Gender equality

[darth gditch]

Hmm, well, ignoring the differences in brain development and hormones, I firmly believe that jobs and roles should be fully based on ability.

Now, as for realities. Men, on average, have higher muscle mass. This means that jobs that require a good bit of physical labor, i.e. construction, the military, sailors, ect. These jobs are going to be dominated by men due to a physiological advantage. Does this mean that only men will do these jobs? No. This means that more men will. Women are typically more in touch with their emotions. Doesn't mean all women are, just that it is a general trend. Thus women tend to have an advantage when dealing with children, counseling, teaching ect. Does this mean men can't do these jobs? No. Just more women tend to.

As for pay differences and sexist behavior, these are archaic holdovers from the when the world was "man's world" and women were to take care of the kids and keep the house presentable. And really, I think it's the 50's that at least Americans are hung up on. For some reason, we Americans tend to think things were "better" then.

 

[The_Healer]

Well, gender inequality used to make more sense, when people were required to do hard labour of some kind in the majority of jobs.

Men are more naturally suited to this, don't argue. They are physically stronger and on average have better hand to eye co-ordination.

This trend hasn't changed, nor should it have. The majority of labour jobs are done by men.

The rise of the desk job, however, is where the equality should be. Men and women have no advantage over one another when it comes to desk jobs. The inequality we see in the corporate environment is (in my opinion) completely down to sexism.

I'd put myself realistically around a 5 on the scale of sexism. I think I'm just being realistic but obviously I'd offend the feminists among us.

 

[Dense_Electric]

What I really don't get is why people say things like, "males are on average more suited to this type of work," or "most females think this way instead of that way." You can throw out averages and statistics all day long, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the individual's abilities and characteristics. So why the hell do you even bring sex up in the first place? Are we going to start asking about their preferred brand of toothpaste next?

And sexist? Zero. Sure, I've got my personal preferences, but I would NEVER expect anyone to have to be or act a certain way because of their sex, and I would NEVER treat anyone differently because of it (things related to reproduction aside, but that doesn't really count since it's unavoidable).

 

[Raven's Nest]

I don't know about the UK, but of here in the US the driving reason for not allowing women to be involved in a combat MOS (Military Occupational Specialty...ie job) is rape. If a male is captured they will be tourtured and might be killed. If a woman is captured.... Well women are already looked at as second class citizens over there and we are looked apon as infidels by the terrorists. So my question becomes what would they NOT do to her? Then what happens if she is rescued and BAM she findes out she is pregnate? Her religion does not allow her to abort the pregnancy.

I can't even begin to think about how much physoclogical damage this incident would cause a woman.

I think trying to keep them out of the fight is the best option. Let them serve but not combat MOS.

Well I'm not a women so I can't speak for them obviously, but although the concern is valid, getting taken hostage and raped is a pretty specific scenario and one that I can't imagine would happen very often.

I'd use a set of stats to prove my point but I wouldn't know where to find them but I'm pretty sure the number of times a soldier was taken hostage per mission is less than the chance of getting raped after a night in a particularly seedy bar.

And rape doesn't necessarily = the end of the world (though I can imagine many would disagree). Torture is bad enough if it's going to be that extreme.

Some women have a lot of skill that can be brought to the battlefield. It's only a matter of time before they are accepted into the ranks.

I used to serve in the UK's Territorial Army, so I do have some experience concerning these things.

I'd love to hear some female opinions on this though, there's bound to be some reading this.

 

[CrystalShadow]

... the differences between a guy and a girl are negligible when it comes to most things like jobs, thinking, etc.

You're over compensating for feeling like you're skirting sexism. Your sex DEFINITELY affects how you think, what it doesn't affect is the validity of your method of thinking.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how sexist would you say you are?

Probably about a 3, I honestly think that most of the women I meet on a daily basis don't really want equality, they seem to want coddling.

Actually no, your sex has absolutely no effect on how you think.
However, how you are expected to think based on society's standards, is a factor.
I have met guys who think like girls, and girls who think like guys. I don't know any transexuals, so it must be their atmosphere that has generated such an odd way of thinking.

