, maybe their instinctive attractions to something.  That is not the same thing as declaring it to be a right bestowed from the clouds, or granted by more enlightened humans.

Take, for example, a tribe in which there is discrimination in economic roles.  Men clean houses and rear children and cook and sew, while women hunt dangerous game and play tennis at the local club and boast about how cute and lovely their hairy-faced menfolk are.  This is the long-standing social order, the only one known to all the men and women.  They do not question it, as they have had no exposure to an alternative way of living. 
One fine day, an UN Agency for the Promotion of Burrocracy and Excess Administration expedition arrives.  The men don't know a damned thing about sewing, for the most part, except for one or two who like to sew and are good at it.  The UN APBEA team has women who are brave hunters/huntresses, and also some who prefer to cook.  All the UN team members appear happy and well-adjusted with their individual and collective choices.

At first the tribe members are absolutely astonished at the freedom of choice shown by the UN team members.
They cannot imagine a society in which people choose, freely, to adopt both the conventional, 'correct' roles, and the opposite, 'unnatural' ones.  After a while, the UN team, having left some pernicious microbes with the tribe, goes home.  Some members of the tribe begin to show signs that they, too, would like the freedom of choice displayed by the UN team members.  This move to adopt greater freedom seems, to me at least, to be a human instinct that is widespread.  Other tribe members prefer to be conservative, keep to their old ways.  They fear that change will destroy their culture.  They are at ease with what is known, in this case sex discrimination.  That too is an exercise in freedom of choice.  Before the UN visit, it was unthinking acceptance of the status quo, but after having seen an alternative, it is a conscious choice, an exercise of the freedom to think and make a personal decision.  

Do these tribespeople have any inherent right to rock the boat and change the way things are and have always been?  If their society permits such a choice, they have that right.  If their society does not, they don't, but many may campaign for it until they win it.  That's human instinct, risk-taking, or whatever else you may call it.
It is not a right until the local culture comes to agree that it is a right.  

Some women were 'allowed' to go to school in Afghanistan before the Taliban took control. During Taliban control, they could not.  Discrimination.  After the Taliban were deposed, many women welcomed the opportunity to get some education, without sexist constraints.  That's good, from my viewpoint.  What is far less good is if another culture sends an army to enforce the "right" to an education.  That sounds too much like colonial occupation of Latin America, in which people were given the 'rights' to practice a foreign religious faith, and to be slaves.  The more 'enlightened' and modern society imposed and enforced its sense of rights on other
cultures.  Of course the Europeans had God on their side, as they saw it at the time.


----------



## emma42

I will try to put this simply:  In the USA, you have a Bill of Rights.  You have these rights because they have been conferred upon you by those who rule you/rule in your name.  In some states of the USA gay men are not allowed to marry eachother because they do not have the right.  In other states, they do have the right.

Rights are artificial concepts conferred upon people.  Human beings, other animals, plants, and minerals have no natural rights.  Nature is nature.  Artificial constructs are artificial constructs.

Edit:  Sorry, I posted at the same time as Cuchuflete.


----------



## AngelEyes

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Look, darling, your post is wonderful. It reminds me of earlier days, when my idealism would unadvertidly make me tread upon other people's cultural background.
> 
> The deal is that, if you're right, then what should you do? Intervene? That's precisely my worst and biggest fear, darling. And that's also the stupid excuse that some politicians wield against some superpowers...


 

Thanks, sweetheart...I love it when someone thinks I'm wonderful. 

If I were stuck in a culture that treated me as if I were invisible at best, and the chattel of some man, at worst...I'd be praying my ass off someone would come and save me. 

It's clear that you fear I'll stick my fat, American gun into somebody's culture, all in the guise of "saving them from themselves". Maybe that's what scares you the most. Don't worry, I'm not that wonderful.

So, maybe we can stick to the philosophical point of this discussion, concerning the use of sexism to control a person.

I believe nobody should have control over anybody's personal freedom.

If that makes me an idealistic dreamer, then thanks! 

I'll take that as a compliment and go and enjoy my day.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

This discussion on rights has nothing to do with idealism.  Is anyone able to point to one instance of a "right" which has not been won, conferred, or brought into existence by common consent?   If someone is able, I will revise my thinking on "natural rights".


----------



## AngelEyes

cuchuflete said:


> AngelEyes just introduced, for the first time, the notion of what people "deserve". That has nothing to do with the definition of sexism or sex-based discrimination.


 
I defined sexism in my first post:

*First of all, I define sexism as an attitude or belief system that includes the idea that one sex is superior over the other and, therefore, should have the privilege and right to make decisions for all in political, social, and personal areas.*

Based on that definition, I believe every human being deserves equal opportunity to pursue their dreams in life. If someone, using sexism as the basis to deny anyone that right, prevents them from their own personal freedom, I feel that is wrong.

It's a philosophical point that I'm trying to make here.

Nothing more.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Ouch!  

