Join 3,376 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Does this teach any males here anything?
September 26, 2000 2:57 PM   Subscribe

Does this teach any males here anything? I'm sure that it would be very useful to someone. Though I'm not sure who exactly.
posted by davidgentle (80 comments total)

 
Don't want much, do they? Most women couldn't follow all the guidelines they set forth.

The first few suggestions are interesting and encouraging, but I think it's laying it on rather thick to suggest that a man must "commit [himself] to ending oppression" of all kinds in order to avoid being a sexist pig.
posted by wiremommy at 3:23 PM on September 26, 2000


Right on Wiremommy! I followed the root and found this on another page

1.Listen to women. Learn from their experience. Read women's literature. Read Ms. Magazine. Read articles and books about masculinity and the root causes of sexual violence.

I can't even keep up with my current subscriptions, i'm not gonna take on Ms. as well. There has got to be a nice guy somewhere between woman beating gorrilas and Alan Alda
posted by thirteen at 3:35 PM on September 26, 2000


"commit [myself] to ending oppression"?

OK, what the heck? My entire life is dedicated to oppressing as many people as possible. Preferably billions of people, regardless of gender.

This doesn't make me a sexist pig -- it makes me an amoral monster and would-be killing machine. I demand that everyone acknowledge the difference, and celebrate my difference.

...because if you don't, you'll be a sexist pig. So there.
posted by aramaic at 4:09 PM on September 26, 2000


I think the title should have been "10 steps to start feeling guilty about your gender and lessons on echoing our feminist party line."


posted by skallas at 4:50 PM on September 26, 2000


my favorite:
"5.Don't fund sexism. Don't purchase any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media."

ummm...that would be a media fast, would it not?

in general, though, the rules are sort of basic common sense stuff, aren't they? examine your own attitudes and actions, educate yourself, stand up for what you believe in.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 5:36 PM on September 26, 2000


Sorry, but the reason I posted this is because the bits of it that do make sense are so obvious that if you're not doing them already then you're probably never going to. And I suspect that if I were to read an acedemics view of my sexual/gender/political identity I'd learn a great deal more about the prejudices of acedemics than anything else. No that it wouldn't be useful to learn that.
posted by davidgentle at 5:55 PM on September 26, 2000


I think this is sort of interesting, but not terribly useful as a tool for encouraging the sorts of changes the authors clearly desire. It's a rare person who can be inspired to change their patterns of thought and behaviour by an appeal like this; it may function as a catalyst for someone who has already grown dissatisfied with gender relations as they are commonly experienced, but quite a number of other things could function as the same catalyst.

Mind-changes of the magnitude the authors are requesting usually seem to require an experience or the recounting of an experience that hits close to home.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 6:01 PM on September 26, 2000


to open a big can of worms, this collection of bromides doesn't define what a feminist is. Even feminists right now have some difficulty defining what is feminism and what is not.

the problem with these kinds of lists is that they are not read (let alone followed) by the people who need to absorb them. (q.v. the Ten Commandments)

to change their behavior people generally need some kind of conversion experience or epiphany (and I don't necessarily mean a religious one), not a preachy list
posted by jhiggy at 6:26 PM on September 26, 2000


ms. magazine? ugh. much more interesting are the two my wife subscribes to: bust and bitch.

one thing i found interesting in the list was the workshop idea. while working as a contractor for the faa, several men ended up having to attend some sensitivity training. (it wasn't a disciplinary action, but the actual reason is gone from my memory) i don't know if the workshop had any positive long-term impact. i do know that those guys bitched and griped about it ad nauseum for many months afterward.
posted by lescour at 8:22 PM on September 26, 2000


Feminists, of all types, are silly bitches.

It makes about as much sense as whites for white rights - it's not about equality of gender.

Of course, I am just a bitter guy, who was yelled at for by a group of silly feminists for walking past them. So ignore all that.

