Did that thread about a woman's atlas get deleted?

[Gustaf]

Joe, I answered your question. Too bad you didn't catch it in time.

[Gustaf]

Memphis, for all your ridicule of womens' studies, and I say this as someone who has done his fair share of ridiculing of those things, you seem to have a very limited understanding of how patriarchal structures are supposed to work. I say supposed in order to facilitate a common ground here.

It's not about legal or physical barriers. Have you never known a woman intimately? And I don't necessarily mean sleeping with one. Just knowing a woman pretty well is sufficient to see this. I had a girlfriend who avoided working for investment banks. Not because she didn't want to, because she did. Not because they said they didn't like women, because they actually did the opposite, claiming to want more female employees. But because she very acutely felt the barriers of the sexist culture of those places and the way society expects men to do such jobs better. That's just a tiny anecdotal example from a country usually considered one of the most gender-equal in the world.

You're clearly viewing this from the perspective of a man. Which is natural since you are one. But the whole idea of tolerance and human rights is that we attempt to understand those coming from other positions in life. Not only do you fail in that but you seem uninterested to even try, content to retain misogynist positions. You should really reconsider that. 

[Gustaf]

I'm still not sure how this website, or it's contents could be seen as off limits to women. Nathan claims it is the statistics part of it, but I don't quite associate statistics with our maps....also it needs to be said of the people who actually visit and use the maps, there could be a 3:1 ratio of men to women. Perhaps most of them just don't register for the forum.

You don't see how the way society is structured and the way gender roles and expectations work would preclude women from this stuff?

[Gustaf]

I'm still not sure how this website, or it's contents could be seen as off limits to women. Nathan claims it is the statistics part of it, but I don't quite associate statistics with our maps....also it needs to be said of the people who actually visit and use the maps, there could be a 3:1 ratio of men to women. Perhaps most of them just don't register for the forum.

You don't see how the way society is structured and the way gender roles and expectations work would preclude women from this stuff?

Not really, no. But you are free to explain why. Nathan said it is because this is another form of statistics, but I don't quite buy that.

Ok, so first of all, there is a role for men as eccentric geniuses which does not exist for women. Women are judged predominantly based on their appearance and on their ability to interact socially and fit into the mold. This means that way fewer women become what we call 'nerds'. I'll preempt the jokes about how this is a good thing for them by pointing out that it definitely is a highly explanatory factor behind the lower wages women tend to get. It also means that women are generally less likely to be found on specialized internet forums. A woman is much less likely to find social acceptance for an odd interest like electoral maps and is thus more likely to stay away from it.

This is a bit of a brief and shallow take on it, granted, but I would think it's sufficient for someone to get it unless they're completely oblivious to these things.

[Gustaf]

It's not about legal or physical barriers. Have you never known a woman intimately? And I don't necessarily mean sleeping with one. Just knowing a woman pretty well is sufficient to see this. I had a girlfriend who avoided working for investment banks. Not because she didn't want to, because she did. Not because they said they didn't like women, because they actually did the opposite, claiming to want more female employees. But because she very acutely felt the barriers of the sexist culture of those places and the way society expects men to do such jobs better. That's just a tiny anecdotal example from a country usually considered one of the most gender-equal in the world.

You're clearly viewing this from the perspective of a man. Which is natural since you are one. But the whole idea of tolerance and human rights is that we attempt to understand those coming from other positions in life. Not only do you fail in that but you seem uninterested to even try, content to retain misogynist positions. You should really reconsider that.  