In short, if you are a guy, because you are expected to think like a guy, you are likely to think like a guy.
If you are a girl, and your society says "girls belong in the kitchen", it is likely that you will also think that way. Depending on how you are raised and how you interact with others who accept/deny the general opinion, is what shapes your thought.

TL;DR
Your biology does not effect how you think.

That's probably over-simplifying things. Experiments suggest there is an actual biological difference, but it's on a more basic level than what is usually thought of as 'male' or 'female'.
And, it's also statistical to a degree. Just because there's some biology involved, doesn't mean all men, or all women have the traits typical for their sex.

- snip -

I liked your points, and they are really similar to what I think as well.
Yes, most guys are bigger and stronger, but that doesn't stop a girl from getting really fit so she can do the things that a guy can do.
Because of a girl's metabolism and how they gain muscle, it may be harder for her to do so, but if she wants to be able to lift that tank shell as well (if not better) than a guy, then she needs to work at it. Thats no different from a guy, its just easier for a guy (usually).

I can't help but be reminded of GI Jane.

- snip -

Really interesting research findings, somewhat surprising, but it definitely makes sense.

Personally, I know what you mean, I'll help a woman with her stroller, and I'd probably help a guy with a stroller as well, but I'd be more likely to help/be nice to a girl.
At my work, my manager will hire anyone that is able and willing to do the work. We're trying to get a girl since we only have 1 (small liquor store) and be less of a sausage-fest, but someone that can and will work, will likely get the job.

Yeah, I usually assume guys are physically capable, and girls physically incapable, unless they prove otherwise.
I also assume guys like beer and paintballing, while girls would like coolers and going to the club. I've been proven otherwise many times, but I'm ok with being proven wrong.

What are my answers to my three questions? I'll answer in another post. Since this one is getting too long... lol

Heh. Yeah, this happens a lot, and it's awkward when you don't live up to the stereotypes.
A woman asked me to help her carry cement in buckets, and kept loading them all the way to the top, which I could barely lift.
When she filled them for herself, she only filled them half-way up.
The irony is, she was probably physically stronger than I was.

More generally, being a transsexual works against you in both ways. If people notice what you are, they expect bizarre things from you that are contradictory.
(Or don't realise the consequences of certain things - If you take estrogens, and remove most of the testosterone from your system, within about a year, your muscle mass is going to be more like that of a woman than that of a man. If people treat you as if you are physically still a man... Well, it gets awkward.)

At times, in terms of sexism, being a transsexual seems to combine the worst elements of being male, female, and gay, often with few of the benefits.
But I guess that's getting a bit off-topic.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I can't even begin to think about how much physoclogical damage this incident would cause a woman.

I think trying to keep them out of the fight is the best option. Let them serve but not combat MOS.

You know, thinking that being raped is some kind of "special"psychological trauma that can't be compared to anything else" is pretty sexist.

In fact, many rape victims (male as well as female) actually manage to cope with it and move on with their lives A LOT better than victims of being captured and tortured by the enemy in a warzone.

One vital step towards cultural gender equality is to stop trying to be so "chivalrious" when it comes to the topic of rape. Yes, it's awful, but there are plenty of awful things that human beings can do to eachother that can certainly compare to (or even be WORSE than) rape.

So saying "We have to protect the poor wimmins from enemy rapists and thus forbid them from combat duty" is basically saying the same thing that women can't make responsible and informed decisions or consider the very real risk of getting captured/tortured/raped/killed by someone on the battlefield.

And as to informed and responsible decisions, how many MALE soldiers haven't you heard of that went into the soldiering business thinking they were Rambo with an M60, and then suddenly got struck by... Well, reality! And became either, tramuatized, maimed or killed doing something that they NEVER would've done if they knew the truth of what war was like?

 

[Jaeriko]

If you can do the job, your gender doesn't matter.

It's your ability that counts, not the shape of your bits.

 

[Sarge034]

I can't even begin to think about how much physoclogical damage this incident would cause a woman.

I think trying to keep them out of the fight is the best option. Let them serve but not combat MOS.

You know, thinking that being raped is some kind of "special"psychological trauma that can't be compared to anything else" is pretty sexist.