I'd just like to be judged on what i've done. Regardless of how someone decides to group me with others of gender, race, age, or fucking style - please.
posted by holloway at 9:16 PM on September 26, 2000


yo holloway -- i consider myself a feminist, but i think silly bitch might be laying it on a bit strong. i want equality for all people, not superiority of women.

so what if a group of feminists yelled at you? that's like hating all black people because of oj simpson.
posted by sugarfish at 9:20 PM on September 26, 2000


> Feminists, of all types, are silly bitches.

This is one of the most insulting things I've read on MeFi in a long time. I don't care whether you think it makes sense for women to fight to achieve equal rights and equal opportunities in a world that has historically treated women as second-class citizens. Until you've been told, "you can't do that, you're a girl," or received less money for the same work as male counterparts, been unable to own property, or vote, just because you're a woman, just because of the way you were born, I don't think you can judge whether such a movement makes sense.

In the meantime, keep your hateful and dismissive comments to yourself.
posted by megnut at 9:31 PM on September 26, 2000


Well who's the chief feminist then - so I can call her up and have a chat and then comment on feminists. What? there's no central structure or rules and many feminist groups ramble through life so I can't ever really comment on "feminist groups"?

my bad.

Feminists groups, consist of 99.99% females, and have never been about equality. That's not their purpose. They, in general, want sexism against females to stop. It's not sexism against males or sexism in general. I have been actively discouraged by dozens of feminist groups from joining (well, 14).

Sorry if my strong language offends anyone. I know it's a rather thin excuse to say that fourteen small groups of feminists represent the greater whole of millions. But i'm not about to debate that within feminist groups there exists a culture of "men oppress woman you bastards"

I don't believe for a second that feminists want equality of gender or are at all as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights.

And that's why they are stupid bitches.
posted by holloway at 9:45 PM on September 26, 2000


> I don't believe for a second that feminists want equality of gender

Then what do you believe they want?
posted by megnut at 9:56 PM on September 26, 2000


>Then what do you believe they want?

Feminists, in general, want oppression against females to stop. This isn't equality of gender.

As I said, 'I don't believe for a second that feminists [~~~] are at all as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights'.
posted by holloway at 10:10 PM on September 26, 2000


megnut: they want their cake and to eat it, too. i.e. all the great wonderful things that they think guys have but none of the other stuff.

i'm too tired to think of examples right now... maybe i'll have some tomorrow morning.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:11 PM on September 26, 2000


i'm not trying to feminist-bash here btw.. i'm all for equal rights and all that. i agree that people shouldn't be paid differently because of their gender.. i agree with a lot of the stuff. i just think that sometimes the whole feminist thing is a little overzealous.

i once had a french teacher who led the high school "gender equality club" but the club consisted completely of girls. once, she even pulled aside all the girls in the class to have a chat with them while the guys just sat in their seats and wondered what the heck was going on. we never found out to this day what she was discussing. she also had a wonderful habit of giving out higher marks to members of a certain gender. gender equality?!? please...
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:15 PM on September 26, 2000


>I don't believe for a second that feminists want
>equality of gender or are at all as touchy about
>male rights as they are about female rights.

Well, it's hard to have empathy for someone or something that is doing you harm. Men have been shitting on women for thousands of years...it's burned into several different aspects of our culture, including the word "woman". And now women are supposed to trust that men have their best interests at heart all of a sudden and work within the phallocentric system to achieve equality for all? If you believe that, I've got a bridge in NY and some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

Anyway, I think you should call your mother and your sister and read them what you wrote here. Most women, I think, would consider themselves feminists (at least at a basic level)...I wonder what they would think about you calling them "silly bitches".

As for being judged solely for what you've fucking done, amen to that. However, we're not quite there yet. As you've aptly demonstrated here, people are still very much hung up on stereotypes.

ps to Matt: this holloway person is trolling. Boot?
posted by jkottke at 10:34 PM on September 26, 2000


so because there are some misguided women who confuse bitterness or favoritism with feminism, we're all silly bitches? I'm a feminist, and I refuse to shrink from the title because there are hateful women out there who've appropriated it for themselves.