For whatever reason, my closest friends tend to be women, so please spare me the "have you ever known a woman "spiel. The question that struck me immediately after reading your post was, why do you position women as some sort of extraordinarily fragile creatures unable to advance merely because they "feel the [perceived] barriers of a sexist culture?" Are they really that weak? I certainly don't think so. What you just said is far more insulting to women that any position I have stated. I'm not at all familiar with Swedish customs or business policy, but in the United States, companies are constantly going out of their way to find female employees, especially in traditionally male dominated fields like finance or engineering. It is, in fact, far easier to get a job in one of these fields as a woman than as a man. We all had a good laugh about "binders full of women" but companies really do this. Women have a serious edge in many fields just because we're all trying to overcompensate for something that nobody can ever define concretely. Which is a bit crazy to me, but companies are more than welcome to run their HR any legal way they see fit. Regarding the Atlas, and I think that was how this thread got started in the first place, nobody takes more crap here than fat people. I would much rather be a woman posting here than a fat. But we still have plenty of fats who are able to "overcome" the slings and arrows enough to post here. I'm even a little husky myself. And as I told Nathan, who remains in his sad little trench with his fingers in his ears, you should be far more reluctant to drop words like misogynist and sexist when they don't truly apply, if only because you may need these words in the future in more appropriate circumstances. When your racist/sexist/whateverist reflex is too strong, you completely destroy the meaning of these words.

So, you do have no idea what it is to be a woman. Got it.

You're, to be honest, being totally and utterly ridiculous. Belonging to the privileged group of society it's obviously easy for you to say that disadvantaged groups are just being weak and if they just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps all would be fine. I'm not saying women are weak. Do you think black people are poorer than whites in the US because they're weak? Do you think anyone calling for government intervention on the behalf of black people are suggesting that blacks are stupid or weak?

You're being a fairly disgusting, entitled idiot. I guess that's a violation of the TOS, but sometimes one has to state the truth anyway. Thinking that it's easier for women to have careers in banking...wow. You should know how it is in Sweden, since I explicitly stated that in my post. The women I've known who have reacted to these things have been far from weak or fragile. If you had to face the constant barrage of weird expectations and pressures that women face every day you might find yourself feeling less smug about how easy life is.

I can give you another example. A girl I know who is an engineer. Her male group supervisor told her that he thought her had been bad and yelled at her a bit about it (at a social gathering, not in the actual work place). Then he added something like "good thing I can't stay mad at you with those eyes and that ass" Women get demeaned that way all the time. It happens daily on here, for example.

It really saddens me that you're so devoid of empathy that you think women have it easy.

[Gustaf]

I'm still not sure how this website, or it's contents could be seen as off limits to women. Nathan claims it is the statistics part of it, but I don't quite associate statistics with our maps....also it needs to be said of the people who actually visit and use the maps, there could be a 3:1 ratio of men to women. Perhaps most of them just don't register for the forum.

You don't see how the way society is structured and the way gender roles and expectations work would preclude women from this stuff?

Not really, no. But you are free to explain why. Nathan said it is because this is another form of statistics, but I don't quite buy that.

Ok, so first of all, there is a role for men as eccentric geniuses which does not exist for women. Women are judged predominantly based on their appearance and on their ability to interact socially and fit into the mold. This means that way fewer women become what we call 'nerds'. I'll preempt the jokes about how this is a good thing for them by pointing out that it definitely is a highly explanatory factor behind the lower wages women tend to get. It also means that women are generally less likely to be found on specialized internet forums. A woman is much less likely to find social acceptance for an odd interest like electoral maps and is thus more likely to stay away from it.

This is a bit of a brief and shallow take on it, granted, but I would think it's sufficient for someone to get it unless they're completely oblivious to these things.

Ok, I get your point but I disagree with it. I don't think it's socially more acceptable for men to have such interests. I think you could make the case men don't care and still pursue those interests more than women?

But that is my point, in a weird way. It's ok for men to do socially unacceptable things. That in itself is sort of socially accepted. Have you seen A Beuatiful Mind for example? That tells us that it's sort of ok for a guy to be schizophrenic because he can still get a Nobel Prize. It's ok for a guy to be a geek in school, because he can still be Bill Gates.

Of course, it's not AWESOME to be a member of Atlas. Jocks have higher status. But it's still better than being out of the mainstream as a woman. A guy can be socially hard to approach and a bit eccentric and could still be considered an ok person. I knew a girl in my high school class who was a bit socially awkward and a bit geeky. Everyone were sort of murmuring about what was wrong with her. Because it's not socially acceptable behaviour for women.

