Feminism, Chivalry and Gender-Roles

Remove all ads!

@Darkthrone
http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/06_tyoministerio/08_tyollisyyskatsaukset/2005_katsaukset/2005-22-11.jsp

I took the statistics from there and I'd hope that the Finnish ministery of work (which is led by a Female minister anyway) would be an unbiased enough of a source. What it also shows is that the unemployment of women is decreasing while the unemployment of men is increasing. It's in Finnish however so I don't really expect you to understand much of it, but if you doubt my word you can allways have Iku-Turso, Arabwel, Wordplay or someone else of our other Finnish residents to transelate it.

EDIT: The statistic is a year old, I could not find newer with a quick search but I doubt the situation has changed all that much during a year.

I'm not saying that discrimination is not happening I'm just disagreeing that quotas are the right way to handle the situation. I'm quite confident that the situation will balance itself in time, women have allready now a lot more seats in the parliament and we even have a woman as president. Equality has gone a lot forward in the last twenty years and allthough some anti-discriminative laws have probably helped the issue, I don't think gender quotas are the way to go. Employers should be allowed to hire whom they like and it's just wrong to force them to choose someone they don't like or is simply less skilled in order to meet up to a gender quota.

 

Morgoroth, I always confuse you with Morgoth, who's from Holland. That's why I scanned the website given in my link for your figures, rather than the Finnish site. Nevermind.

 

@Iku-Turso: Congrats on buying into the misandrist agenda (I don't think it should be called "the feminist agenda" anymore).

However, the situation here is that men are discriminated against. Equal rights flew out of the window some time ago, apparently.

I'd bet the pay differences are largely because of the fact that women are more social. Therefore they're less likely to capitalize on the weaknesses of others. Sociopaths do the best in today's society.

And I find the whole point amusing. "Men have unprovable unseen privileges, therefore legally discriminating against men is perfectly acceptable."

Of course, I'm speaking from my point of view, which includes only Finland. Here women have better rights than men. YMMV.

 

What are the chances of women having sytematically lower wages from the same jobs if the capabilities of the sexes are equal considering a particular line of work? Answer me that, if you please.

My my, no wonder we have so many educated people here in Finland. It would seem that the requirements are so low. Grades have absolutely nothing to do with education, you can't trust teachers to give grades based on the amount of knowledge and understanding you've acquired, you get to universities because of your grades that have no basis on reality and when you finish your university you get a degree with what you do nothing, since it's got grades. It's all so clear now. And I was under the impression that finnish educational system, which is based on grades, has had a lot of positive attention from other countries...

@Taza: I'm not buying anything. Nobody has sold me any misandrist or feminist ideologies. I've grown into them. The thing that's always bothered me is that ever since I was a kid, men were supposed to be something everyone else looked up to. That's how people acted, young and old, girls, boys and women. And for the dead of me I've never understood why. I've never met a man who would deserve this appreciation everyone seem to give to us only because we're men. And it's not that there'd be these exceptional individuals that would deserve kudos. All men have gotten the same appreciation up until recently. Now people are beginning to see that people should be judged because of their skills and not because of their sex or gender. Men are falling behind since many of them haven't realized yet that in order to achieve something with their lives they'd have to work like never before. There's no free meals anymore.

The current day unemployment numbers confirm what I suspect. The finnish male culture has too many negative qualities for men to adjust to the changes in society we're going through. Only the fact that most of the criminals and most of the failed people of the society are men should tell you that something is very wrong in either the male culture, or in the biological determinants. I'm betting the culture.

Women's ratio of commited crimes in Finland is on the rise. The culture of the female has been changing rapidly during a couple of decades.

[ September 26, 2006, 18:17: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

Ha!

So women having worse wages is because women are discriminated, but men having unemployment problems is because there's "something wrong with the male culture"?

A bit of a double standard there?

And congrats on your use of "failed people". There's "failed people". And most of them males too.

I can't really say what I think about you here. The forum rules, you see.

EDIT: And on the educational system, I'd say on average how much the teacher likes you makes up 1/3 of your grade. Possibly more. It has nothing to do with how much you know. Even the teachers don't bother to pretend it does. The job of the finnish school system is to make the people productive members of the society - not to teach them anything not required for that.