See, AngelEyes, I never meant to make this personal. My view on "rights" is very similar to what Emma and Cuchu have posted (so clearly!). However, let me adress to those accusations (not the word, I know... Dang! I hate not to be a native speaker... )


AngelEyes said:


> Thanks, sweetheart...I love it when someone thinks I'm wonderful. You're honest, dear, even against 'general consensus' (does such a thing exist in here?). That's something that not a lot of people dare to be. That's what makes your post wonderful.
> 
> If I were stuck in a culture that treated me as if I were invisible at best, and the chattel of some man, at worst...I'd be praying my ass off someone would come and save me. You would. You! Maybe I would, too. Someone from your (our) context would see things in a way. We don't know how women in other context see their own circumstances. Besides, even if they actually are suffering, careful with playing Superman... We're not bulletproof, are we?
> 
> It's clear that you fear I'll stick my fat, American gun into somebody's culture, all in the guise of "saving them from themselves". Maybe that's what scares you the most. Don't worry, I'm not that wonderful. Never said that.
> 
> So, maybe we can stick to the philosophical point of this discussion, concerning the use of sexism to control a person. Are you saying I'm off-topic?
> 
> I believe nobody should have control over anybody's personal freedom. And who's to say what's someone's personal freedom? Re-read Cuchu's post, please...
> 
> If that makes me an idealistic dreamer, then thanks! Think what you may, so will I. But, let's be careful not to label a culture in a way just because it's different...
> 
> I'll take that as a compliment and go and enjoy my day.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


EDIT: As I proofread it, I notice it sounds much tougher in English than it would in Spanish. Sorry about that, my English lacks of the refining that a native speaker would have...


----------



## emma42

AngelEyes said:


> Thanks, sweetheart...I love it when someone thinks I'm wonderful.
> 
> _If I were stuck in a culture that treated me as if I were invisible at best, and the chattel of some man, at worst...I'd be praying my ass off someone would come and save me. _
> 
> _It's clear that you fear I'll stick my fat, American gun into somebody's culture, all in the guise of "saving them from themselves". Maybe that's what scares you the most. Don't worry, I'm not that wonderful._
> 
> _So, maybe we can stick to the philosophical point of this discussion, concerning the use of sexism to control a person._
> 
> _I believe nobody should have control over anybody's personal freedom._
> 
> _If that makes me an idealistic dreamer, then thanks! _
> 
> _I'll take that as a compliment and go and enjoy my day._


 
We all know what sexism means. That is simple. What you seem unable to grasp is the concept of "rights" as artificial constructions, not natural law. It has been explained very clearly, and you have failed to address it. Repeating that you believe people have the right to personal freedom and that you are an idealist doesn't take the discussion any further.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Angel Eyes
> We should all be free to choose, and no culture should have the power to deny us.


 
Is this a discussion on sexism or "the freedom to choose"?

Allow me to say, again, that those women who are born into a culture which is male dominated (see my post on Iran) have no desire to break away from their way of life.

In my studies of anthropology, leading on from my specialist knowledge of prehistoric Britain (as an archaeologist) it is evident that early man was the provider - a strong, brave hunter of animals for food, and that woman was the nurturer - bearing and caring for her children and cooking the food for everyone. One has only to consider the primitive people who still inhabit the Earth. Some of them are not far removed from our earliest ancestors, except that they are no longer itinerant hunter-gatherers but live in settled communities where they keep animals and grow crops (rainfall permitting).

I avidly watch any TV documentary on such people. What do I see? Happy, contented men, women and children, who have no thought of changing their way of life. 

When I was blessed with my two sons, educated though I am, my burning desire was to raise them myself. There was no way I was going to hand them over to a child minder while I continued with my career. My husband was earning enough to care for us all in relative comfort. And he shared in the care of our sons, spending all his spare time playing with them when they were small and taking them off on mountaineering expeditions when they were only 6 and 3 years old. They learned the joys of camping in the wilds of Scotland, learning the names of wild flowers, birds, trees, funghi, insects. At the age of 7, my elder son could name 69 varieties of wild flowers simply by looking at pictures of them. 

Sexism didn't come into it. I thoroughly enjoyed my role as nurturer and carer of my children and husband. We all adored each other. Admittedly my (late) husband said, when we were discussing having children, "I would sincerely hope that you will want to bring them up and not farm them out to some childminder." I told him that my love of any children would be so deep that I wouldn't be able to allow anyone else to care for them.

Call it a mother's primitive urge to care for her offspring. I saw no sexism in what my husband said. In fact, I stayed at home for 15 years! My husband gave me a personal allowance each month.

Finally I returned to work - a happy and contented mother with two sons to be immensely proud of. 

OK, I know I was living in fortunate circumstances, not available to everyone. I did very well on the day that I said "I do" to my precious husband.

LRV

PS: I also wish to add that it is in my nature to have a man to lean on and rely on. I am no feminist who thinks that she is stronger than a man. I like to be looked after by a man.


----------



## .   1

Below edited for blank lines only.


AngelEyes said:


> 1. A berber tribesman can wish upon a star for as long as he likes but he will never be an astronaut.
> _But he should have the opportunity to choose to leave his tribe and try, if he wants to. No one in the tribe should have the power to tell him he has to stay, or can never leave._
> 2. I can train for my whole life but I will never be World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.
> _Maybe you won't become a champion, but I have no right - and neither does anyone else here on this board - to tell you that you can't try._
> *That's my point.*
> *AngelEyes*


Do I now understand you to be saying that everybody has the right to try to be any thing they want to be.
I am totally cool with that concept I just believe that it is not conceivable that everybody has the right to be any thing they want.