For the record, I don't think anyone (and certainly not me) is arguing that there are no genetic differences between men and women. But that doesn't make the attitude Memphis is taking any less disgusting. 

[Gustaf]

It's not about legal or physical barriers. Have you never known a woman intimately? And I don't necessarily mean sleeping with one. Just knowing a woman pretty well is sufficient to see this. I had a girlfriend who avoided working for investment banks. Not because she didn't want to, because she did. Not because they said they didn't like women, because they actually did the opposite, claiming to want more female employees. But because she very acutely felt the barriers of the sexist culture of those places and the way society expects men to do such jobs better. That's just a tiny anecdotal example from a country usually considered one of the most gender-equal in the world.

You're clearly viewing this from the perspective of a man. Which is natural since you are one. But the whole idea of tolerance and human rights is that we attempt to understand those coming from other positions in life. Not only do you fail in that but you seem uninterested to even try, content to retain misogynist positions. You should really reconsider that.  

For whatever reason, my closest friends tend to be women, so please spare me the "have you ever known a woman "spiel. The question that struck me immediately after reading your post was, why do you position women as some sort of extraordinarily fragile creatures unable to advance merely because they "feel the [perceived] barriers of a sexist culture?" Are they really that weak? I certainly don't think so. What you just said is far more insulting to women that any position I have stated. I'm not at all familiar with Swedish customs or business policy, but in the United States, companies are constantly going out of their way to find female employees, especially in traditionally male dominated fields like finance or engineering. It is, in fact, far easier to get a job in one of these fields as a woman than as a man. We all had a good laugh about "binders full of women" but companies really do this. Women have a serious edge in many fields just because we're all trying to overcompensate for something that nobody can ever define concretely. Which is a bit crazy to me, but companies are more than welcome to run their HR any legal way they see fit. Regarding the Atlas, and I think that was how this thread got started in the first place, nobody takes more crap here than fat people. I would much rather be a woman posting here than a fat. But we still have plenty of fats who are able to "overcome" the slings and arrows enough to post here. I'm even a little husky myself. And as I told Nathan, who remains in his sad little trench with his fingers in his ears, you should be far more reluctant to drop words like misogynist and sexist when they don't truly apply, if only because you may need these words in the future in more appropriate circumstances. When your racist/sexist/whateverist reflex is too strong, you completely destroy the meaning of these words.

So, you do have no idea what it is to be a woman. Got it.

You're, to be honest, being totally and utterly ridiculous. Belonging to the privileged group of society it's obviously easy for you to say that disadvantaged groups are just being weak and if they just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps all would be fine. I'm not saying women are weak. Do you think black people are poorer than whites in the US because they're weak? Do you think anyone calling for government intervention on the behalf of black people are suggesting that blacks are stupid or weak?

You're being a fairly disgusting, entitled idiot. I guess that's a violation of the TOS, but sometimes one has to state the truth anyway. Thinking that it's easier for women to have careers in banking...wow. You should know how it is in Sweden, since I explicitly stated that in my post. The women I've known who have reacted to these things have been far from weak or fragile. If you had to face the constant barrage of weird expectations and pressures that women face every day you might find yourself feeling less smug about how easy life is.

I can give you another example. A girl I know who is an engineer. Her male group supervisor told her that he thought her had been bad and yelled at her a bit about it (at a social gathering, not in the actual work place). Then he added something like "good thing I can't stay mad at you with those eyes and that ass" Women get demeaned that way all the time. It happens daily on here, for example.

It really saddens me that you're so devoid of empathy that you think women have it easy.