And I refuse to stay quiet when someone makes a comment like yours, holloway. Your remark was ignorant as hell. You didn't need to be a male sexist pig (or to troll, or to go out of your way to put a purposeful point on your generalization) to point out that there are female sexist pigs. Of *course* there are, and there are a lot of feminists, including me, who consider sexism completely abhorrent no matter which direction it's flowing.

and as a footnote for anyone who has interest, soc.feminism is moderated; it's a good place to discuss and debate feminism and related topics minus the flaming and trolling. it seems unfortunate that any open discussion on the topic of feminism must degrade within the first few opening gambits into brainless name-calling. of course, if sexist finger-pointing is more your speed (as seems the case for some) there's always the unmoderated combat zone that is alt.feminism .
posted by Sapphireblue at 10:49 PM on September 26, 2000


>they want their cake and to eat it, too.

And why not? Men have cake and are eating it...women just want the same. We can all have cake.

>the whole feminist thing is a little overzealous

Show me a segment of society that isn't a little overzealous.
posted by jkottke at 11:01 PM on September 26, 2000


Well Jason, my girlfriend agrees with me. My mother has expressed similar opinions about feminist groups - as has my one sister.

Although I don't see what that has to do with it. I could ask the female neighbours too if you'd like.

Feminism isn't about gender equality. As i'm no doubt doomed to say unto eternity `feminists aren't nearly as concerned with male rights as they are with female rights`.

Of course i'm using stereotypes. When talking about a group of people it's the only way to aptly comment. It should be taken as such and only a general (but still applicable) opinion. The comment above should be taken the same way - how many times do you see feminists getting offended at male stereotypes?

ps. been reading 0sil8 for years, it's rather lovely, especially the mothers day car-b-que. And trolling? Oh please Jason, come on. Big hugs and we'll make up? ;)

> And I refuse to stay quiet when someone
> makes a comment like yours, holloway.

Well, that's good, I didn't ask you to and I don't think anyone said anything like that. Power to you. Unlike you however i've already been told to keep quiet.
posted by holloway at 11:07 PM on September 26, 2000


>Most women, I think, would consider themselves feminists (at least at a basic level)... Speaking only for myself, and never, ever, presuming to speak for "most" anyone, a "feminist' is the last thing I'd call myself. Basing your self-image and the way you deal with issues on seperatist, pre-fixed ideas, whether those ideas are 'I was born a woman', 'I like cheese', or 'Marx was a great economist' is unhelpful, unproductive and unreasonable. I'll back holloway up here, and say that any person who lives by an 'ism' is a... what 'e said. >You didn't need to be a male sexist pig Sapphireblue concludes out of hand that holloway's remarks were made _because_ of male chauvinism, not as a result of any other type of personal opinion.
posted by Catch at 11:13 PM on September 26, 2000


So what were those 14 groups that you weren't allowed to join?
posted by gluechunk at 11:18 PM on September 26, 2000


"megnut: they want their cake and to eat it, too. i.e. all the great wonderful things that they think guys have but none of the other stuff."

There seems to be so much misconception about feminism - apparently, if one woman treats you unkindly, that means that all women are out to screw you over, using methods of extreme force.

We don't want cake....that is the problem. We just want equal pay for equal work, sports teams in schools that are equally funded to the boy's athletic teams, and to be treated with the dignity and respect that ought to be accorded to us as human beings, regardless of how we look, or what we wear.

We would like the phrase, "She was asking for it" to be abolished from the language. We would like to be able to see more movie and tv programming that doesn't feature rape as entertainment.

I liked that list. I don't think it was written with the intent of telling men that they have to conform to every point in it - I think it was offering some valid suggestions. And most of the men that I know are pro-equality anyway - to the point where it is a non issue.

I am a feminist - my friends are feminists, and I belong to several 'feminist' organizations, and I have yet to meet that hairy legged, extremist man hater feminist that everyone loves to point to in discussions about feminism. Where does she live? Give her my number.
posted by kristin at 11:40 PM on September 26, 2000


> So what were those 14 groups that
> you weren't allowed to join?