A dictator is a person who believes that they have the rights to be what they want while a senator is a person who became what they wanted.

That is my difficulty with the concept of rights.

I don't believe that I have the absolute right to do many things.

I have the right to do a couple of the things all of the time and some of the things some of the time and a few of the things most of the time but if I try to do all of the things all of the time I will wind up doing time for a long time.

.,,


----------



## AngelEyes

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> The deal is that, if you're right, then what should you do? Intervene?


 
I took as your meaning with the word "intervene" as coming in and trying to take over any foreign government, using whatever means possible to change their social and political structure. On such a grand scale as "intervening" in a country, I assumed using "force and weaponry". I'm sorry if I was wrong there. 

I'd be happy to comment here:


If I were stuck in a culture that treated me as if I were invisible at best, and the chattel of some man, at worst...I'd be praying my ass off someone would come and save me. You would. You! Maybe I would, too. Someone from your (our) context would see things in a way. We don't know how women in other context see their own circumstances. Besides, even if they actually are suffering, careful with playing Superman... We're not bulletproof, are we?

*That's just it, if you know someone is suffering, it's very hard not to want to help and alleviate that suffering. Is that playing "Superman"? I'd rather care too much than not care at all. (I'm NOT talking personal)*

It's clear that you fear I'll stick my fat, American gun into somebody's culture, all in the guise of "saving them from themselves". Maybe that's what scares you the most. Don't worry, I'm not that wonderful. 
*Read above why I thought so.*



So, maybe we can stick to the philosophical point of this discussion, concerning the use of sexism to control a person. Are you saying I'm off-topic? 
*Nope. I'm saying that's where I started from and that's where I'm still at in my head, as it refers to this thread.*


I believe nobody should have control over anybody's personal freedom. And who's to say what's someone's personal freedom? Re-read Cuchu's post, please...
*My posts are based on my personal belief that we are all born free insides our hearts. To have to live as anything less than that is wrong, in my opinion. Sexism is one way that we are denied our freedoms. *



If that makes me an idealistic dreamer, then thanks! Think what you may, so will I. But, let's be careful not to label a culture in a way just because it's different... 

*Well, the danger in not labeling a culture that's a detriment to individuals' growth in some instances as a negative, is that the people who have to live inside them suffer and can never get out. If no one cares about those who have to live inside those cultures and who want to leave, but aren't allowed to, how will these people ever enjoy living in personal freedom?*

*I'm not saying that we should charge in and force change, because we see how that action is accepted world-wide. *

*But, in my own heart and mind, I will always feel it's wrong that some human beings will never know the happiness that comes from living the life they choose to live.*

And once again, sexism is a very popular way to control any group of people. It's a form of slavery that should be abolished.

This is the way I see it. Nothing more.



*AngelEyes*


----------



## AngelEyes

emma42 said:


> .[/I]
> We all know what sexism means. That is simple. What you seem unable to grasp is the concept of "rights" as artificial constructions, not natural law. It has been explained very clearly, and you have failed to address it. Repeating that you believe people have the right to personal freedom and that you are an idealist doesn't take the discussion any further.


 

Each person who is born has the right to live their life the way they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

When a group of people, using sexism as their guide, beats them down and doesn't let them follow their own bliss, I think it's wrong.

My opinions are based on this principle of thought.

You think I'm wrong? Okay.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Poetic Device

Yes, but what is right and what is real are sometimes two completely different things.  This is one of those times.


----------



## emma42

AngelEyes said:


> Each person who is born has the right to live their life the way they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.


 
No, they don't. Please read the posts on rights. PoeticDevice is on the right lines.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm so glad that the belief in the "right to live their life the way they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." has guided the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in its ruling to overturn sexist restrictions on marriage.

Note that there is a large difference between "hurt anyone else" and offend the ideas, beliefs, principles of anyone else.

I agree with AngelEyes's opinion, when she states of sexism, "I think it's wrong."  I don't think it follows logically that I should do anything to change the behavior of people who don't agree with me, beyond showing by example that the absence of sexism is a possibility.  I suspect that most people, on seeing that a society free of such discrimination can exist, will choose to move away from sexism.  Change is difficult, so the more conservative members of a society may take longer to come to the realization that the way things 'always have been' is not of necessity the way things ought to be forever.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

cuchuflete said:


> (...)Note that there is a large difference between "hurt anyone else" and offend the ideas, beliefs, principles of anyone else.
> 
> I agree with AngelEyes's opinion, when she states of sexism, "I think it's wrong." I don't think it follows logically that I should do anything to change the behavior of people who don't agree with me, beyond showing by example that the absence of sexism is a possibility. I suspect that most people, on seeing that a society free of such discrimination can exist, will choose to move away from sexism. Change is difficult, so the more conservative members of a society may take longer to come to the realization that the way things 'always have been' is not of necessity the way things ought to be forever.


Cuchu, once again, I agree with you.

I was struggling with the language of (Ben) Franklin in order to express pretty much the same idea but... nevermind, you've done it!

Just a little adenda:  The thought/belief/ideal/whatever that "I was born free, I'll live my life the way I want, and I'll try not to hurt anyone in the meantime" has unfortunately caused a lot of anarchy in this world of us.  I meant to expand on that, but I think it's not necessary any more...