In fact, many rape victims (male as well as female) actually manage to cope with it and move on with their lives A LOT better than victims of being captured and tortured by the enemy in a warzone.

One vital step towards cultural gender equality is to stop trying to be so "chivalrious" when it comes to the topic of rape. Yes, it's awful, but there are plenty of awful things that human beings can do to eachother that can certainly compare to (or even be WORSE than) rape.

So saying "We have to protect the poor wimmins from enemy rapists and thus forbid them from combat duty" is basically saying the same thing that women can't make responsible and informed decisions or consider the very real risk of getting captured/tortured/raped/killed by someone on the battlefield.

I was not ONLY talking about rape. The tourture combined with the rape and the pregnancy she can't terminate is something no man will ever have to endure. So they will have to endure what a man does and then more.

If a woman is captured.... Well women are already looked at as second class citizens over there and we are looked apon as infidels by the terrorists. So my question becomes what would they NOT do to her? Then what happens if she is rescued and BAM she findes out she is pregnate? Her religion does not allow her to abort the pregnancy.

I can't even begin to think about how much physoclogical damage this incident would cause a woman.

And as to informed and responsible decisions, how many MALE soldiers haven't you heard of that went into the soldiering business thinking they were Rambo with an M60, and then suddenly got struck by... Well, reality! And became either, tramuatized, maimed or killed doing something that they NEVER would've done if they knew the truth of what war was like?

That is what basic does actually. It puts the recruit into place by teaching what a soldier does and then puts them in mock combat conditions. If they can't make the cut they don't get in. Pretty cool they have a built in screening feature right?


I'm just curious because your profile does not say and I don't want to assume anything. Are you a man or woman?

 

[Kermi]

The fact is that your typical female and your typical male are not equal. We have different skillsets and capabilities based on our genetic heritage. For instance, women, generally are not as strong as men. This is probably more due to selective breeding throughout the course of human history than any baseline genetic inequality, but the fact remains. Men had to be stronger, faster, tougher. They selectively bred with women based on her child-bearing capability and whatever was considered attractive at the time.

This doesn't mean there can't be female construction workers, because some women have the physical aptitude to work as effectively in this role as a man with the same physical capabilities - it's just less common. There's also no reason a man can't be say, a child care worker, as long as he has the right temperament to work with children.

Gender roles are throwbacks. We see men as the workers and women at the homemakers. Now of course this hasn't ever really been the case - women have always worked, but in our modern Western world culture men were perceived the earners and that if his wife was working that indicated his failure to support her, with no bearing on whether the woman wanted to work or not. It's only relatively recently that it's become common for women to be accepted as independant persons who can choose to work even if they're married and fully supported by their husbands.

By that same token, some women feel a man should do "man work". I've actually had elderly ladies attack me verbally for working in my role as an insurance claims officer. Apparently I should get a "real job" because "that's what a real man would do". Granted, they were upset with me for denying their claims so their assertions were laughable, but it was no less true, at least from their perspective. I should be out laying bricks or tilling a field, not handling the paperwork for some old bint who fell over while buying her groceries and wants a big bag of money for her momentary inconvenience.

Just as a thought experiment, I'm going to list ten jobs. I will then go back and write next to them what images popped into my mind as I thought of them.

Bricklayer: A broad-shouldered lesbian with those thick black-rimmed glasses, a flat top haircut and a tattoo of a topless mermaid on her forearm, visible because she always has the sleeves of her flannel shirts rolled up to the elbow. This is weird, because this is actually the description of a professor I had in university who headed the criminology unit. However if you take away the glasses and lesbianism, and replace the mermaid tattoo with a fish (representing Pisces) it also describes a friend of mine in Canada who is currently doing a carpentry apprenticeship.
Chef: Matt Moran. I only know what he looks like because he appeared on Master Chef, but he also operates a fantastic restaurant here in Sydney that I took my wife to on our first wedding anniversary.
Insurance claims officer: Someone I work with - in this particular case, a Chinese lady with a law degree who decided to move into liability claims because the hours are better.
Scientist: I actually thought of a petite red-headed woman with glasses. Not sure where this came from, as the only person I know with a career in science is a guy I went to high school with who teaches astrophysics at the University of Santa Barbara.
Kindergarten teacher: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thank you, Kindergarten Cop.
University lecturer: Drawing from experience, the first images that springs to mind is my former Japanese professor, a Japanese lady in her late twenties to early thirties.
IT consultant: A friend of mine who I ran into recently. He's Arabic and since high school has cultivated a truly epic beard, but he's still the same goofy slacker I knew eleven years ago.
Carpenter: My grandfather. Because he was a carpenter.
Janitor: I think I wrote janitor after carpenter because my grandmother used to work as a cleaner, but the actual image that popped into mind was the janitor from Scrubs. Huh.

