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

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll miss Inks' sig.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The lack of empathy here is pretty astounding, in a way that proves Walter Benjamin's point about fashion dictating empathy rather than the other way round.

[memphis]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just because problems are subtle does not mean that they are not serious. This is not hard to understand, or, at least, oughtn't be.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll miss Inks' sig.

I'll miss it too.  But the time that it was needed is no more.

[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.

[opebo]

It's not an attack on you.  But as long as you admit that you're a hypocrite in not apologizing, that's close enough to an apology for me.  You've apologized in spirit, so, I accept your apology, and I forgive you.

I never admitted anything.  I've really no idea what you're on about, Inks.

The lack of empathy here is pretty astounding, in a way that proves Walter Benjamin's point about fashion dictating empathy rather than the other way round.

Most men feel they are worse off than women, I think.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

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 . 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.

I have to call BS on this one, unless you count things that biologically men can't do, in most cases there exist a male substitute, but it is less watched. In comparison would be most women's sports.

For example
" 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..."

I know plenty well that this are a fine population of men are in nursing and teaching, and have not found any stats on elderly care, from what I would gather there are plently of male poeple getting profits from porn, one way or another.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not an attack on you.  But as long as you admit that you're a hypocrite in not apologizing, that's close enough to an apology for me.  You've apologized in spirit, so, I accept your apology, and I forgive you.

I never admitted anything.  I've really no idea what you're on about, Inks.

You admitted it here:

What you are is a hypocrite and arrogant. 

So what? 

That's good enough for me.  Even if you didn't directly do it, I accept your apology.

[opebo]

I never admitted anything.  I've really no idea what you're on about, Inks.

You admitted it here:

What you are is a hypocrite and arrogant. 

So what? 

That's good enough for me.  Even if you didn't directly do it, I accept your apology.

Well, your interpretation is your own, of course, and I do hope you enjoy it to the fullest.  But the meaning you inferred was not the one I intended to impart. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Srs business.

[Sbane]

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.

How would they know? In any case, most workplaces take sexual harassment very seriously. I am not sure if that is the case in Sweden or not. If I was a manager, even totally ignoring the woman's plight, I would fire that guy. The consequences are just too steep for the company since they would have to pay off lawsuits and of course creating a hostile culture for half the workforce is not good for business.

[Sbane]

The lack of empathy here is pretty astounding, in a way that proves Walter Benjamin's point about fashion dictating empathy rather than the other way round.

Lack of empathy that women are socially discouraged from posting on the atlas forum? Let us not forget that was what this thread was about.

Women do face challenges getting into certain professions and men do too.

Also, what's up with the hating on nursing? I would argue that is one of the best professions to get into currently. At least here in America. And they do get paid more than the median wage, in some cases way more. I find it funny that those of you who are so bent on protecting women from discrimination would put down a profession that has a lot of women like that. Nursing is a tough job and a very important job. It's not all about "comforting" patients or crap like that. Maybe some of you should step out in the real world instead of being brainwashed by your humanities classes.

[memphis]

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.

How would they know? In any case, most workplaces take sexual harassment very seriously. I am not sure if that is the case in Sweden or not. If I was a manager, even totally ignoring the woman's plight, I would fire that guy. The consequences are just too steep for the company since they would have to pay off lawsuits and of course creating a hostile culture for half the workforce is not good for business.

If you 100% knew the incident was true, and you didn't fire him, you would get into crazy trouble with your superiors at any American business. Ditto for launching a racial slur at somebody. Being a middle manager is all about knowing what's going on and preventing it from reaching the big boys. As to Gus's claims, if he wants to claim that women routinely face serious levels of discrimination in the American (or Swedish) workplace, the burden of proof is on him. I can't demonstrate a negative beyond pointing out the many measures in place to prevent it.

[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...

[memphis]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Maybe Inks will have mercy and move this to Torie's board since it's not a FC topic anymore. 

[Mr. Morden]

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.)

[Sbane]

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...

That sort of blatant in your face discrimination would not occur in the US without consequences for that person. That doesn't mean women or minorities don't face quieter discrimination.

[Kitteh]

Srs business.

Relevant: Among transgender people, SRS as an acronym is used to mean Sex Reassignment Surgery. I always giggle when I see people use to to mean "serious" on the internet for that reason, but it's even more ironic than usual in a thread about gender like this one.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

Yes.  But you must recognize that men and women are different.  Memphis is correct in bringing up that there is a biological difference.  As long as there are strength requirements for firefighters, men will dominate the field.  You can call this reinforcing gender roles if youw ant, but I don't think it is.

Men and women will likely always tend to gravitate towards different roles in society.  That is because men and women are wired differently and are also physically different.  To ignore that in pursuit of some forced 50/50 equality does nothing but create an imbalance from the natural order of things.

Now of course any active discrimination needs to stop.  Men should be able to fill traditionally female roles and vice versa... but being 100% gender neutral as a society will never happen.. because almost nobody is gender neutral themselves.

Instead, removing as much societal pressure as possible on various roles and making those roles the choice of the individual is the goal.  But I still think even if we achieve that, women will still fill many of the traditional roles that we've come to think as "normal".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lack of empathy that women are socially discouraged from posting on the atlas forum? Let us not forget that was what this thread was about.

I was thinking more of the general misogynistic atmosphere here (which is a greater concern than the ridiculous gender balance as such, even if the two things are obviously related), but whatever.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You can't honestly be this dense.

Oh, I think it's pretty clear that he is.

[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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Gustaf, your last link is stretching the window a bit.

The lack of empathy here is pretty astounding, in a way that proves Walter Benjamin's point about fashion dictating empathy rather than the other way round.

Most men feel they are worse off than women, I think.

Very possible, and absolutely psychotic if true.