Nobody has it easy in life. Take a look around. Life is a difficult and complicated muddle for everybody. Of course, it's true I have no idea what it's like to be a woman, but neither do you. And it's frankly absurd that you pretend to have more insight into it than I do. But calling my background privileged is rather ridiculous, which you would know, if you knew anything about me and the obstacles I've faced. As for comparing sex with race, it's a total non-starter until you can identify an entire chromosome dedicated to race. It's not the same situation at all. Unlike race, sex is actually a real biological thing. And I never said I knew the first thing about how businesses operate in Sweden. I actually made a special point to state the opposite. If your business culture is really that crass, that's unfortunate. I can assure you that, in most cases, that is not the situation in the United States, where businesses make a special point to be "inclusive" of all. I can assure you that organizations do not want sex/race trouble. They're busy enough, as is. In fact, there is no quicker way to end an important career than to make callous sexist (or racist) comments. It may just be a difference in what is acceptable between Sweden and in the United States. Oh an you are also  "totally and utterly ridiculous" as well as a "fairly disgusting, entitled idiot." Those sort of comments make your positions so very much stronger...

You're not being serious, are you? I just told you that Sweden has the same inclusive policies you talk about. Every Western country does. In fact, by pretty much every way of measuring Sweden is way more favourable to women than the US. Yet, even here the barriers are substantial. Maybe this is a reading comprehension issue rather than as I thought you being clueless about the world.

See, the statement that women have it easier than men to get a job in banking is exactly like saying that blacks have an easier time getting high-paying jobs due to affirmative action. Possibly worse.

I'm not saying you're universally privileged. I've no idea who you are. But as a man you belong to the privileged gender. As a white person you belong to the privileged race. This gives you certain advantages. Recognizing that other people lack this advantage is a key component of empathy. I'm not calling your attitude here disgusting as an ad hominem attack. I'm merely stating what it is to belong to a group that is privileged and complain about those that have it worse trying to get better lives.

You really might want to educate yourself a bit on this issue before offering opinions about it because you come off as totally clueless. It's a bit like if someone said Africans are privileged because they receive aid money. It'd be hard to take such a person seriously, even if they added that they didn't know much about how the economy is structured in Africa or whatever.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, what sort of sexual harassment laws do you guys have in Sweden? The comment "good thing I can't stay mad at you with those eyes and that ass" would lead to an instant lawsuit here in America. These things may be said in private between men, but never to a woman's face.

Of course you could sue over it. Do you think a woman with a reputation of having no sense of humour about an innocent joke like that would be hired again?

Sweden has extremely favourable sexual harassment laws for the victim.

[Gustaf]

But eventually it needs to be about "what do you want to do."  There will always be deficits of women in some fields as there will be deficits of men in others.  The point is to ensure that those imbalances are not intentional on an institutional level, but instead reflect the desires of men and women seeking to achieve their goals in life.  (Which is why I strongly oppose a 50/50 balance in parliament, for example.  But it is maybe necessary as an intermediate step.)

I think my point, as well as that of Gustaf, Nathan and others, is to remind that barriers that prevent you from doing what you want to do are not always explicit or visible. They don't generally work in the form of "we don't want women here". It's a much more subtle process, that starts from the early childhood, and slowly encourages men and women to adopt different attitudes, develop different skills, follow different paths, etc. It's not enough to say "now women must not be excluded from certain professions". Because if the general assumptions of the employer and the coworkers are still influenced by gender stereotypes, a woman still has little chance to succeed in certain fields. And furthermore, women are even discouraged from seeking certain careers in the first place, at the level of primary or secondary education already.

It's also worth noting that this form of subtle discrimination exists for men as well, though it's limited to only a few categories like nursing, which do not convey much social consideration.

But the point is, eliminating obvious forms of discrimination is not enough. You have to go deeper and reshape mentalities outright.

Pretty much this. Although I'll add that it's a lot worse to be discriminated against in, you know, every high-paying job like banking, law, politics and so on than in the ones with the lowest status and wages, like elderly care, nursing and teaching.

PS: in before Lief says that women have an advantage in the great career choice of porn stardom...

[Gustaf]

But eventually it needs to be about "what do you want to do."  There will always be deficits of women in some fields as there will be deficits of men in others.  The point is to ensure that those imbalances are not intentional on an institutional level, but instead reflect the desires of men and women seeking to achieve their goals in life.  (Which is why I strongly oppose a 50/50 balance in parliament, for example.  But it is maybe necessary as an intermediate step.)