----------



## AngelEyes

I've commented in *bold*.



la reine victoria said:


> Is this a discussion on sexism or "the freedom to choose"?
> 
> *When I think of "sexism" I automatically tie it in with the rights and freedoms it denies. So, in that vein, I DO think they're intertwined.*
> 
> Allow me to say, again, that those women who are born into a culture which is male dominated (see my post on Iran) have no desire to break away from their way of life.
> 
> *All women who live in a male-dominated society have no* *desire to break away from that way of life? Hmm, I can't agree with that, but I guess we'd have to ask every one of them to find out. Of course, they probably wouldn't be allowed to answer as they truly feel, if it went against the man who owns them, so I guess that wouldn't work, either. *
> 
> In my studies of anthropology, leading on from my specialist knowledge of prehistoric Britain (as an archaeologist) it is evident that early man was the provider - a strong, brave hunter of animals for food, and that woman was the nurturer - bearing and caring for her children and cooking the food for everyone. One has only to consider the primitive people who still inhabit the Earth. Some of them are not far removed from our earliest ancestors, except that they are no longer itinerant hunter-gatherers but live in settled communities where they keep animals and grow crops (rainfall permitting).
> 
> I avidly watch any TV documentary on such people. What do I see? Happy, contented men, women and children, who have no thought of changing their way of life.
> 
> *I'm not saying everybody must be miserable if they don't live their life "according to the world of AngelEyes." I'm saying that a bad side effect to sexism is that it breeds lots of unhappy people. People who have a right to pursue happiness, however they define that word.*
> 
> When I was blessed with my two sons, educated though I am, my burning desire was to raise them myself. There was no way I was going to hand them over to a child minder while I continued with my career. My husband was earning enough to care for us all in relative comfort. And he shared in the care of our sons, spending all his spare time playing with them when they were small and taking them off on mountaineering expeditions when they were only 6 and 3 years old. They learned the joys of camping in the wilds of Scotland, learning the names of wild flowers, birds, trees, funghi, insects. At the age of 7, my elder son could name 69 varieties of wild flowers simply by looking at pictures of them.
> 
> Sexism didn't come into it. I thoroughly enjoyed my role as nurturer and carer of my children and husband. We all adored each other. Admittedly my (late) husband said, when we were discussing having children, "I would sincerely hope that you will want to bring them up and not farm them out to some childminder." I told him that my love of any children would be so deep that I wouldn't be able to allow anyone else to care for them.
> 
> Call it a mother's primitive urge to care for her offspring. I saw no sexism in what my husband said. In fact, I stayed at home for 15 years! My husband gave me a personal allowance each month.
> 
> Finally I returned to work - a happy and contented mother with two sons to be immensely proud of.
> 
> OK, I know I was living in fortunate circumstances, not available to everyone. I did very well on the day that I said "I do" to my precious husband.
> 
> LRV
> 
> PS: I also wish to add that it is in my nature to have a man to lean on and rely on. I am no feminist who thinks that she is stronger than a man. I like to be looked after by a man.


 
*LRV, may I add that I'm very impressed with your willingness to share your ideas here about family and children. I respect your choices that you made.*

*Is it an example of reverse sexism...you choose to stay home and raise your sons...that makes you feel as if you have to explain why you chose to do so?*

*I just wanted to highlight your willingness to talk about something you did that's not too popular over here in the US today.*

*Raising children is a noble profession.*




*AngelEyes*


----------



## TrentinaNE

la reine victoria said:


> those women who are born into a culture which is male dominated (see my post on Iran) have no desire to break away from their way of life.


The women profiled in _Reading Lolita in Tehran_ might disagree with that statement.



> Sexism didn't come into it.


In which case, I don't understand the relevance. You had the ability to make choices and you did. 


> I am no feminist who thinks that she is stronger than a man.


That isn't a requirement in my version of the handbook.  



AngelEyes said:


> I just wanted to highlight your willingness to talk about something you did that's not too popular over here in the US today.


It actually strikes me as quite popular among those who can afford the choice.


----------



## danielfranco

Speaking of sexism, and since nobody else took me up on the offer to talk about "reverse sexism", I wanted to comment that raising children is not only a noble profession, but also one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life (and I've worked in all manner of "menial" jobs before, even digging ditches - talk about clichés...)
But for the short time (a couple of years) in which my wife and I decided I would be the person staying home and doing most of the "daily work" of childrearing, I was very much looked down upon (crap, that's too mild, I think I was derided) for my perceived lack of masculinity. How could a grown man not bring home the bacon?
That was a real eye-opener. So, from that point forward, I've always resented any instance of sexism against anyone at all. 

Even against men.


----------



## emma42

Well, danielfranco, your experience of derision was sexism.  Strangely, it seems to be the experience of many men where I live, who are the primary child-carers, that they are congratulated and greatly admired, whereas female primary carers are not given a second glance and are just expected to get on with it.  I'm sorry you had that experience, but I'm glad you stood up to the sexists.  It is people like you who, by example, can help to change certain sexist perceptions.


----------



## AngelEyes

TrentinaNE said:


> It actually strikes me as quite popular among those who can afford the choice.


 

I know quite a few women, married to men who make a good living, who can't wait to shove their kids in daycare and get on with "their" lives.