 

The most positive attention come from the way we teach math, the vast majority of other countries have a system based on grades too you know. The signifigance of grades become lesser and lesser the higher you reach in education while passing the actual education becomes harder and more requiring.

 

@Taza: What can you do. The structure of the society's changing. If you can't keep up with that, you have no-one else to blame but yourself.

Yes it's male culture that doesn't appreciate good grades when you're a kid. It's male culture that says that you don't have to change just because everyone says so. It's male culture to go boasting with abilities you don't have. It's male culture to give in to alcohol. It's male culture to enjoy fast cars, fast living and taking unnecessary risks.

It's male culture and it's discrimination. It's the same discrimintaion we've had towards women from the beginning of the western civilization. Now us men start to be on the receiving end of this discrimination we've practiced towards women and which we're practicing towards ourselves. The only limitation we men have not to live up to our potential is the indoctrination we've had ever since we've been kids. This applies both to women and men.

We have these silly arbitrary rules that we try to live up to and if we fail we might even take our lives. 'What kind of a man are you?' - 'No good girl acts that way.' It's taking away our freedom to express ourselves, and it's not that we'd start to bring destruction to the streets if we don't act the way that's expected from our gender.

Having said that, it's ironic that I'd probably have to emphasize that I'm still a heterosexual male, with no sexual perversions. Not a cross-dresser or anything funny. But as this has become a heated discussion I know you'd might want to start to go into that kind of ad hominem -arguments. No offence to the sexual minorities or anything.

@Morgoroth: And now it seems women are increasingly taking over the universities, while the educational system hasn't changed that dramatically, or has it? How would you explain this?

 

I can refuse to change, and I personally have no options. Nor do many others. And some can barely keep up. See the teens drinking, for example.

The one to blame? People like you. People who think that the society should be changing this way.

It's all a rush these days. Too fast. Too soon. Women are taking over, because "teamplay" is overemphasised. And all sorts of values foreign to the finnish mindset are infused into the society, on rapidfire. Like lives today.

Your view of the "finnish male culture" appears twisted. Heck, your whole view of finnish culture looks twisted.

A bad experience perhaps? Or just the deep feelings of inadeaquacy rising from the fact that you can never live up to the ideal of a real man?

What kind of a man are you?

EDIT: The point above isn't to be taken seriously - it's been constructed that way to make use of the line.

[ September 26, 2006, 19:12: Message edited by: Taza ]

 

I'm Joe Average, until I'm not.

There might be some feelings of inadequacy if I'd even knew what is the ideal of a real man that every man seems unable to live up to. You could make a list of those values for all of us, just to make some things clearer and I trust your expertise on the subject more than mine.

That the change in the society is 'all rush too fast too soon' comes from very masculine values such as competitiveness. Ironic, in so many ways.

And hopefully for thousands of years to come! Hundred years is such a short period of time. Changing some ideas seem to take generations more than there can be in a hundred years. My grandmother is 94 years old, bless her, and women's rights is still a new thing to her and she's not demented.

edit: @Taza: Point taken. Good point.

 

Of course nobody is able to live up to the ideal. I'd say it doesn't really exist anyway. There's some common features "everyone" agrees exist (justness, strength, self-control), but no real common "ideal". Just a concept of one.

And take a random guess at how long people have had voting rights like now here?
(Clarification: My comment about that got swallowed up in my edit by accident.)

We had a short period without any real discrimination (that I could notice), but now unfortunately people are pushing the pendulum to the other end, discrimination of men and political correctness. The "male culture" there once was has now mostly disappeared. Same thing with the "female culture". There's "finnish culture".

So the point is this - misandry is not going to improve equal rights. It's not the feminist agenda, for feminism is striving towards equal rights. When you promote the discrimination of men, it's the misandrist agenda.

And the change in society... that is something to be fought with all we have. While I might be quite antisocial, even I cannot accept the way the society is changing towards performance. Not human interaction, not equal rights, not some higher ideal, not even universal wellbeing. Just performance. For performance's sake.

 

It is yet to be proven in a reliable, full-fledged test. Until that, I wouldn't place much credibility on those opinions (too often spread by feminists).