Well that was a fun way to kill fifteen minutes. Are these sexist at all? They're just images I drew on from my own life. It probably just paints a weird picture of me (especially me giving the bricklayer role to a somewhat butch woman who in real life has a PhD in Criminology and a masters in Teaching).

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

This is just sort of a common misconception that bothers me, but construction work really doesn't require vast amounts of strength. I feel sometimes like it's hyped up to intimidate women away from the field.

I'm female, and in school for construction management. I've been on tons of jobs with lab classes at school, and church mission trips, and the only issue I've ever had was carrying bundles of shingles. I just had a friend do it, while I did a job for them that they didn't like to do. (changing saw blades) And just as a side note, that friend was also female, so there's that... A boss will never force an employee to over exert themselves, as no one wants to pay for workers' comp. claims for back injuries.

Anywho, my sister's line of work only requires slightly less in the way of physical strength, and she's a nurse. So the whole "gender roles are based on biological factors" argument is essentially a load of garbage.

 

[DementedSheep]

Men and woman are not equal or the same in every way and gender differences are more just ?naughty bits?. The most obvious differences being that guys tend to be stronger, girls tend to be more flexible and a whole host of other physical differences. As a general rule jobs that involve allot of heavy lifting are better suited to guys. There are differences in the way we think as well tho talking about this one seems to make people uncomfortable for some reason. I suppose people like to think that we are all the same on inside. There are also certain careers that different genders tend to gravitate towards more. Part of this is societal pressure and because of how people perceive a certain job but not all of it. Some things more women like or pick up easier than men and vice versa. For example I volunteer at the SPCA. There are very few men and those that are there tend to work with the dogs.I can only think of one guy who works with the rabbits and I haven?t seen any guys with the cats. It?s not like there is any restrictions on men volunteering at the SPCA or a rule that says that they can only work with dogs. It?s not that less men are being hired due to sexism either because pretty much everyone who says they want to volunteer at the SPCA is accepted you just need to be above a certain age.
The thing to remember tho is that generalisations are not absolutes and there are differences between people not just between genders. Just because more of a certain gender have a certain trait does not mean all have this trait.
I got into a debate with a friend who was going on about how sexist the army is (note this is the NZ army I?m talking about, where woman can take on any role. This is not the same elsewhere? I have heard woman cannot serve on the front line in the US) because there are no woman in our Special forces (at least not that I know of). This is not surprising nor does it automatically mean the army is sexist. The special forces is the top, the requirements for even being looked at as a potential candidate are pretty freaking high. Considerably fewer women even go for the army in the first place and women are generally weaker than men the chances of a woman being able to meet both the physical and mental requirements and going for that role are pretty slim. If one day a woman is able to meet the requirements and is just as good or better than the men Yay, good for her and she should be able to join but the army (or with any job) should not be thinking about who they hire or give a role to in a deliberate political way. They should not be going ?oh we need to hire more woman or else when look sexist so lets lower the requirements and hire a few despite the fact that there are men who would be better?

Why do you think there is job inequality?