14 feminist groups (there was a `14` in the previous sentence, I believe). It was during the sunny year of 1996, birds were chirping, and as I went about half-a-dozen universities trialing their `orientation days` various clubs were out in force; recruiting; and feminist groups were of course among them. Females were greeted, whereas my male friends and I were sneered at and interrogated to see what our beliefs were (the point being that it was not asked whether any woman joining were sexist towards males). This type of thing happened at happened at every single feminist organisation... I was even asked if the reason I wanted to join was to pick up chicks.

Uhuh.

It wasn't that I was denied membership. But after the sexist response I didn't want to join anyway.

Of course, these experiences don't allow me to comment on The Greater Feminist Whole.

I don't believe for a second that Feminists are as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights.

Being why I think feminists are silly bitches.
posted by holloway at 11:45 PM on September 26, 2000


>and I have yet to meet that hairy legged,
>extremist man hater feminist that everyone
>loves to point to in discussions about feminism.

Actually I think you're the first one to bring that up. You forgot to mention that she's of course a lesbian though.
posted by holloway at 11:50 PM on September 26, 2000


I've met hair legged feminist who everyone brings up... I used to work under one. She believed that The Man was keeping her down, which is why she never got promoted... her confrontation attitude didn't help though.
My wife never uses the word "feminist" much for the reasons holloway suggests... she prefers to refer to herself as an equalitist, as it removes the negative connotations that comes with the term "feminist".
posted by Neale at 12:01 AM on September 27, 2000


It appears that I need to remind all of you that arguments among the proletariat are forbidden. Don't make me break out the riot squads.
Now, if we can all just get back to celebrating me, everything will work out nicely. That's a promise and a guarantee!
posted by aramaic at 6:10 AM on September 27, 2000


Sapphireblue concludes out of hand that holloway's remarks were made _because_ of male chauvinism, not as a result of any other type of personal opinion.

Sapphireblue made *no* conclusions as to holloway's motivations for saying what he said, only as to the prejudice evident in his comment itself.

I don't need to hear about someone's crushing experiences with black people to know that "all those uppity blacks are just dumb niggers" is a bigoted statement; what holloway said is no better than that.


posted by Sapphireblue at 6:20 AM on September 27, 2000


Wow, Holloway, I am so *enlightened* after reading about your university clubs experience - I mean, we all know that life is exactly like a university social club, right?....feminism doesn't have anything to do with women at all, and *everything* to do with your social activities. Sure, I am making 70 cents on the dollar to the average man's wage, and my mother made 70 cents on the dollar to the same, but the burning issue here is Holloway's social life in school.

Silly me. My bad.

posted by kristin at 7:03 AM on September 27, 2000


Holloway was way out of line, he lacks civility and tact. At the same time the more outspoken leaders of the feminist movement (most movements for that matter) seem to be dragging the entire ship down with them. I am shocked at the open male hating Steinem spewed in her earlier days (she seems to have calmed a bit now) as well as disappointed in the biased views that pass for fact today. It is unfortunate that extremist loudmouths seem to hijack most causes.

Long live Camille Paglia!
posted by Mick at 7:07 AM on September 27, 2000


ps to Matt: this holloway person is trolling. Boot?

Ugh. If you are engaging someone in discussion, why would you suggest that he be kicked off MetaFilter at the same time?
posted by rcade at 7:08 AM on September 27, 2000


Well I went to some length to explain that it wasn't due to those experiences - "I know it's a rather thin excuse to say that fourteen small groups of feminists represent the greater whole of millions" - but lets forget all that, keh.

Rather than feminists having experienced sexism and saying "all sexism is bad" in feminism it's more about "sexism against females is bad" - and conversely a much greater tolerence of sexism against males.

>I mean, we all know that life is exactly like a university
> social club, right?....feminism doesn't have anything to
>do with women at all, and *everything* to do with your
>social activities.

Yes, of course that's what i'm proposing. Righto Kristin.

You can't have it both ways: either judge me for what i've done - or judge me by gender. Feminists are sexist, that's their very nature of being pro-woman, and that is offensive to me along with pro-black or pro-white. Why draw the line there? It's racism and sexism that are bad, not a group of that.