Sorry to say, but you are again in your own devices. What I said was "Don't mix up the two: education is NOT the same thing as good grades." I didn't say that they were a different thing either, since a person can pass school with poor grades and still have a very succesful career. You should know that.

Silent disapproval is the same as imprisoning you to a moral cage? Man acting a bit girlishly will go to the headsman's block? Tomboys are chained and thrown to dungeons? Really, aren't you exaggerating a bit too much again?

 

I think I used to think this way at some point, it's quite possible, but that didn't last very long and now I can't wrap my mind over it. But some aspects of these changes should be fought against, and those aspects are most commonly attributed to masculine values.

How many of them? What's the ratio? One out of ten? I'd say around two to five out of one hundred.

My misandristic tendencies come as a reaction to those people showing great pride for their gender and turning out to be nothing but two-faced, split tongued chauvinistic pigs with no honor and no respect for the lives of other beings. I've made this notion time and time again, every time when I meet those who think that their gender is something important to them. For both women and men. Their set of these ideas concerning gender is more important to them than the wellbeing of another person.

There is no gender, no sexes. Sexuality shouldn't be so important that it comes before almost anything, that people would even maime and kill because of someones sexuality doesn't fit to their mindscape. It's the oppression of the sexes, it concerns all of us.

I've recommended this one before, but I'll do so again. You would do well to read Prisons We Choose to Live Inside by Doris Lessing, it's a brief reading and even the name is very telling. Or just take a peek at what she's saying of these things. And if you're calling Doris Lessing a feminist or a misandrist you really haven't understood anything.

[ September 26, 2006, 20:03: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

I think people are drawing too many potentially misleading conclusions from these statistics. My personal experience is that I cannot think of a single female I have ever encountered who has had less opportunities than a male. All the females I know who have wanted to get good careers, get paid well, are doing so. In my company, there are as many women managers as men. Many of them have had children, taken time off, and come back.

I don't see that there is an issue either way. The only issue is certain people on both sides making an issue by complaining. The people who are just getting on with their lives are getting by fine without moaning about things.

 

I'm sorry, Iku-Turso, but you're running into compensational overrating of women. Ironically, that's not really so far away from the psychological background behind some of the more idolatrous forms of overdrawn chivalry in the late middle ages (i.e. worshipping women). Your argument is biological, evolutional, practical. Theirs was moral. But it comes down to the same thing, anyway. That is, who is better. I say none is.

@Harbs:

Hehe. Don't know about rugby, at all, but it seems to me that some of those really big female athletes in the combat sports could easily pwn some of the rookier males.

@Wirhe:

That sounds like someone has a vagina instead of brain rather than instead of a penis. Or a penis instead of brain, whatever. Those affirmative quotas are as demeaning to women as preventive ones (i.e. no more than...) would be. It's blatantly undemocratic and betrays a primitive understanding of maths on the part of the inventor of that system.

Yes and no. I would say the same requirements for a volunteer-based service, i.e. no trimming down the requirements just so female soldiers could make it (this doesn't mean retaining useless requirements for their own sake, though, just reasonable ones). On the other hand, it would be quite wrong to demand the same results from girls in weight lifting for a P.E. class at school.

@Abomination:

It does. Leaving women alone, without child leave, or especially firing them for becoming pregnant, is unfair. However, forcing people to employ pregnant women to work for a couple of months before a huge child leave is quite unfair also. The burden of the support should lie with the society and task money, not private employers.

@Iku-Turso:

I can think of a very good reason why I don't want my daughter or wife or sister or any female I could possibly know to be in the military. (Hint: captivity)

For the initial idea, you sound somewhat right. But when you take it a bit further, it sounds like you're saying nature should be rearranged. Women are the primary child bearers and upbringers of the human race. In individual situations, this may change, but it stands a fact that women are more suited. Being more suited for child bearing and rearing than men are is a part of their identity.

@Faraaz:

Objective from whose point of view?

Yeah. Same with Scandinavian quota thing.

Hint: In avoiding to have gender decide employment, you are running into commissioning a certain mixed, male-female group of people... making gender actually decide. That's because while the primary job won't be decided basing on gender, the selectioners will get their job because of it (e.g. if you hire ten of them and you already have five females, a male one won't get the job), if you go for a 50/50 proportion. You may or may not insist on a certain established percentage, but even the more flexible mixed arrangements will still bear the taint of sort of wiping the gender-based selection under the carpet with that gender-based selection of selectioners.