I guess you can't generalize in this area, because there are also women who _have_ to work to support their families.

Women seem to almost "apologize" sometimes, if they choose to raise their own children.

I find that sad. Especially for the children.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

In an ideal world, children should be raised by those who love them best.  To bring the matter back on topic:  of course this does not _have _to be the mother.  One of the principal reasons for this usually being the case, certainly in my country, is that women's wages are, in general, lower than those of men.  Now, I wonder why that would be...?


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> Each person who is born has the right to live their life the way they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
> 
> When a group of people, using sexism as their guide, beats them down and doesn't let them follow their own bliss, I think it's wrong.





AngelEyes said:


> I know quite a few women, married to men who make a good living, who can't wait to shove their kids in daycare and get on with "their" lives.



I suggest that a woman, or a man, who wants to "shove their kids in daycare" is not apt to be a loving or effective parent, and that the kids are better off in daycare.  So much for yet another example of parents doing the part I highlighted in the first quote.


----------



## AngelEyes

AngelEyes said:


> Each person who is born has the right to live their life the way they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.


 

_I only support this:_

*Each person who is born has the right to live their life the way they want,*

_when it goes along with this:_

*as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.*


That's why I wrote it in the same sentence.

I call it "accountability."



*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

If it hurts my husband's sense of ego and manhood if I wish to go out to work,  should I not go out to work?

Who is to say what is justifiable "hurt"?


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> I know quite a few women, married to men who make a good living, who can't wait to shove their kids in daycare and get on with "their" lives.


I know enough men and women with exactly that attitude.  It is beyond my ken.  People like that are most likely to bang on about the superiority of their system yet are causing their children to be raised by total strangers in conditions approaching chaos; just imagine 30 toddlers being farmed in a group.  It's like a feedlot.

Some extremely wealthy societies are only now reaping the fruits of their decision to cause most of their wealthy children to be raised in this disconnected manner.  It must be very disconcerting for a little kid to be removed from mum and dad on a daily basis to be 'loved' by strangers following some form of formulaic approach to childrearing.

I am against anything that would cause even one more kid to be confined to such a childhood.

There are all sorts of assumptions regarding sexism and the 'rights' of men and women but children should be considered and we could do ourselves a great deal of help by considering what is best for them first.

I am trying valiently to stay on track but maybe I need to start a new thread.  Sorry.  It's early morning by the sun down here but I have been awake since 3am I am a little fuzzy.

See ya

.,,


----------



## Setwale_Charm

AngelEyes said:


> I know quite a few women, married to men who make a good living, who can't wait to shove their kids in daycare and get on with "their" lives.
> 
> I guess you can't generalize in this area, because there are also women who _have_ to work to support their families.
> 
> Women seem to almost "apologize" sometimes, if they choose to raise their own children.
> 
> I find that sad. Especially for the children.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
  I agree. It becomes a reverse problem when you begin to have pressure along the opposite line.


----------



## emma42

It is off-topic, but would make an interesting new thread, if there is not already one in existence somewhere.

Edit:  There is one.  It's called "How to raise a baby in your country".


----------



## Setwale_Charm

emma42 said:


> If it hurts my husband's sense of ego and manhood if I wish to go out to work, should I not go out to work?
> 
> Who is to say what is justifiable "hurt"?


 

Only yourself, I guess. If you look at that in terms of "male ego" and manhood , you might say it is sexist to ask for such things, but if you look at it from the angle of sparing other person`s feelings, it might take another light. Your husband has probably also spared your feelings and your ego more than on one occassion and with a certain amount of resolution this can be always interpreted as sexist on your part.

So I am repeating myself. I believe (others are free to disagree) that sexism is not so much about men-women relationships, it`s about power, suppression and humiliation and sex is just among the lines along which the above may be exercised. I have never seen a community where sexist attitudes towards women would be rampant and yet there would be egalitarianism and tolerance towards children, people of non-conventional views, sexual minorities and even where there would not exist a lot of hidden anti-male sexism. So I am led to believe that it is just a matter of perception of power and status in a particular society and a tradition of non-egalitarianism and suppression. And to me, sexism, whether male or female, like any other kind of chauvinism, says more about the cowardice and the hang-ups of the "oppressing" side rather than about the actual number of positions held by or opportunities existing for "the oppressed". The UN has a system of evaluation of human development indices according to the degree of gender equality which is determined by the number of women holding top positions, the rates of their wages, career and educational prospects. And many more conservative people suspect it is all about putting more women into top power and business. 
But it is not about having a particular number of women in parliaments or large corporations! it is not because somebody thinks that women are more efficient or that men are not able to make decisions without them or vice-versa, everybody perfectly realises that any parliament needs qualified, competent *people*, no matter whether they are males or females. It is about the maturity of the society and its ability to overcome its fears, hang-ups, aggression, myths... If one category of population is oppressed in a society, it only shows the weakness of the other. And this has to be overcome. People often confuse rights and respect. Women (or any other category for that matter) may have all formal rights but they are not getting the same respect, and this cannot be rectified through introduction of quotas or conventions, but only through education and different upbringing.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emma42 said:


> If it hurts my husband's sense of ego and manhood if I wish to go out to work, should I not go out to work?
> 
> Who is to say what is justifiable "hurt"?