I don't believe for a second that Feminists are as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights - hence my opinion.
posted by holloway at 7:24 AM on September 27, 2000


holloway! *I* said all sexism is bad. Did you actually read my original post, or just cherrypick the part that had nothing to do with my actual *point* while still offering you maximum condescension opportunity?

But don't let real people and their real opinions stand in the way of your hateful little vendetta; I'd hate to screw up your nice comfy generalizations.
posted by Sapphireblue at 8:04 AM on September 27, 2000


I think the big misunderstanding here is that what Holloway defines as "feminists" are different than what, say, megnut and jkottke et al define as "feminists." Certainly there are many different, varied beliefs held by people defining themselves as "feminists." To a lot of people, unfortunately, the term has negative connotations.

Not that there aren't legitimate differences in viewpoint between Holloway and others here, but I think we're arguing the wrong thing.
posted by daveadams at 8:14 AM on September 27, 2000


Holloway, the fact remains, that, despite your justifications and attempts at validation, your original statement makes you sound like a jackass and a moron, and by its very nature reduces the value of any subsequent arguments that you may make in this, or any other, thread.
Name calling is not nice. It is also not the way that adults have conversations.
"But wait", you protest, "You just called me a jackass and a moron."
"No, no" I reply, reaching down to pat your head, while I continue in my most patient voice. "I merely suggested that, based on your first post, in which you referred to all feminists in a rather nasty fashion, you SEEMED like a jackass and a moron. Whether or not you are, if fact, a jackass or a moron, or whether you are more of an unenlightened doofus, or perhaps a garden-variety nimrod is entirely up to the reader to decide for her or himself. Now run along, little one."
posted by Optamystic at 8:18 AM on September 27, 2000


> jackass and a moron. Whether or not you are, if fact,
> a jackass or a moron, or whether you are more of an
> unenlightened doofus, or perhaps a garden-variety
> nimrod is entirely up to the reader to decide for her
> or himself. Now run along, little one."

Ahh.. hypothetical stories that put Optamystic in a position power and authority :) A stuttering "No, no" is what I am in another dimension of Optamystics thought, ...and silly me, eh viewers?

There seems to be the occasional person who's had similar experiences, and i've received a two emails from limp dicked readers not willing to post here.

Well they SEEMED limp dicked - which absolves me from my potty mouth, eh what?

> is also not the way that adults have conversations.

Nimrod, jackass, moron, doofus. You seem like such a nice fellow.

> I think the big misunderstanding here is that
> what Holloway defines as "feminists" [being different to~]

My definition of feminists would be pro-female groups. My gripe being that after some have experienced sexism they don't defend sexism against everyone and only a single gender.

"I don't believe for a second that Feminists are as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights"
posted by holloway at 9:23 AM on September 27, 2000


Namecalling aside, this discussion really does get to the heart of why I have trouble calling myself a "feminist." It's a purely semantic issue -- if the movement is about gender equality, then why is it called "feminism?"

Calling it "feminism" certainly makes it sound, at first blush, like the "pro-female" ideology that holloway has such a problem with -- and frankly, that I have a problem with, as well. I have a hard time wanting to discuss gender equality with people who would rather go off into "womyn-only space" and discuss it among themselves.

But not all of feminism is like that, and I'm sure I agree, point-by-point, with every tenet of mainstream feminist thinking. But I'd still hesitate to call myself a "feminist."
posted by webmutant at 10:54 AM on September 27, 2000


"if the movement is about gender equality, then why is it called "feminism?"

If men and women were starting from an equal place in society, it would be called 'equalizism', or something stupid like that. But the fact is, do not have equality in our society yet - perhaps when we have achieved that, the goal will be to stay there.

Being pro-women's rights isn't the same as being anti-male rights. There isn't some limited amount of 'rights' in the world, and women getting more means men getting less.

Check
this out (opens a new window):

It is the latest UN report on the status of women, and it includes this:

"The report added that at least one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or abused in some way. One in four is abused during pregnancy.

