adolph nuttin up :)
Sexism Rears its Ugly Head
-
@LT04:
If they do decide to carry this out to the final stages of its stupidity we will all have stick (mixed gender) man picture signs this will also assist those who can’t read.
LT
I just dread the day I have to walk past urinals in the bathroom because it’s “sexist” to have separate facilities for men and women.
-
The ultimate extreme would be when men and women are both surgically equipped with the same “hardware” just after birth… or genetically altered to be born already having both sets.
-
@Cmdr:
@LT04:
If they do decide to carry this out to the final stages of its stupidity we will all have stick (mixed gender) man picture signs this will also assist those who can’t read.
LT
I just dread the day I have to walk past urinals in the bathroom because it’s “sexist” to have separate facilities for men and women.
My company just built a new facility in MN, it has Unisex bathrooms…I’m guessing no Urinals…hello Ally McBeal. When will this madness end! These people need to get a life!
-
it’s only sexism if one gender is being given preferential treatment. Replacing “Men at Work” with “Workers Ahead” (which is what Atlanta is doing) sends the same message and is gender neutral. The OPPOSITE of sexism.
Now, it might be a waste of time, but maybe there are women workers who would like a sign at work to actually acknowledge their presence. This is not an unreasonable request, to me. Sort of like if the company you’re working for omits your name in the company directory. I can see someone wanting a little acknowledgement for the job they do.
Here are some rules for teachers back in 1915:
"1. You will not marry during the term of your contract.
2. You are not to keep company with men.
3. You must be home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless attending a school function.
4. You may not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.
5. You may not travel beyond city limits unless you have the permission of the chairman of the board.
6. You may not ride in a carriage or automobile with any man unless he is your father or brother.
7. You may not smoke cigarettes.
8. You may not dress in bright colors.
9. You may under no circumstances dye your hair.
10. You must wear at least two petticoats.
11. Your dresses must not be any shorter than two inches above the ankle."
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/3243549/
There was probably a similar outcry when someone suggested those rules be changed.
-
To me sexism is when a man is given something just because he is male at the expense of a female who was also qualified or more qualified to get whatever it was.
A sign that says Men Working is not sexist.
A man who is promoted to manager because he goes to the strip clubs with the boss after work each night and the woman of the team is not even invited to go, is sexist. (Assuming both were equally qualified for the job.)
A woman who is given an award when a man did the activity better, but was dinged to “level the playing field” is sexist. Men and women are equal, the playing field is equal.
Bonus points based on gender, race, religion, creed, political affiliation, sexual orientation, whatever is an -ist in my book. But for the love of Cheetos! A construction sign that’s probably been around twice as long as she was alive is sexist because it says Men at Work or whatever? Give me a break! I’m sure there’s plenty of sexism on construction sites like forcing women to hold the yield signs or not letting them drive the concrete trucks or whatever, but if the worst thing in life is that the sign says hu-“Men at Work” or whatever, get a bloody life!
-
god jen, i love u
-
@Cmdr:
To me sexism is when a man is given something just because he is male at the expense of a female who was also qualified or more qualified to get whatever it was.
A sign that says Men Working is not sexist.
A man who is promoted to manager because he goes to the strip clubs with the boss after work each night and the woman of the team is not even invited to go, is sexist. (Assuming both were equally qualified for the job.)
A woman who is given an award when a man did the activity better, but was dinged to “level the playing field” is sexist. Men and women are equal, the playing field is equal.
Bonus points based on gender, race, religion, creed, political affiliation, sexual orientation, whatever is an -ist in my book. But for the love of Cheetos! A construction sign that’s probably been around twice as long as she was alive is sexist because it says Men at Work or whatever? Give me a break! I’m sure there’s plenty of sexism on construction sites like forcing women to hold the yield signs or not letting them drive the concrete trucks or whatever, but if the worst thing in life is that the sign says hu-“Men at Work” or whatever, get a bloody life!
How is any of that relevant to a city adopting gender-neutral road signs?