@Morgoth:

Agreed. Basically, hurt feelings are no reason to grant people the right to legal fiction, i.e. make the law pretend things are different from how they physically are.

@Darkthrone:

That way you could say child leave for men is necessary for respect...

The whole "same rights" thing is overrated. Proportional, yeah. Same? Same rights in different circumstances are not quite the same thing. Same in the same situation, now that sounds good.

What if most men are more suited to leadership positions than most men? Which is not necessarily untrue (unless you don't mind a little presumption) perhaps...

Abstaining from better or worse, there is some point in that, yes. It's not like a CEO wouldn't actually benefit from educational skills.

As an example, I don't know about CEO, but we all know I would make a great king. Now, I have some teaching skills. It seems to be somewhat obvious that they would make me a better leader, no?

@Iku-Turso:

There's more to leadership than skills. In fact, there's more to leadership than leadership skills even. Why is it that men actually end up in leadership positions more often? Does it necessarily have to be oppression, discrimination, plot involving around half the globe?

I'm sorry, but the stylistics obstruct the point a bit. If we peel away all the agitating emotional adornments, doesn't it essentially say that men should now try harder in order to compensate?

@Morgoroth:

I'd like to add that quotas are a very short way to degrade women in male eyes, reducing many capable female specialists, managers or leaders to a, "She got that job only because she's a woman," state in (at least) male perspective.

@Aldeth:

I would go further and make it any differences which actually exist. Otherwise, we run into something along the lines of, "If the truth is too sexist, adjust it a bit."

Not to imply anyone is smarter overall, there's some stuff that works out better with males and some that works out better with females. One example would be women being more suited to multitasking than men are.

@Iku-Turso:

My flat chest is a product of my indoctrination, too?

@Abomination:

Indeed, they don't seem so absurd to me. So long as there are no freebie exam points or anything to that effect, sometimes it may be a good idea to focus the incentive attractor where it's needed instead of spreading it out too much.

@Iku-Turso again:

I've heard the reverse said about our schools here.

More to follow when I've had some sleep.

 

That's the biggest generalisation ever. In my experience, it is completely untrue. Try having a conversation with my wife when she is watching TV.

 

You've got it. Very good.

You're right, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'd say that most of our complex behavioral traits come down to indoctrination built on the backbone of hereditary factors. I'm a product of certain type of indoctrination and that's why I see the contradictions in the mainstream masculine culture and how it affects negatively to the social fitness of the individual males in the present day society.

I might want to put it this way: When a pine tree falls, it will not bend or break, but it rips the soil with its roots when they are torn from the ground by the weight of the tree. Of course in nature this is not a bad thing, but in the society those that won't learn to bend with the wind will cause destruction when they fall.

@Chevalier: Maybe it's the history of chivalry you've got there that gives your schoolteachers idolatrous views

 

@Chev

I said that?

I understand that women are different from men in quite a few ways including but not limited to physicality, thought processes and emotional attachments however these differences are based on averages, there are some women who are stronger than some men, some men who can multi-task better than women (yes, HB, studies actually show that women are better at multi-tasking than men are) or whatever. The point is that establishing gender specific government policy should only be when the actual 'event' the policy is trying to promote/mitigate/remove can only occur to that particular gender... say breast cancer for women or infertility in men for example (the way a man is infertile is completely different to the way a woman is infertile).

As for women being underpaid in the workplace compared to men who hold the same positions... I dare say it's more coincidence than a result of sexist attitudes - at least in my country. I would dare say that women are regarded as more respectable in the corporate world and I'd rightly be at a disadvantage trying to deal with a woman as opposed to my usual clients, being 40+ year old men.

Simply put, just because men are statistically better off with salaries in the workplace doesn't mean that a sexist attitude is the cause. Like mentioned before when women out-perform men it's the man's fault yet when men out-perform women it's the man's fault for creating a sexist system on which women are judged... and that implies that men simply can't win no matter what they do.

 

@Wirhe:

At the risk of getting things out of their context, I would say some recognition of natural differences is always good, as pretending we're all the same is a bit against nature, you know, something which is not as true as we take it. Kind of compensational fiction, which sucks.