At least 60 million girls, mostly in Asia, are listed as ``missing,'' as a result of infanticide, neglect or other factors and ``as many as 5,000 women and girls are murdered each year in so-called 'honor' killings by members of their own families.''

In addition, the report said, some 2 million girls aged 5-15 join the sex trade each year."

And.......

"The ``State of World Population Report 2000'' said girls and women the world over are still routinely denied access to education and health care - including control over their reproductive activity - and to equal pay and legal rights."

Do I care about men's rights? Of course I do. I care about everyone's rights, and I do so because, as a woman, I know exactly how it feels to not have the right or priviledge to do something simply based on my gender, and not based on my ability.


posted by kristin at 11:09 AM on September 27, 2000


*applauds kristin*
posted by johnb at 11:16 AM on September 27, 2000


It's a rare person these days who doesn't (at least claim to) agree with the basic principle of feminism: oppression of women by men is wrong.

The conflicts occur when you apply this principle to practical problems. In this, projects for gender equality have a lot in common with affirmative action for racial minorities.

Everyone can see that most power, both political and economic, is still in male hands. Most people probably agree that we would all be better off if this were not the case. But what to do about it? If you suggest that we make a concerted effort to favour women, to prefer women for political office, to create economic incentives that make it easier for women to start and manage businesses than for men, suddenly you become a man-hating radical, and probably a communist to boot.

An incredible number of people seem to think that, because women can vote, own property, and conduct independent legal & financial lives, feminism is over and everything is equal. These things are, of course, true; but they're also nearly irrelevant as long as women make less money, own a tiny fraction of the businesses & property, and hold a distressingly small number of political offices. Freedom is participation in power, according to Seneca; until equality in political & economic power is achieved, women are, as a group, less free than men.

This makes for some strange problems, and some things that look like "sexism against men". For some reason people can't look at a double negative and see a positive. It's not bias against men to correct an existing bias in favour of men.

For example, most politicians are currently men, and incumbent politicians have an advantage. Add it up, and that makes the current US political system biased in favour of men. Making an effort to favour women politicians, even at men's expense, is a local bias against men: but the net effect is a step toward equality.

Hiring quotas suffer from the same short-term thinking. Yes, it makes life harder for qualified male candidates if an organization is obliged to look for women first. Big bloody deal! In the grand scheme of things there is such an incredible pressure in favour of men that local bias against men works out as a net step toward equality.

If a feminist organization wants to exclude men from leadership positions, or even from membership at all, one could say they are biased against men. But once again, men already have the preponderance of leadership positions in society. A step which prefers women as leaders may be a short-term bias against men, but the net effect is toward equality.

And these are just a few of the systemic problems, not even considering the vast array of hard-to-shake sexist attitudes still active in society.

All of this, in the end, is to join my voice to the chorus of those criticizing Holloway's point of view. You can't be for equality and against action to achieve that equality. You can't believe in women's rights and refuse to support attempts to achieve those rights.

-Mars, a radical feminist and proud of it

posted by Mars Saxman at 12:05 PM on September 27, 2000


>if the movement is about gender equality, then why is it called "feminism?"<

because men have historically called the shots, had the rights, been in power.

women have not.

feminism is about women having equal stature in society as men.

men have the stature already.

therefore it would be redundant to talk about equal rights for men.

therefore the movement is called "feminism"

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 12:16 PM on September 27, 2000


I don't believe social disparity can be legislated away. In the eyes of the law women are equal or superior (custody rights) to men.

The effort should be made to point out social injustice and encourage change without the use of writing new laws because two wrongs don't make a right.

Another way of look at this is that a law is harder to get removed than added to the books. If, in the interest of equality, laws are written to give women an advantage to make up for past and present social problems they will eventually swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

Equilibrium will never be achieved through legislation.

-Mick, a reasonable person and proud of it ;P (nothin but love Mars)
posted by Mick at 12:20 PM on September 27, 2000


Mars: thank you for your post. I always thought that men not afraid to call themselves "feminists" are quite the admirable creatures, given the crap it must open you up to in discussions like these.