Edit: I see. The women who oppose the signs think they’re sexist. They’re probably not (the signs, not the women), but a gender neutral sign is probably more appropriate when both sexes are employed. Think of it this way: You’re running a road crew and you’ve got men and women working. You have to order a caution sign. Why would you order “Men at work”, which only covers one group of employees, when there is a perfectly suitable sign (“Workers Ahead”) that covers everyone?
-
Ok well look at it from my stand point I am a utility contractor I have to buy all the road signs that the state feels compelled to make me buy. Now all of the sudden they decide I have to buy all new signs b/c the signs they made me buy 3 years ago are “sexist” so now I have to buy gender nutrial signs.
The state is broken down into DOT districts (about the size of a county) each district has its own policy the state is not unified on these matters. District 1 says the gender nutrial signs have to be 36’’ wide district 2 says they have to be 48’’ wide.
So I say fine what ever I start putting feelers out to find out where I can buy these stupid signs. OK I found the only manufacturer in the US that can comply but the 48’’ signs are a special order that will have to be custom made.
The NYDOT does agree that I need a total of 6 signs per job site (3 each way.) So with an average of 50 - 75 crews a day I will need to buy as meny as 2 sets of 450 signs.
My point is if you want to make this change fine what ever; why can’t we grandfather the old signs untill they need to be taken out of service instead of possabily bankrupting small businesses?
The reason I’m bitter about this is say this change goes into effet 1 JAN 09. Well more then likely on 1 JAN 12 I 'll have to buy all new ones again that have stick people so people who can’t read can know what’s going on when they drive up to a work zone.
LT
-
When there is equity in workplace fatalities women will have a point that the ‘men at work’ signs should be ‘workers ahead.’ Until the pampered and safe ladies get a taste of the ‘dirt floor’ I’ll have little patience for their talk of a ‘glass ceiling’ and ‘subtle discrimination.’
That’s 92.3% of workplace fatalities happening to men. And 68.8% to WHITE men.
Everybody easily sees the sexism women are subjected to but are mostly blind to the sexism men are subjected to. How many government offices would exist to correct the disparagement in workplace fatalities were the incidents primarily happening to females?
-
When there is equity in workplace fatalities women will have a point that the ‘men at work’ signs should be ‘workers ahead.’ Until the pampered and safe ladies get a taste of the ‘dirt floor’ I’ll have little patience for their talk of a ‘glass ceiling’ and ‘subtle discrimination.’
That’s 92.3% of workplace fatalities happening to men. And 68.8% to WHITE men.
Everybody easily sees the sexism women are subjected to but are mostly blind to the sexism men are subjected to. How many government offices would exist to correct the disparagement in workplace fatalities were the incidents primarily happening to females?
Interesting stats. Probably due to men still being employed overwhelmingly in dangerous industries (and making $9,000 more per year than female workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States))
We can take heart, though. There are only 24 women CEO’s in the top Fortune 1000 companies. What is that? 50% of the population being represented in 2.4% of the top jobs? http://thepanelist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=262&Itemid=10053
There are only 4 black CEO’s running companies in the Fortune 500. Less than 1% for a group comprising 12% of the population.
Lord, here the lamentations of us white men!! When will OUR day come? We SHALL overcome!
-
We can take heart, though. There are only 24 women CEO’s in the top Fortune 1000 companies. What is that? 50% of the population being represented in 2.4% of the top jobs? http://thepanelist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=262&Itemid=10053
Well if you want to split hairs woman don’t make up 50% of the us populus in the US acording to the CIA world fact book. The make up slightly more then that.
Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.73 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2008 est.)LT
-
Women’s work-life patterns and their occupational preferences are significant factors in determining wages. Rather than being “funneled” into low-wage, low-prestige and part-time positions, women often choose these occupations because of the flexibility they offer. After adjusting for these factors, scholars find that the difference between men’s and women’s earnings is very narrow.
Those who still cite women’s 76 cents for every male dollar as evidence of sexism fail to take into account the underlying role of personal choice. The “wage gap” is not so much about employers discriminating against women as about women making discriminating choices in the labor market.
Emphasis added.