If you mean why is that one person may not be hired because of gender despite being better than another at the job...well because there are still many people who take ?generally? and ?most? as absolutes. Woman are generally weaker than men, this does not mean all woman are weaker than all men. The sexism is not just against girls, my dad got allot of shit from other members of my family because he stayed home and looked after me when I was a kid while my mom worked simply because my mom was bringing in most the income at the time. Aside from the obvious breast feeding thing there is no reason a guy can?t look after a kid and there is no reason why a guy couldn?t have a job as preschool teacher or baby sit other people?s children. There is also no reason why a guy couldn?t be a nurse of a fashion designer.
If the person can do the job and do it to the standard you want that?s all that matters. Gender in itself should not really factor into it.
As for how sexist I am? Eh I don?t know, I?ll give myself a 3 maybe.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

That is what basic does actually. It puts the recruit into place by teaching what a soldier does and then puts them in mock combat conditions. If they can't make the cut they don't get in. Pretty cool they have a built in screening feature right?

Well then that "screening feature" is rather inefficient if you ask me, due to the extremely large number of male ex-soldiers who curse the day when they got the "stupid" idea of joining up, due to their experiences of actual war.

Ask any veteran who isn't just trying to blow of hot air and inflate the "importance" of their duty (when they basically didn't see any fighting at all), but someone whose been through the really ugly parts if they thought that the mock combat conditions in bootcamp truly prepared them and instructed them in what real war would be like.

My guess is that they would respond to your question with a resounding "No!"

The "screening feature" today might be efficient when it comes to testing physical fitness and skill at a firing range, as well as determine whose got most determination to pass through the grueling trials.

But as an educational tool to show what real war is like, and what you or your buddies might suffer through once you're there, it's pretty fucking useless, realistically speaking.

So, when it comes to making informed and responsible decisions when enlisting for combat duty, men and women are pretty equal in that regard. Sure, a veteran might try to tell them what they can be put through if captured or injured on a battlefield, but the awful realism of the situation won't dawn upon either the men or the women until they actually find themselves in a real situation.

I'm just curious because your profile does not say and I don't want to assume anything. Are you a man or woman?

Does it really matter?

I could tell you that Im a man, when im really a woman and vice versa. Heck even my profile could be a lie if I bothered to add any kind of information to it.

So why not enjoy the perks of genderless discussion without preconceptions and gender-based predjudice shall we?

 

[YuriRuler90]

Tank gunner, well if you can't lift the 60 pound shell and load the main gun if the loader/autoloader is taken out...no. Yet that example can cover a man as well. Nothing to do with equality but your ability.

Spot on. We had an enlightening conversation in boot camp on why women couldn't be crewmen in an Abrams. If my tank gets hit and catches on fire I KNOW the guy beside me can pull me out. I don't see many women being able to do that.

 

[Chrinik]

10...I am very sexist...at least accourding to femnists.
But that is because I treat them equally to men.
That is the problem...feminists brag about being treated equally, and when you have a disagreement and punch her in the face, it´s still sexism...so what the fuck.
Either be treated equally, or don´t, it is up to YOU!

On the other issues, gender roles are there for a reason. Most women are not physically strong enough for certain kinds of jobs (moreso a 100 years ago), but are better with fiddly things that require precision.
But if a girl has the muscle, or a guy has the patience, why not?
What I DON´t like is when some employers specifically lower (or are forced to by some stupid qoutient) expectations and minimum requirements, just so that MORE women can join...
If Mary Jane firefighter comes into my house, and I am stuck under a log and she can´t lift it up and drag me to safety, then whoopdey fucking do. That might not have happened when she was ripped like a dude and therefore able.

I do not mean to attack any women in any "men-jobs", that is the least thing I´d do. I also don´t hit women without a reason, and the reason has to be pretty good, since I don´t just punch people, not even men, for nothing.
I just want to voice my disbelief in the so called: "pro equality" movements, that don´t actually want equality, they want more power and rights for women.
When will people learn that, in order to archive true equality, we must first accept the fact that we are unequal on about every level.
I don´t give a midget a job where a tall man is more suited, or give a fat person a job where a sleek person would be best suited, and I don´t give an idiot a job meant for someone with expertise...

(And my real score is about...maybe 2 or something. I am actually a pretty nice guy and even a gentleman from time to time.)

 

[Chemical Alia]

personally i don't give a damn as long as the women pass the same testing that men do. ie no womens push-ups or lighter fitness levels for women in the military, or emergency services. everything else is largely intellectually based and gender has little to no meaning there. on the flip side of that i prefer a man when it comes to specific things that a guy would go to a doctor for so that the doctor shares some personal experience/common ground.