@Chandos:

Hmm... Much of that is training or lack thereof, lack being default for females. Can't really assess the "raw" state credibly, but I tend to think men are generally more powerful when it comes to raw physical force. Not like you can't put to advantage women's slighter frames and lower gravity centres and all, making them able to knock down big hulks.

@Harbs:

Yeah, what you say. It strikes me that when one starts going on about discrimination of this and that minority, himself or whatever, it's often just a little bit too little air in the room. So to say. Or rather just the need to get on with life, yeah.

@Rotku:

Aren't guys a bit more of the competitor type than women? Competing for advancement and all? Women can be quite confrontational and all, but that's mostly social. I somehow tend to see men as more ready to climb the ladder and compete with others.

@Iku-Turso:

Yeah, that's possible. Aren't men more of the ambitious competitor type, anyway? Just more into the climbing the ladder stuff?

Err... actually... there are some sucking possibilities in the male boss female worker scenario too...

@Shoshino:

Yes, another thing, indeed. In fact, we men so much don't have to worry about it that I actually didn't think about mentioning it as a factor. Now, imagine PMS in a military campaign.

@Wirhe:

Actually, I think they do that in some captivity trainings. Still, while it's not like male captives can't be gay-raped, rape is probably going to be the default method of interrogation. And not only interrogation. I just don't want any women in the military as grunts. It would also put their fellow soldiers and fellow captives in a vulnerable position, with males being dangerously protective of females, and with females being a liability. Imagine they start raping all women from your unit and have you watch until you tell them what they want to know. A bit harder to take than watching your friends being beaten up, as if that weren't already hard enough...

My university has a history of females getting one grade higher by default with some male examiners. It was like that in the previous generation as well and is now.

@Taza:

What you say. That's quite ridiculous, you know, like trying to correct nature. More like dealing with frustrations by trying to correct nature.

Yeah, same way one could say men are being discriminated against, while women have not enough adaptability to the rat race circumstances of making a career in the modern world.

Grades are good sometimes, such as when you have to meet some criteria to gain entrance to university. Preferably comparable grades. It's better to have some people not make it than to have everyone go in but most drop out. In Poland, grades are a good indicator of future educational prospects, i.e. what level of schooling you should pursue, what subjects etc. Alas, also, all too often at university, which prof hates you. What's bad about grades is lack of comparability in practice, whereas in theory, they are expected to be comparable.

@Iku-Turso:

That might be true. However, the, "you don't have to change just because everyone says so," kind of thing I tend to associate with the Rights for X overblown campaigns and activists. Accept all deviation as normal. Give all self-proclaimed minorities rights. Etc etc.

Between kids, I guess. In families not really. But I still hate the way some people in my family expect me to be able to fix the lights or furniture (which I actually can do, anyway) just because I'm a guy. So what, am I a natural "golden hand"? I'm a friggin' law student, I speak languages, I can make computers obey, I know my stuff in some other fields. So why the heck do I have to fix stuff like a semi-pro yet and deal with disappointment because I'm not quite a sportstar (or fan, for that matter) in addition to that?

Psst... maybe let's not attach so much weight to expressing ourselves. I mean, we may want to express, but do other people want to listen or watch? And they also count! In fact, we form a network, a social one. Each of us has a place and there's a place for everyone -- or at least should be. Let's explore our interests, build on our talents, even overcome our weaknesses. Help people the way we can. Make a living the way we know. But what's with all the expressing? I think it's a commercial hype created by all sorts of producers of trendy goods, from clothes to soft drinks. Express yourself by wearing a mohawk, express yourself by stuffing the coffers of this or that clothes company by wearing the last model of honestly crappy design of jeans, or by drinking Sprite. Not everything is a statement and I believe we should be more preoccupied with actually living our lives than with making statements. We are not being original in that. In fact, we are not being ourselves in it, either. Just stuffing the wallets of those who conveniently aim to provide our means of expression.