If you could hire women for 76% of what you hire men for and get the same work what company could afford to hire men? Why wouldn’t every company hire only women save 24% on labor and slaughter the competition until they hired only women?
Equality of oppurtunity does not mean equality of outcome.
Do not look only to the top to confirm your bias.
Why do men make up over 90% of workplace fatalities?
-
Women’s work-life patterns and their occupational preferences are significant factors in determining wages. Rather than being “funneled” into low-wage, low-prestige and part-time positions, women often choose these occupations because of the flexibility they offer. After adjusting for these factors, scholars find that the difference between men’s and women’s earnings is very narrow.
Those who still cite women’s 76 cents for every male dollar as evidence of sexism fail to take into account the underlying role of personal choice. The “wage gap” is not so much about employers discriminating against women as about women making discriminating choices in the labor market.
Oh, I’m sure a lot of that is true. But even your article admits to a wage gap, all things being equal:
“Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points.”
And then we look at the top jobs in corporate America. Do you really think the choice to have kids or stay at home accounts for half the population making up less than 3% of the top jobs in this country? How about black men? Are they having kids too? I couldn’t find a single black or hispanic woman running a Fortune 1000 company. So that’s 13% of the population being represented in 0% of the top jobs.
Of course there’s a good ol boy club. How else do you account for 38% of the population (white males) taking 95%+ of the top jobs? It’s the same story in the top levels of govt.
Why do men make up over 90% of workplace fatalities?
You tell me. Do you think there’s some men’s only factory where all the dangerous jobs are? I think the answer is pretty obvious: either by choice or hiring practices, women aren’t working in dangerous fields.
Oh, and on this chart here:
http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0220.pdfWhites make up 77% of the population, but only 69% of workplace fatalities. If you’re a white man in this country, and you’re not succeeding, there’s probably something wrong with you.
-
@LT04:
District 1 says the gender nutrial signs have to be 36’’ wide district 2 says they have to be 48’’ wide.
So I say fine what ever I start putting feelers out to find out where I can buy these stupid signs. OK I found the only manufacturer in the US that can comply but the 48’’ signs are a special order that will have to be custom made.
Any sheet metal shop (among my many skills is shear/press brake operator) with a waterjet machine could make those signs for you. No matter what state you live in, short of maybe Alaska, you could look in a business phone book or on the net and, within 10 minutes, have half a dozen shops in your state or even local to you that can do it. AND many of them would also have the capacity to paint them as well and if they don’t, there is probably a place right across the street from them that will. Unless the sign is 50 square feet or has more that 2 faces it will never be “special order”.
@LT04:
The NYDOT does agree that I need a total of 6 signs per job site (3 each way.) So with an average of 50 - 75 crews a day I will need to buy as meny as 2 sets of 450 signs.
My point is if you want to make this change fine what ever; why can’t we grandfather the old signs untill they need to be taken out of service instead of possabily bankrupting small businesses?
Why would you have to have them ALL cut brand new, anyway? What is stopping you from just sending out the old signs, that still comply with size standards, to be repainted? A little sanding, repriming, and repainting would take 2 days.
And if your company size averages 50 to 75 crews of workers, along with accompanying equipment, then you couldn’t possibly convince me that it is a “small” business in danger of bankruptcy and should easily be able to afford the +/-$50k it would take to have all of those signs made brand new.
Not to mention that it’s a business expense that can be written off and your competitors also have to comply to the new demands so your company isn’t losing any sort of competitive edge.
Personally, I applaud the people who want the change made. With very few notable exceptions, in the last 3000 years of recorded history, women have been consistently shortchanged and overtly discriminated against by men in every facet of life. Now, if there was a demand to, in the NEXT 3000 years, give women all of the benefits and priviledges that men enjoyed and force men into the role that women endured, then maybe the opponents would have an arguable position. But, only now, in the last century are women even getting close to “on par” with men and yet men are going apesh*t over it. The playing field has yet to become completely level so if there are laws that are passed or demands made that actually give women a slight edge over men in some aspects it is the LEAST we can do and this particular case isn’t even one of those situations. All it is, is “we want the signs to acknowledge us”. Quit being petty and let them have it.