I think my point, as well as that of Gustaf, Nathan and others, is to remind that barriers that prevent you from doing what you want to do are not always explicit or visible. They don't generally work in the form of "we don't want women here". It's a much more subtle process, that starts from the early childhood, and slowly encourages men and women to adopt different attitudes, develop different skills, follow different paths, etc. It's not enough to say "now women must not be excluded from certain professions". Because if the general assumptions of the employer and the coworkers are still influenced by gender stereotypes, a woman still has little chance to succeed in certain fields. And furthermore, women are even discouraged from seeking certain careers in the first place, at the level of primary or secondary education already.

It's also worth noting that this form of subtle discrimination exists for men as well, though it's limited to only a few categories like nursing, which do not convey much social consideration.

But the point is, eliminating obvious forms of discrimination is not enough. You have to go deeper and reshape mentalities outright.

Pretty much this. Although I'll add that it's a lot worse to be discriminated against in, you know, every high-paying job like banking, law, politics and so on than in the ones with the lowest status and wages, like elderly care, nursing and teaching.

PS: in before Lief says that women have an advantage in the great career choice of porn stardom...

Again with the d word. It's a very powerful and meaningful term. Reflexively applying it without any evidence other than unprovable claims of subtle, undefined situations is quite an injustice to people who have actually faced discrimination. It is very insulting to people who have faced real and substantial institutionalized hurdles to apply the term so liberally. A couple of specific counter examples may help to draw a contrast. Both of my parents grew up in cities with large black populations. However, both of them went to public schools that were 100% white because blacks were not allowed to attend them. My grandparents faced a great many legal restrictions in their childhood because they were Jewish. All you are able to suggest is that women face some sort of very subtle and undefined cultural roadblock. Which brings us back to my earlier point. Why do you think women are so weak that they are unable to get past even the most subtle of challenges even though they very much want to? I know that you are trying to be sympathetic, but your rigid orthodixies are not painting a very nice picture of women. Women are not passive victims. They are real people with agency.

It's not really that subtle to people hurt by it. You can't honestly be this dense. This is not about women being fragile, as I already said. I don't think men would fare much better. Wait, in fact, I know they don't. Because men are just as barred from traditionally female pursuits (if not even more so). It's just that since we men already have most of the really good stuff reserevd for us fewer men are hurt by it.

You're assuming that if someone is the victim of discrimination that is not explicit and legal they have to be weak. That is...pretty horrible.

[Gustaf]

Ok, there is no sexual harassment or discrimination of women anywhere in the US because it is against the law. If you think that I'm sorry, but I don't think anything I can do would change your mind.

Sbane, I'm not saying nursing is the worst job in the world. But it's certainly not the best either. And don't give me your "step into the real world" crap. You're the one saying women can't be discriminated against because it's illegal, so...

[Gustaf]

Ok, there is no sexual harassment or discrimination of women anywhere in the US because it is against the law. If you think that I'm sorry, but I don't think anything I can do would change your mind.

This is not what I said at all. Of course, laws are frequently broken. For example, I can show that drug laws are frequenty broken by the number of arrests made. I can show that immigration laws are often broken by pointing to the large undocumented population in the United States. If you are suggesting that discrimination laws are frequently broken, you need to show some evidence. Making very serious claims without any proof is extremely reckless and does not win a conversation.

Ok, so there were 12 500 charges of sexual harassment on the job in 2007 in the US. But those are the types of blatant instances that get reported. Which is not the only thing we're talking about. I guess it comes as a surprise to you that sexual harassment actually happens, so you're welcome to that piece of information. No need to thank me.

http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/35/1/16.extract "the literature on sexual harassment indicates that it is widespread, to the point of being pandemic"

"Gender discrimination continues to be an issue that is encountered by women in the workplace."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879199917487


"55% of women with fulltime jobs indicated that 'at work most men don't take women seriously'"
http://goo.gl/623hc

[Gustaf]

I'm thinking there may a cultural difference between work environments in the US and Europe. All the European posters insist that sexual harassment is omnipresent and intense while most American posters are pointing out that this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable and that companies are aggressive in preventing and punishing it. I don't know anything about European business, but it's the only rational explanation for the disparity in experiences.

