Gender issues poll

[ruby sparks]

Apparently there is a limit on the number of characters that can be displayed in the poll question in the above display. Grr.

Anyhows, the question in full is as follows:

'In general, in 'western', developed countries there is still ,today, more of a need to address gender inequality issues adversely affecting women than men'.

Do you agree with that statement, disagree with it, or are you undecided?

 

[Trausti]

Disagree. What rights do Western men have that are denied to women? What we have is the gender equality paradox. Because Western women are free, the natural differences (through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and natural selection) between the sexes become more pronounced. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. The science denialists mistake these differences for invisible oppression. (All religions create invisible power structures which must be righted by the high priests.)

 

[Beer With Straw]

Woman can speak out better in developed countries and I hope it shows developing countries the way...


But there are so many countries I don't think I'd want to live in when it comes to women's rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Woman can speak out better in developed countries and I hope it shows developing countries the way...


But there are so many countries I don't think I'd want to live in when it comes to women's rights.

Plenty of places I would be reluctant to visit with my wife, let alone live in.

 

[Politesse]

Of course there is.

I, unlike nearly all of my female colleagues, have never been sexually harassed in the workplace, and would feel no real threat to my job or safety if I were.

I have no fear of losing my job if I get pregnant.

There isn't a national debate over whether I have the right to terminate that pregnancy.

I don't fear getting raped when I go outside alone at night, because I have never been given any reason to.

The only thing I disagree with is that all these threats to female life and happiness are somehow more important than male concerns. We are all hurt by gender disparities. You think I like being raised with the stereotype of being a brutish neanderthal? But that doesn't change that the most brutal fruits of sexism and apathy are borne by women.

 

[ruby sparks]

The only thing I disagree with is that all these threats to female life and happiness are somehow more important than male concerns. We are all hurt by gender disparities. You think I like being raised with the stereotype of being a brutish neanderthal? But that doesn't change that the most brutal fruits of sexism and apathy are borne by women.

Well said, imo.


I will not spoil our apparently broad agreement about that (by saying that if you had said 'patriarchy' instead of 'sexism' there might be more counter-examples) partly because the former word might lead us into an off-topic quagmire. I agree with you regarding sexism and apathy concerning it.

 

[ruby sparks]

What rights do Western men have that are denied to women?

Rights tend to exist on paper. Issues don't necessarily, as often.

On the other hand, those are fair points, imo, about differences between sexes and about whether 50/50 equality is necessarily desirable or even possible in all spheres of human activity. Equality of opportunity is, I think, more important.

That said, I notice that in the video you linked to, the interviewer highlighted that engineering, for example, was mainly a male occupation, even in 'deemed the most gender equal country in the world in 2008 (Norway)' but imo the reasons for this are probably complicated and sometimes what might be called the 'inherent differences between the sexes' angle is incomplete or overplayed as an explanation, even if it is partly correct.

 

[prideandfall]

i agree, and as was said in the posts preceding this one but i'll reiterate to clarify the point, the problem with both gender inequality and racial discrimination is less legal and more institutional within the culture.

it's a bit of a conundrum i feel, because on the one hand you can't really legislate culture, but on the other hand simply doing nothing and acting like the problem isn't there will never fix the issue.
i suppose that overall on the "bad decision" scale i'd put "trying to make laws to either force people to change their cultural stance or to create an artificial advantage to balance out the cultural disadvantage" at a lower number than "doing nothing", but that's because i have this ingrained sense that the continual progress of the human race in all areas is something we should be working towards.

it never ceases to astound me how much of the potential of our species is lost taking steps backwards to address basic shit like whether women and africans are people, or if science is a good thing, or whatever other insane bullshit regressives are up to that keep causing us to back-slide.

 

[Hermit]

What rights do Western men have that are denied to women?

You got me stumped there. I cannot think of a single law Western men have that is denied to women. And yet women are more often raped by men than vice versa, and they do more often finish up dead than men as a result of domestic violence.

There is a difference between formal equality and what happens in the real world.

 

[bilby]

What rights do Western men have that are denied to women?

You got me stumped there. I cannot think of a single law Western men have that is denied to women. And yet women are more often raped by men than vice versa, and they do more often finish up dead than men as a result of domestic violence.

There is a difference between formal equality and what happens in the real world.

Nope. The law is everything, and if something is made illegal it ceases immediately.

Any technical breach of the law, regardless of circumstance, must be punished with the full force that the authorities can bring to bear.

And everyone is exactly equally treated by the law, as long as no flexibility of any kind is permitted.

Well, it works for people who imagine that reality is simple, and that it is subject to the demands of their imagination.

 

[Hermit]

What rights do Western men have that are denied to women?

You got me stumped there. I cannot think of a single law Western men have that is denied to women. And yet women are more often raped by men than vice versa, and they do more often finish up dead than men as a result of domestic violence.

There is a difference between formal equality and what happens in the real world.

Nope. The law is everything, and if something is made illegal it ceases immediately.

Any technical breach of the law, regardless of circumstance, must be punished with the full force that the authorities can bring to bear.

And everyone is exactly equally treated by the law, as long as no flexibility of any kind is permitted.

Well, it works for people who imagine that reality is simple, and that it is subject to the demands of their imagination.

Careful, Bilgy. Some people might miss the sarcasm. Yes, they do exist. A memetic cartoon has even gained currency about them.

 

[Politesse]

There are those cases where male and female biology differ and thus tend fall under different laws - pregnancy, abortion, nursing, issues relating to menstruation and passive birth control. Women tend to get the short end of the stick as a result; when there is no clear standard for exact equality, equity issues have room to abound, and differences of opinion on what constitutes fairness can be challenging to resolve. There is also the issue of persons who do not fall into either male or female categories, and thus have even very basic privileges denied them. Or otherwise cis-men who by preference or necessity adopt a "female" role such as single parenting or having sex with other men, and are not adequately supported or defended by the law as a result. I would say we still have some institutional gender issues to consider.

I note that in the US*, for one, state governments have consistently and for nearly a century now refused to ratify an amendment to the constitution that would clearly set a standard for equity between genders, giving a lot of latitude for differences between state policies as a result. One can live in "the West" without necessarily having all the rights one would have in, say, Sweden. Federally, citizens have equal protection under existing federal laws, but they don't necessarily have equal rights. In Ohio, for instance, a man can very likely drug and rape his wife without consequence, as marital rape is outlawed but not clearly defined under the law in that state, leaving an accidental exemption in cases where violence wasn't threatened. Attempts to resolve this issue in Columbus have been slow.

Indeed, on certain issues, as noted above, it might in practice be very challenging to define equality in certain situations, regardless of the formal position of the law.

There are also situations where the law is complicated to enforce even if it is technically in existence. So for instance, women who are undocumented have few guaranteed rights in the US, even if they were forcefully abducted or otherwise did not personally consent to cross the border with their husband, or "husband". This is especially true where the husband is a citizen and she is not. So the law does not hesitate to, for instance, ignore what would otherwise be a clear right to the custody of her children if she leaves the marriage or is deported.

Finally, it is also obviously true that legal equality does not necessarily cause social equity to spring into being. One can only really prosecute crimes through the law, not reward pro-social behavior in any meaningful way.


*apologies for implicit nationalism in this posting; I am not as familiar with legal issues outside of my own country, and it is challenging to generalize between US and European laws even where one is better informed.