The REAL tragedy here is that there are some women (I’m not mentioning any names. Jen) who have been conditioned, ultimately by men, to be resistant to other women wanting their due. We see it all the time in the middle east and Asia and we can’t have that, but when we see it at home it’s ok. Women who rock the boat here are vilified, by men and women alike, just like everywhere else. It amounts to nothing more than psychological warfare and I’m glad that, however slowly, the good guys are winning this war.
-
Well maybe someone could help me out. Aside from the signs, could someone enlighten me to:
-
The government enforced rights that men have that women do not also have in equal measure.
-
The government enforced obligations that women have that men do not have in equal measure.
I found this an interesting read.
When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started **when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too.** Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women. …
…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards. I’m not saying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures aren’t moral beings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competition against other systems and other groups.
I’m an egalitarian and if you are as well it doesn’t take much of a look around to see the obvious double standards that women and men are held too.
-
-
Not only is it handy for gender neutrality, it also grants a large allowance of how “workers ahead” could be interpreted. That is, in the future we won’t have to change those signs again when we get animal, robotic, or even zombie workers.
Ask yourself this, though. Would you be ok with a sign that said “Women Working” when males were obviously present? I doubt it.
Or better yet, “Womyn working.” :mrgreen:
-
Well, while we are at it, I want to protest the “Work Zone” signs, since you almost never see actual WORK being done in a “Work Zone”. It is usually just cones, flashing yellow lights and some poor slob with a sign that they alternate between “slow” and “stop”, with that being an accurate representation of the progress being made on the project.
Perhaps what we REALLY need to change these signs to is:
“Your tax dollars at waste ahead”
Maybe with a pictograph of a person in a hard hat sleeping below… -
Well maybe someone could help me out. Aside from the signs, could someone enlighten me to:
-
The government enforced rights that men have that women do not also have in equal measure.
-
The government enforced obligations that women have that men do not have in equal measure.
I found this an interesting read.
When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started **when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too.** Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women. …
…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards. I’m not saying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures aren’t moral beings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competition against other systems and other groups.
I’m an egalitarian and if you are as well it doesn’t take much of a look around to see the obvious double standards that women and men are held too.
Well, I’m so glad that sexism doesn’t exist anymore. It took thousands of years but it finally joined racism, murder, rape and assault in going completely extinct ever since the US government outlawed it in the late 20th century. Whew. I can live a happy peaceful life now.
Sarcasm aside, just because the government says sexist practices are illegal doesn’t mean they doesn’t exist. You know as well as I do that sexism not only exists but is also prolific here and in the rest of the world.
I dug this up. Yes, I know that it’s dated 2003, but it still applies.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/17/Worldandnation/At_work__When_duty_ca.shtml
“When I talk to the lieutenants now, or captains, most of them have never experienced an incident of sexual harassment,” Corbett said recently. “It happens, but hopefully it’s happening to a lesser extent.”
Yes, HOPEFULLY.
After the Gulf War, Congress repealed the law banning women from flying combat aircraft and serving on combat ships. They are still forbidden to serve in ground combat units that may directly engage the enemy, including infantry, field artillery, armor and Special Forces.
Hmmmm. Women being forbidden to perform some duties in the military. Kind of takes dumps on the “double standards favor women” and “more men have died in Iraq” things. I wonder how close those numbers would be if you eliminated from those statistics all of the men who died from the infantry, armor, arty ,or special forces combat units that women aren’t allowed to serve in. Yeah, my grandmother didn’t die driving a tank in WWII, either. Guess that proves that in 1945 sexism didn’t exist in the military.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs?
And what exactly does more men being in prison or homeless prove, anyway? There are more stupid men out there? Unless you can somehow connect it to pro-women practices, then those statements are irrelevant.
On the other hand, you’re right about them with regard to being political prisoners around the world. They usually don’t make it to prison. Most of the time the ones with little press are simply raped and murdered. The ones who have gained some measure of notoriety are assasinated. Ask Benazir Bhutto about that. Well, ask her children, anyway.