Women and men do the same push-ups. The standards are different for each gender, however, they are also different for an 18-year-old vs. a 40-year-old. I've also read that TRADOC revised the PT standards and tests altogether, and that fatty fat gamer nerds may have influenced that change. Personally, I'd like to see the fitness standards based more on the job, and the necessity to be combat ready within one's profession. And in this case, I think that everyone should meet the same minimum goals. We always argue about men and women meeting the same standards, but a huge range applies to different age groups of both genders.

I don't think anyone should be discouraged or forbidden to pursue a job because of their gender, and I'm also strongly opposed to affirmative action. But not all men and women grow up with the same social pressures or develop interests and skills according to their gender roles. I'd hate my life if I was restricted to "traditional" occupations for women, since I've only ever worked in jobs that were strongly male-dominated.

That said, I wish I was more confident. I don't know or care whether it's biological or social conditioning, but it's something I'm working on improving.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

This is just sort of a common misconception that bothers me, but construction work really doesn't require vast amounts of strength. I feel sometimes like it's hyped up to intimidate women away from the field

Speaking as someone who have no experience of real construction work at all now: but doesn't construction work on larger scale MAINLY focus on being able to operate heavy machinery?

I mean it's not like we flatten dirt, move obstructing rock and transporting and assembling steel girders with our hands is it? Construction workers use trucks, cranes, bulldozers and the like for "heavy lifting", and the only actual MANUAL lifting (i.e that is done by hand) isn't really "heavy" at all.

But then again, what do I know? It's just my humble and laymans view of how construction work is done. : /

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

This is just sort of a common misconception that bothers me, but construction work really doesn't require vast amounts of strength. I feel sometimes like it's hyped up to intimidate women away from the field

Speaking as someone who have no experience of real construction work at all now: but doesn't construction work on larger scale MAINLY focus on being able to operate heavy machinery?

I mean it's not like we flatten dirt, move obstructing rock and transporting and assembling steel girders with our hands is it? Construction workers use trucks, cranes, bulldozers and the like for "heavy lifting", and the only actual MANUAL lifting (i.e that is done by hand) isn't really "heavy" at all.

But then again, what do I know? It's just my humble and laymans view of how construction work is done. : /

I think you're thinking more of commercial construction than residential, and I'm really more of a residential kid.

But you have the general idea right. There's much more of an emphasis on technical (gender neutral) skills than brute strength. Even something as fundamental as swinging a hammer, most people just use nail guns. More than anything, it's about endurance, and ability to keep going. In terms of just straight heavy lifting, my sister actually does more of that than I do as a nurse, one of the most stereotypically female jobs out there. (Not that my sister hasn't referenced male coworkers)

 

[DarthFennec]

Technically speaking, we're all a little bit sexist, just in varying degrees.
Think of a scientist. Did you think of a guy in a lab coat? SEXIST!
Think of a construction worker. Did you think of a burly guy in a hard hat? SEXIST!

... Ah okay, then I guess I'm not sexist lol. What immediately came to my mind was a group of scientists/construction workers of mixed sex

Sarcasm aside, I personally think I'd rather have a lady babysit my kids, have a guy move my furniture, or have a girl handle my subway.

Really? I guess I never thought about that ... yeah I'm not getting it, sorry. If I ever get subway it's usually a guy making it, but I never put a lot of thought into that. Also, I've met a lot of chicks that I really wouldn't trust my kids with, and a lot of guys I would. I guess the furniture thing makes a little sense but it's also true that some women are up to that task, and that more than a lot of guys aren't

So this is the part where I ask what you think.

Do you think there is a reason you see mostly X gender in Y roles?
I haven't really noticed this. I see both genders in every role, and I can't really think of an area of the workforce that's predominantly one sex or another off the top of my head. Some sports I guess, but I don't really get why anyone would want to play sports so ...

Why do you think there is job inequality?
Is there? Again, I haven't really notice this.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how sexist would you say you are?
1 or 2 I guess. I don't delude myself into thinking guys and chicks are exactly the same, but why shouldn't they be equal?