The headline gives it away "At Last, Women on Top". Wasn't this supposed to be about equality?
[1] http://www.newport.com/images/web600w-EN/images/1231942.gif
[2] http://i.cmpnet.com/embedded/gifs/2000/0010/0010feat3fig17.g...
Of course, it SUCKS that anyone is ever on the wrong end of that oscillation.
But feminists think the top half is men-only, and they want it to be women-only.
Stating this as if it were fact is disingenuous. The feminists that people think of when they think that -- the ones they label "feminazis" -- exist only in their heads as a stereotype. People actually resembling that stereotype of extremity are few and far between and can be safely ignored.
The vast majority of progressively-minded people, even those who call themselves feminists, lobby only for equality/parity, not supremacy.
[You could also consider those in charge of the Texas Board of Education rewriting history and science in textbooks that will be used across the whole country, or the particular people who create the often decidedly institutionally sexist terms of e.g., rape victim anonymity or child support.]
But that wasn't really pertinent to my point in any case -- I was just trying to save you from categorically stating that an entire movement consisting of many millions of people was somehow arguing for a total bias reversal. Or at least they're not lobbying for it visibly. Maybe they really believe that, but you'd have a hard time getting them to admit to it. That said, I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case.
If you mean that feminists don't pursue discrimination cases when it comes to low-pay/low-prestige/high-risk jobs, that's demonstrably false: There are many examples of "women's lib" folks organizing factories or migrant workers or whatever. Many of the related Supreme Court cases (e.g. Ledbetter, Chrapliwy) were about discrimination in blue collar jobs at factories. It is likely that these groups spend more time and money pursuing discrimination issues in blue-collar and low-wage workplaces than they do in the higher-salary, higher-prestige jobs, not least of which because (a) discrimination is probably more blatant and common there and (b) more people, men and women both, have below average (arithmetic mean) incomes than have above average salaries and (c) more women have low-pay, low-prestige jobs than men.
If you mean that feminists hold up the gender imbalance in high-wage, high-prestige jobs when advocating for their cause, of course they do. Everyone would. What middle class donor is going to pull out their wallet to ensure their daughters can get janitorial jobs? The aspirational jobs are simply more inspiring. Moreover, ensuring a gender balance in the lowest-wage, lowest-prestige job categories while leaving the top end alone isn't really achieving equality, is it?
By the way, I don't think your notion that women are under-represented in low pay/low prestige jobs holds up to scrutiny anyway. Women are over-represented in the lowest end of the scale, and under-represented in the highest end of the scale. Take a look at BLS or Census Bureau data on the highest and lowest paying jobs and the distribution of women and men in each. Here's an interesting table of unemployment rate by occupation and sex: http://www.infoplease.com/business/employment-rate-occupatio.... Note that the unemployment rate pretty closely correlates to what you'd expect from a gender bias: the unemployment rate in traditionally feminine occupations is higher for men than for women, the unemployment rate in traditionally masculine occupations is higher for women than for men.
I think the only claim in your line of thinking that holds up to the least bit of scrutiny is that men are over-represented in dangerous job categories, or more to the point that men account for a disproportionate share of workplace fatalities. This is true (although your numbers are a bit off). The breakdown of hours worked by sex is around 55% men to 45% women. The breakdown of fatal injuries is around 93% men and 7% women. But with only 4,300 workplace fatalities in the United States in 2009, we're talking about one fatality for every 59 million hours worked. Workplace fatalities are not the biggest labor problem in the US, probably not even for the most dangerous occupations.
I don't mean to flog this thread that is fairly dead at this point, but seriously, the level of largely unchallenged inaccuracy, "truthiness", and borderline misogyny in this thread is not only well below HN's typical level of quality, but frankly it is disturbing. This conversation needs some balance.
The parent comment here currently has 15 upvotes. Another comment on this page claiming there hasn't been gender based discrimination "for a very long time" has 3 upvotes. Many of the claims made in these posts are simply demonstrably false. They seem to represent some kind of knee-jerk, well, not misogyny, but something approaching it. Is there a term for "dislike of women" in place of "hatred of women"?
I'm male, but gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace is obvious to me, let alone to the women in my life. Gender isn't the dominant factor in predicting income, rank or career success. It may not even be among the top few factors. But it is certainly a factor, and not a negligible one at that. To be candid I'm both astounded and troubled this isn't obvious to more of the participants in this conversation.
It depends on the distribution. I would assume it's not exactly symmetrical.
- More likely to be the victim of a rape. - Representation in the media. http://bechdeltest.com/
I'm sure there are more that a better feminist than myself could share with you.
You could argue that "they don't need to" and I call bullshit. Go down to the nearest college and pay attention to the comments made about the female grad students who do eschew the preening hour vs the comments about those who don't. It is absurd. A man who doesn't bother to do his hair right is "eccentric" or "a bit of a slob" but this trangression is quickly overlooked (a fact many geeks take great advantage of). A woman doing the same will forever be looked down on as 'that frumpy chick' or 'she could really be something if she took care of herself'. Do you see the difference in how the value judgement plays out?
True story, a few years ago I was working for a very traditional financial services firm, and the word came down from On High, people were to wear shirts or polo shirts, not t-shirts, in the office (as opposed to, out visiting clients, which you'd wear a suit for). The girls kept on wearing t-shirts. Someone mentioned it and was informed that they weren't t-shirts, they were "women's tops".
Incidentally, women dress up to impress other women. Men simply don't notice eyelashes or nail varnish or whatever.
I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot more diversity in women's clothing. I think that probably makes it more difficult to dress for the occasion as opposed to less. For instance, a man can wear slacks and a dress shirt to work and then throw on a tie and jacket for a formal dinner. Most any single woman's outfit would be out of place in one environment or the other.
(In fact, men can get by in almost any situation with a pair of dress pants and a button down shirt.)
> Incidentally, women dress up to impress other women. Men simply don't notice eyelashes or nail varnish or whatever.
Agreed. That has been my observation as well. I think there may have even been scientific studies on this point.
Wow, really? Upvotes even? I'm honestly surprised no one has pushed back on that statement yet.
Not to be condescending, but I'll guess that you are a man, and a young one at that.
In the west, there is certainly less officially sanctioned discrimination, although that is a relatively new phenomenon. (Some examples from the US: The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed in 2009. The FMLA was passed in 1993. The Tailhook Scandal was 1991. Roberts v. United States Jaycees was 1984. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal was 1982. Title IX was 1972. The EEOC and The Equal Pay act were 1963. Even 1920 isn't really that long ago.)
But if you honestly believe there is no "serious" or widespread gender based discrimination, you must either be very young, very privileged, or not paying attention. That statement just doesn't reflect the experience of people in the working world, whether white collar or blue. Google "gender discrimination study". Ask some professional women you know. Ask your significant other or women in your family. Look around your workplace and witness how people act toward and talk about women versus the way they act toward and talk about men.
It is getting better, but this isn't controversial: Gender discrimination exists.
There's no conspiracy or collusion (well, rarely, see Tailhook for example, or the wall street folks taking a business lunch at Hooters or taking a client to a strip club). It often isn't even malicious or intentional (I'm thinking of that study that showed people are more comfortable with and most likely to hire people like themselves, but my google fu fails me). But it certainly happens, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, and this certainly has a "serious" impact on women's work life and careers.
(By the way there's also gender discrimination that happens in the other direction: try to become a nanny, day care worker or pre-school teacher as a man, or sue for custody of the children during a divorce.)