Most cultures shield their women from the risk
No, they don’t. Historically, cultures have actively subjugated women, not shielded them. Oh, and did I say historically? I also meant currently. Just so nobody gets the wrong idea.
I’m an egalitarian and if you are as well it doesn’t take much of a look around to see the obvious double standards that women and men are held too.
The double standards exist because if we relied simply on equality under the law then progress for women’s equality would be excruciatingly slow to non-existant. Again, it is the least we can do.
In my country, the United States, there are still enough men who hold all or at least part of this philosophy with regard to womens equality that it proves women still aren’t as equal as you may think: The law SAYS we’re equal NOW. So we’re equal. I get it. Now, go clean the house and take care of the kids. I’ll be back later to beat you for serving me a cold dinner. By the way, nice ass.
@ncscswitch:
Well, while we are at it, I want to protest the “Work Zone” signs, since you almost never see actual WORK being done in a “Work Zone”. It is usually just cones, flashing yellow lights and some poor slob with a sign that they alternate between “slow” and “stop”, with that being an accurate representation of the progress being made on the project.
Perhaps what we REALLY need to change these signs to is:
“Your tax dollars at waste ahead”
Maybe with a pictograph of a person in a hard hat sleeping below…:lol: You said it.
But, if you want completely represent my home state of Illinois the sign would have to depict a bunch of guys standing around watching a person in a hard hat sleeping below……
-
-
From what I understand, a lot of research has gone into the alleged wage discrimination between men and women and the over riding conclusions have generally turned out as such:
Women generally earn less than men in the same position.
However, and this is the part people usually forget to mention, this is due to women, in general, not ASKING FOR MORE MONEY when applying for positions or during 6 month intervals in a position.
Men are usually more forceful in asking for a raise every 6 or 12 months and when applying, will usually barter for higher pay. Women are usually more docile and accepting of what is offered.
Of course, that’s just what I have gleaned from my readings in financial magazines and newspaper articles over the years. I cannot say for a fact that it is true. However, I can say that when I have been employed by non-union agencies in the past, I’ve always had my computer hit me with a reminder note to apply for a raise every 6 months, due or not and every time I’ve been offered a job, I have always asked if they could raise the pay 5% over what they offered me (in hopes of getting 2% more out of them.) I pick 5% because it’s easy to figure out. If they offer $40k then you ask for $42k. (10% of 40 is 4, half of that is 2.)
Another theory I have heard pop up every so often, to explain the alleged wage gap is that women generally accept lower positions than men and thus, when you add up all their salaries and divide by the number of workers, the over all number is lower. Though, a direct comparison between the two on a job by job basis would show them much more even.
No idea if I want to buy into that. But on the face of it, it makes a good argument. Wouldn’t be a very good comparison if they were adding up 20 male engineers and 5 male warehouse laborers and comparing them to 5 female doctors and 20 female office assistants, right? Even though there are 25 in each group, one would expect doctors and engineers to be earning significantly more than warehouse laborers and office assistants.
-
“When I talk to the lieutenants now, or captains, most of them have never experienced an incident of sexual harassment,” Corbett said recently. “It happens, but hopefully it’s happening to a lesser extent.”
Yes, HOPEFULLY.
And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right? Wait…no.
Hmmmm. Women being forbidden to perform some duties in the military. Kind of takes dumps on the “double standards favor women” and “more men have died in Iraq” things.
Dump? Actually…
…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short.
…it was explained in the same post if you read a sentence further.
You know what? It’s sexist that a man should ask a woman on a date. And that a man should ask a woman to marry him. And that men being gay is looked down upon while women being gay is HOT STUFF. And it’s sexist that women carry babies, and that men have to shave their faces every day. Oh…wait…no…it’s natural. Just like a shark eating a fish isn’t species-ist, it’s natural.
No, women being subjugated/harassed/abused isn’t right. But women being treated the same as men and men being treated the same as women isn’t natural.
Suggested Topics