[Self-promotion]Here[/Self-promotion]

@Taza:

Achievement culture maybe? In all sorts of jobs, they require you to be "achievement oriented" and behave as if you're drugged up on hype with all your enthusiasm. Like you're a friggin' patriot for this bank or that clothes shop. You live to serve, you serve well, you get more food, whatever. Too much achievement, too little actual work, I say, nowadays. People should have more comfort and more safety in their jobs or even their business, especially not be exposed so much to dishonest, ruleless competition. Then they would actually do their jobs... live their jobs. Live roles rather than jobs. Postman, bus driver, butcher, train conductor, cop, salesman, used to be roles. Not a measured and packed amount of workforce commodity you can trade.

In the old times, you would get your money for your job. Nowadays, you're expected to increase your work efficiency by means of spilling more of your guts for the company more readily at a lower and lower cost. Oh, and it's "time theft" when you go to toilet without stamping your magnetic card carefully.

With that kind of attitude, I suppose we can only expect crappy results. That's because people are turned into slaves and slaves are not efficient. You can't force people to record every second they spend in the toilet for every cent you would otherwise pay them, and at the same time expect them to be selflessly dedicated to your company. But this is something that modern managers will not understand.

Sometimes I just want to blow up all those plentiful Schools of Marketing, Business Administration and whatnot.

As for teamplay, yeah. They just seem to love training people into unison barking packs of wolves. And yes, they actually do that on integration trips. Give me a rest from all the ****ing hype. Can't people just cooperate and just work and go on with their lives? Without all the marketing/management/whatever crappy hype?

@Iku-Turso:

That's the point of an ideal, anyway.

What's ironic is that all those "male values" gain more and more ground the more we advance in all the compensational, affirmative and whatever other politicial actions centred around the rights concept. I just see more and more people with diplomas and jobs but without any manners or culture taken out of home. People who have university diplomas and big salaries but don't even wash hands after using the toilet.

First thing we did in Poland after regaining independence in November 1918. Voting rights for women, worker rights and protections, all that. Now some undereducated eurocrats are teaching us "equality", coming from countries where women might have some fancy legal rights (like being able to vote for a last couple of decades or something) but still can't achieve much because they fall victim of a mentality block at some point. Hurrah for eurovalues and eurolefties and euro... err... do they wash hands in the gents, I wonder?

@Taza:

Much of feminism is self-contradictory, anyway, in making women emulate men. What does emulation suggest else than that what's being emulated is better than what's emulating? Something feminists can't grasp. They should really get a life and get some logic. Somewhere. Some time. Hopefully.

Yeah...

@Iku-Turso:

One of my profs is the prorector (vice rector) of another university in the same town and has some other functions also and, as a student, he had been getting Cs all the time.

Naah, it's just the hypersexualisation of the society that gives us problems. Sex is nowhere near as important as people make it look, let alone advertisements, films and all other crap.

End of follow up from pages 2 and 3. Now replying to things posted after my first post:

@Harbs:

Oh well, just watch me do sports or drive or fix stuff. Seriously, however, it's just some kind of research I've come across. Women proved better in multitasking, while men were better at focusing on stuff.

@Iku-Turso:

Hehe, actually, in Poland, we've always been kind to women and we still surprise most of Europe (that is those who actually notice stuff, as opposed to some stonedeaf undereducated eurocrats) in that regard. However, we've never had as much of the, "worship the ground you walk on, oh goddess, blaaaah," kind of chivalry as the West has had. Not ever. God was creator, woman was creation, at every point. No turning the cat upside down.

@Abomination:

Did I get the wrong name with a quote or something? I was quite tired at night and had to interrupt writing and go to bed at some point.

Hehe, now I agree with you so much, yeah. Some small differences had better be left outside legislation instead of just cramming the world with laws and more laws and stupider and stupider ones. Just so long as no one is exposed to impossible expectations or too much unnecessary hardship.

Yes.

 

Chevalier... buddy... If you can't compete, just don't say anything. You do not need to resort to insults. And what does "It's blatantly undemocratic and betrays a primitive understanding of maths on the part of the inventor of that system" mean anyway?

Honestly, start formatting those messages of yours to a bit shorter form. You spew spit to so many directions that it is hard to keep track of what you are after.

 

Hey, buddy, that insult wasn't directed at you! Just that quotas are moronic and come from a ****ty superificial view of maths. In fact, I was actually agreeing with you.

/me pokes Wirhe with an Ugly Stick of Spite +3

Maybe you need more of this: ? To start getting things right?