Eh, no. See, none of us have experienced this because we're not women. I just posted a bunch of links to research papers from the US talking about this. Did you just ignore that?

The rational explanation for you (who don't know anything about this topic) not being aware of something is that it doesn't exist? Good luck managing life with that attitude.

[Gustaf]

OK, I found the old thread on this topic from 2010:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115102.10

Looking through my posts from that thread, I'm reminded of one point that I made back then, which was that, from my own purely anecdotal experience, male/female ratios tend to be higher on messageboards where the moderation is lax, and you have a bunch of trolls running around unchecked (and nothing done about males making creepy comments to the few women who do post there).  Don't know if this was a factor here, but for much of Atlas's history, I'd say that moderation was quite lax, and the forum culture was forged in that era.  (Remember how long it took Dave to act on any punishments for trolls/spammers before Nym was given his current powers?)

I'd also highlight Beet's excellent post on the male/female ratio here:

Well, places usually grow by word of mouth or by advertising. In first person shooter forums for example, the advertising is the game, which men and women both see in stores, and is played by so many men that some women are bound to come into contact with it, try it, and like it enough to post in a forum. With other political sites that I go to, they tend to be well known, or the people in them started out drawn together as a group in real life that expanded into a online group, kind of like phknrocket1k was saying. Groups in real life tend to be mixed gender, so when translated online, it became that way as well.

This site is a place where you aren't going to find it unless you go searching. We're not tied to any particular famous events or personalities. Dave doesn't have a blog that attracts many links or hits to this site. We get a traffic surge around election day just for people looking for information, IIRC, but it mostly hangs beneath the surface. People have made friends here but it's relatively rare for existing members to bring in their friends or family. Statesrights is one of the exceptions and the result that was one of our few female members.

In other words, this site is designed very much as a social networking island. It's unusually disconnected. I'm not sure that answers the OP's question but I think it has something to do with it.

Reading Gustaf's posts from that thread is also interesting, since he was emphasizing the "nature" side in the "nature vs. nurture" debate.  (Not that that contradicts his posts in this thread per se, but it is mildly ironic.)

Well, if you actually read what I said I was saying that I think there are biological differences between men and women but that many if not most observed differences today are probably due to social conditioning. Which is precisely what I said here. The differences has been in which extreme has struck me as most stupid and hence what I feel the need to argue against.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, one of your links is from 1989 and another is from 1994. The one from 2000 is the most recent. I am not saying there is no gender discrimination, but this is one facet of society that has been changing for the better recently.

*sigh*

At least we moved to the position that there might be some gender discrimination. That's something.

Ok, so we've established that there has been gender discrimination to a large degree up to fairly recently. I think, if anything, that should relieve me of the burden of providing lots of evidence. If you want to argue that a condition that's been in place everywhere in the world for all time has suddenly disappeared right now in the place where you currently happen to be - I think the burden of proof if anything is on you.

So, go ahead. Give me evidence for women being favoured over men in high-wage fields like banking (which is Memphis' assertion in this thread)

[Gustaf]

There's a fine line between "Women are favored for high wage occupations" and "Sexist workplace discrimination is very widespread and companies almost never enforce rules and policies against it and never take sexual harassment seriously".

memphis' point that there might be a regional difference on this is pretty valid, the fact that the US is so litigation-friendly might have something to do with it. There's no gain to even risk companies having to pay out sexual harassment lawsuits.

I never claimed that companies never take sexual harassment seriously. This also is not only about sexual harassment.

Memphis claimed specifically that it was easier for women to get these kind of jobs because all companies want to be PC. Poor, white men having such a hard time.

In Sweden harassment is defined as the victim feeling harassed. So I strongly doubt that it is harder to win a lawsuit on the topic here. What I do know is that it would be highly damaging to any young professional's career to sue their employer first thing they do.