This is a very good argument, Emma. The interesting part is that, as it has already been suggested, concepts of "hurt" can also be defined by context, culture, upbringing, family values, personal experiences... society! 

In other words, I find it very difficult to find a universal definition of "hurt", or something like a 'chart' in which different degrees of "hurt" are outlined.  Then it would be necessary to reach a consensus regarding, for example, which types of "hurt" are acceptable and which aren't, or in case there is the chance of causing different types of "hurt", which type(s) should be avoided when taking decisions and which should be preferred for being considered innocuous (milder?)

To me, rights, hurt, respect, freedom, and some other elusive concepts, are really hard (impossible?) to be found in their natural state (not biased in the least)... Then, the approach you were replying to stops being valid in the sexism field... Or perhaps, also in any other?  

That's why I think it is polemic to discuss "rights" in a thread of sexism... (Or again, in any other?  )



Setwale_Charm said:


> People often confuse rights and respect.


Very, very interesting statement...


----------



## emma42

_


Venezuelan_sweetie said:



			This is a very good argument, Emma. The interesting part is that, as it has already been suggested, concepts of "hurt" can also be defined by context, culture, upbringing, family values, personal experiences... society!
		
Click to expand...

_ 

My point exactly, VS.  We must stop agreeing with eachother.


----------



## AngelEyes

Maybe "hurt" is a fluid emotion. Meaning, it expands and contracts according to the moment and the two people involved. Maybe you have to personalize it first to understand the feeling it evokes inside you, and inside the person you're interacting with.

It's valid at all times. But it's strength and power is manifested by the people who feel its potential.

And it's choice: yours, his, theirs...what will you do about it, and are you willing to accept the consequences of your decision? All are valid, but all are accountable, once the choice is made.

Yet it's this "choice" that's our gift, when you live in a society that allows one to begin with. When you live in a society that doesn't - example: sexisim - you still experience the hurt, but you're denied the right to do something about it.

I think that's very sad, indeed.

And, for me, I can't even begin to discuss "sexism" without including the word "rights" because one of the first side-effects or results of it is denial to certain individuals of exactly that...a "right" to be treated fairly, no matter who they happen to be - male or female.

Also, as for certain items of thought in this thread being _polemic, _why, isn't this whole thread polemic? That's the whole point of its existence in the first place: discussion of differing points of view in order to gain a new perspective, other than your own. 



*AngelEyes*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

First off, I'm sorry for editing your post.  It is very logical and polite, and that makes it worth a full read.  But, you know, space is golden in here... 


AngelEyes said:


> Maybe "hurt" is a fluid emotion. Meaning, it expands and contracts according to the moment and the two people involved. Maybe you have to personalize it first to understand the feeling it evokes inside you, and inside the person you're interacting with.


I think you're right.  However, that supports my statements instead of contradicting them.

See, since you and I don't think of "hurt" the same way than a Japanese/Kenian/Russian/[insert any other nationality here] woman in general -much less in specific-, it's really bold to say that, since XXX behavior from men would hurt me, then it would automatically hurt any other woman, therefore it's not acceptable...



> And, for me, I can't even begin to discuss "sexism" without including the word "rights" because one of the first side-effects or results of it is denial to certain individuals of exactly that...a "right" to be treated fairly, no matter who they happen to be - male or female.


Great.  The point is that you see rights in a way, and I see them in another.  Are we both right, both wrong, one is right and the other is not, or whatever?


----------



## AngelEyes

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Great. The point is that you see rights in a way, and I see them in another. Are we both right, both wrong, one is right and the other is not, or whatever?


 
You know, I couldn't tell you if you asked me right now, what I think *your* opinion is about sexism as it relates to what is lost for any individual who experiences it. 

So I'm going to rectify that here:
In your opinion, what exactly does sexism result in when it happens to someone? I mean, what is lost to that individual because of it? If not certain "rights" are lost, then what *is* the loss, in your mind?

If someone treats you in a certain way - based on your gender - what is it you lose in the process?

Also, you ask who is right: me? you? them? us?

I have no answer, except my own, and I have to live with it and its consequences all my life.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> I know quite a few women, married to men who make a good living, who can't wait to shove their kids in daycare and get on with "their" lives.
> I guess you can't generalize in this area, because there are also women who _have_ to work to support their families.
> Women seem to almost "apologize" sometimes, if they choose to raise their own children.
> I find that sad. Especially for the children.



What on earth does this have to do with sexism?

Some parents, for reasons we may _think_ we know, choose to send, or "shove", or place thier offspring in daycare.  Some do it so they can go to work, and have to work .  Some do it because they want to continue a career.  Some may do it because they are lousy at child rearing.  Some may do it because they are selfish.  As observers, I suppose we have the "right" to an opinion.
Some of us may "know" the right and wrong, best and worst way to raise children, in everyone else's family circumstances.   I'm glad not to be among that brigade of militant know-it-alls who would dictate how other people run their family affairs.  

The right to an opinion carries the accountability to be factual and logical in setting up a declaration that there is a 'right way' to do things.  

The quoted thread does not contrast the circumstances of a poor family that has no choice:
children must go to daycare so that parents can work to earn rent and food.  Is daycare only for the poor?  Does a level of family earnings dictate that a family should forefeit the "right" to choose daycare as part of their child rearing?  What is that precise level?  Who gets to decide? On what objective measure?

Those who would tell another family what decisions they ought to make about child rearing would certainly be the sort who would tell other countries and cultures how to behave.   That is not freedom.  That is meddling, in a way that interferes with the exercise of freedom by other people.

In a non-sexist society, a decision to raise a child entirely at home, send the child to daycare half days, or full days, or send a child to boarding school, would be made by both parents.  It would not be made by neighbours, friends, acquaintances or strangers, regardless of sex.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

AngelEyes said:


> In your opinion, what exactly does sexism result in when it happens to someone? I mean, what is lost to that individual because of it? If not certain "rights" are lost, then what *is* the loss, in your mind?  If someone treats you in a certain way - based on your gender - what is it you lose in the process?





Setwale_Charm said:


> People often confuse rights and respect.


Need to say more?


> Also, you ask who is right: me? you? them? us?


That was a rhetorical question, dear...


> I have no answer, except my own, and I have to live with it and its consequences all my life.


Fantastic...


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

cuchuflete said:


> What on earth does this have to do with sexism? (...)


Cuchu, you must have started to think you have an echo, or something, but I can't help it: I agree.    Especially with the last three paragraphs...


----------



## AngelEyes

Since I tie in, at least in my mind, sexual equality with sexism...I automatically shift to child-rearing and its responsibilities. Specifically, I'm speaking about the "Woman's Movement" whose goal it was to seek equality for women here in the United States.

Back "then" one of the specific achievements they/we sought was the right to have it all: career, marriage, children...equal pay for equal work. 

It became our objective to have childcare in order for us to go out and have a career at the same time.

The basis for some of the discontent was that we were stuck at home raising kids and couldn't fulfill our own dreams. 

Did we win the war of equality? We're still fighting it, some would say, so who knows?

My point in talking about children was in reply to another post where she mentioned that she was proud of her decision to stay home and raise her boys.

I thought it was a sad commentary on where we are today, as one of the side-effects of that "war" we began so many years ago.

Being a stay-at-home mom in America seems to carry with it now the need to explain/apologize our decision to do so. It's not considered "glamorous or important" enough on its own. Maybe YOU don't feel that way, but I know lots of women who do! And since the poster lives in England, I wonder if it doesn't happen there, as well. 

All of this ties in to what sexism is and what it does even when it's challenged and defeated...however small an amount that might be.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

AngelEyes said:


> Since I tie in, at least in my mind, sexual equality with sexism...I automatically shift to child-rearing and its responsibilities. Specifically, I'm speaking about the "Woman's Movement" whose goal it was to seek equality for women here in the United States.


So, finally, we set clear that we're talking about _*our own *_context, _*our own*_ views, and what *we consider* a "right"* according to that...*  Nice...


> Did we win the war of equality? We're still fighting it, some would say, so who knows?


War?  Okay...  Have you heard there are not winners in any war?  I fully agree with it.  In spite of it, I'm personally engaged in a fight against absolutism (my own personal war), and even if I "win" it, I know I've been absolutist in the sense of believing absolutism should be fought against...  Well, it sounds kind of confusing, but since you're into making phylosophical points, you should understand me.  

What I mean is, fighting means holding tight to your side of the fence.  That in the sexism field, could perfectly mean gathering all behaviors together and setting them in files, labeled "sexist" and "not sexist".  Dangerous...  Besides, it could be one tiny step away from reverse sexism...


> I thought it was a sad commentary on where we are today, as one of the side-effects of that "war" we began so many years ago.


What did I just say about wars?





> All of this ties in to what sexism is and what it does even when it's challenged and defeated...however small an amount that might be.


 What would we, really, be challenging?  How can you be sure there is an absolute definition of sexism?  That's the stone in our way: some of us think there is such thing, and some others don't.  Can this thread go any further?


----------



## AngelEyes

This will be my last post here at this thread.

Sexism is a beast with tentacles. Its results don't stay captured in the belly of that beast. Sexism - that is, sexual discrimination based on gender -  reaches out and into many areas, far away from its point of origin.

I've tried to share with you all what it means to me. 

I've read and ingested all of your thoughts and opinions. I've tried to stay respectful of you all. I hope I've succeeded.

But the point of this thread - I thought - is that you all want to hear other points of view, other opinions...even if they have no resemblance to your own.

I don't expect you to agree with me. But I've shared with you what I thought.

I guess that's the best one can hope for.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

AngelEyes said:


> This will be my last post here at this thread.(...)


One of the things I dislike the most of forums is that one cannot see the other person's face expressions, nor one can perceive his/her tone of voice. That sometimes causes a bit of problems, especially in the CD forum... 

Right before you go, I'd like to say that someone a looong way back in this very thread (can't remember who), talked about the possible reasons that lay beneath our visions on sexism. Originally, different duties were well sort out between men and women. Whatever was the "original" way (men or women taking care of kids, and stuff), it worked, otherwise I doubt it would have prolongued that long.

However, the world has evolved (if we can say so), lifestyles have changed a lot, and (especially in the West) it is really hard to say where the line is between what's efficient and what's being done. Even inside of what's being done, it's hard to say who had a choice and why s/he made it. Just as hard is trying to say that some of them are right and some of them are wrong. So, if we get stuck into the phylosophical side, we get lost...

**** Disclaimer: This is my very personal way to see it. I have nothing to back it up (obviously), nor I'm interested in having such, any longer. I've wasted too much time in that already.****

I believe that, hundreds, maybe thousands, or gosh-knows-how-many-years ago, home duties were 'assigned' to a specific gender, and providing for the family was assigned to the other. Probably, just because it was really hard to do both simultaneously by both genders. 

Perhaps one of the sides, stereotipically said "Don't worry, hun, I'll bathe the baby, you know I love that. After, I can cook the deer, it's ok"... Perhaps the other side said "I can run faster behind the prays, and I can also carry heavier deers back home. Maybe I should be the one to go hunt them"... Who knows? The point is that things would get done, schemes seemed balanced, and people were happy.

Now, try to compare that to our 'modern' lifestyle in the Western hemisphere. Nobody needs to hunt, therefore physical strenght is not the point to choose who must bring home the bacon. There is no need to populate the Earth, so having children is optional. Formal education is culturally seen as a "must", which demands money and of course, time away from home. A good paying career equals to prestige. Many women are physically and even emotionally stronger than many men. Many men are more caring and better parents than many women. So, where's the need for the standards?

<_*Lots of Western families need both parents working. Who's to wash the dishes, then? If that is decided by stereotypes, I call it sexism. Other families can afford to have only one parent working. Who's to stay home, then? Same thing. But that is limited to my context. See my point?>*_

But hey, we're leaving a huge part of the world aside... Perhaps the world offers much more choices nowadays, but there are much more cultures spread all over, too. Who is to say things are universal?

Sorry for such a long post. And, hope it makes sense at all...


----------



## Lusitania

Poetic Device said:


> Here are my thoughts. A lot of peole think that women should not be in military combat because (to put it bluntly) the war will not stop hjust because her Aunt Flo decided to pay her a visit. Others don't think that a man should be a beautician or a nurse or a secretary because that is not manly enough. There are times where a person won't get a job because they are of a certain gender.


 
In Portugal there are women in the military since 1990 and they are now 13%. Although in small number, according to a recent interview in the newspapers to the top officials. Women have better grades and results than men in the military. They have been actively involve in several mission around the world along with men, so they are in the field as well.



> 1. Does this happen in your culture? How often? Can you give examples?


As in every culture, we have sexism in Portugal. However, it can come in very subtle forms.
There are very few women in top jobs and politics for instances, the "glass ceiling" is huge. However, women are more than half of the portuguese population, they have more education than men, they work more, they finish their studies earlier and with better grades and still most of the top jobs are occupied by men. The wage gap is smaller regarding other EU countries as portuguese women work a lot and have always worked.
Also I think that women are very much judged by their looks than men.
Domestic violence is also a huge problem, there are many women murdered by their partners or someone close in the family.
I could go on for ages...



> 2. Do you personally believe in the idea that there a some things a man can do that a woman cannot and visa versa?


No, I think it depends on the man and the woman, individual characteristics. We could ask the question to Martina Navratilova and Danny Devito.
Of course we are different in general, but what matters is that we can do as individuals.


----------



## Chtipays

Setwale_Charm said:


> Well, let me tell you that in most countries affected by sexism, it is always on both sides. Women just don`t realise how much they share these stereotypes and as long as everybody is fending just for himself/herself...



I totally agree with you Setwale. 
In Mexico most mothers educate girls to be good wifes and boys to be machos. Of course that is changing. My brothers learned how to do the laundry, my father didn't. 
My father, pushed us all men a and women in the family to go to the university. But in many families only the boys go to the university, the girls don't need education, they will get married and their husbands will take care of them. 
What is amazing is that when you live in that kind of society you don't even realize how far the sexism goes, you live with it everyday and I guess, you kind of get used to it. 
Then you travel and learn that in some places things are much better, but sadly in others, things are even worst. 
Once I met this macho Mexican who as giving orders to his wife like if she was a slave, and then when I talked to her I told her that he was a f*&%#@ macho and she said, "no he is not a macho, sometimes he does the dishes" 
The amazing thing: far from being uneducated, they both were Ph.D. students


----------



## elephas

Etcetera said:


> 1. Of course. For example, it's virtually impossible to find a male teacher in a Russian school. I had only two male teachers, and both were teaching us for very short time.
> 2. Why, yes.
> For example, I believe that women shouldn't build roads and carry loads in seaports.



what about women drivers?


----------



## The Lord of Gluttony

I suggest watching "Brainwashing in Norway - Sex" on YouTube.


----------



## rolmich

Etcetera said:


> Outside the Armed Forces, such behaviour would more likely be seen as an act of chivalry.
> But I've always found it pretty strange that in Israel women should serve in the army. It really puzzles me.
> At the same time, I have no problem with, erm, policewomen.


Well, in Israel, women even serve as pilots in the airforce. According to the link below, 12 female soldiers took part in an IAF course and this was in 2005 ! The main arguments for or against women in the army in Israel :
For : everybody should take part in the national effort.
Against : the situation of a woman soldier beeing taken prisoner by the enemy cannot be compared to the situation of a man.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3188543,00


----------