But:

it makes life harder for qualified male candidates if an organization is obliged to look for women first. Big bloody deal.

see, I have a hard time with this. Because, yes, big picture, you could probably give women all kinds of breaks and still have a ways to go to make them "equal" to men---but the situation you describe is little-picture, it's affecting individuals, and the man who loses out on a job for which he's the most qualified applicant to a woman who's there to round out the numbers is right then and there going to really have a valid bone to pick with feminism as it's impacted his life.

It's an old libertarian idea that "you can't legislate morality". While it usually comes up in discussions on "victimless crimes" like those involving drugs or adult consensual sex, I do think it fits here. You can't *force* individuals to be champions of equality. To me, it only breeds resentment and bashing of the sort personified by our friend holloway. And where does *that* get us?

Institutions, governments, are not societies. Societies are made up of individuals, and it's with the individuals you have to start in order to change the culture. Is my theory.

Quotas are, too, I think, often an easy way to dismiss a woman's real achievements. I was once the first female employee of a new division of a very large company; I occasionally got sideways comments insinuating that I was there to make things look more even, somehow. And that's insulting as hell. It was never a serious allegation, just little comments that I suppose were meant to be funny, but think: if the guys I worked with honestly thought that was true, how would our working relationships have been affected? I'd have never advanced, I'd have never been trusted as a full-fledged member of the team.

All you enforce with hiring quotas is the APPEARANCE of equality. It's tokenism. And it's so sneaky---it's more dangerous than "silly bitches" sorts of attitudes, imho, because at least there you know what you're dealing with :>

It's a tough thing to think about: usually I'm sure that this is how I feel, that I don't want anyone's help to get me to the top, only as much opportunity as anyone else has to get there myself. But then I think: what if the American public schools hadn't been desegregated by force beginning in the sixties? That was a problem that wasn't fixing itself, for damn sure; although it was an ugly ugly process I think it probably had to be done the way it was done.

I can't decide if there's any useful parallel between that situation, and the situation of women today (and here I mean "American women", there are surely countries and cultures today in which women are every bit as sub-human as blacks were openly thought to be in the US until the force of law came along to change that). On one hand, I don't feel the situation here is so drastic as to require the National Guard to come in and Make Things Better For Women. On the *other* hand, the very fact that the problems facing American women today are so subtle makes it very difficult to effectively combat, and you get both men *and* women who'll tell you that feminism is dead, there's no place for it in the world anymore. That makes me sad, and it also resolves me to keep wading into this battle time after time, even though I swear I've retired more times than Celine Dion.

Just because no one makes us sit at the back of the bus, doesn't mean there's no fight to be fought. If as moderate a feminist as myself catches hateful shit from anti-feminists of both genders, it seems to indicate that anti-feminists wouldn't be happy unless it wasn't being fought at all and again that seems to me to just prove that even if we've come a long way, baby, there is a long way to go.

probably this is as tangential as you can get and still be on-topic, ish, but it's something i think about a lot.
posted by Sapphireblue at 12:50 PM on September 27, 2000


I too am familiar with the lack of inclusion in college type feminist groups. I remember a few years back attempting to join a "Take Back the Night" march at my college with some of my more enlightened male friends and being told that the march was for women only, and our support was not wanted (I think that is literally the quote from the woman organizing it). This pissed us off and we hung out of our dorm room windows that night heckling them for not wanting any male involvement.

That being said, the "silly bitches" comment is wholely indefensible. I'm appalled.
posted by norm at 1:25 PM on September 27, 2000


This pissed us off and we hung out of our dorm room windows that night heckling them for not wanting any male involvement. way to support the women's movement, norm. i hope you don't think that was an appropriate response to your confusion and hurt about being unwelcome.

on another note, i'm glad to see so many mfers have their heads on straight when it comes to gender oppression -- which makes it that much more disappointing that so many of these same folks refuse to see the parallels between sexism and racism.
posted by sudama at 2:08 PM on September 27, 2000


My original point seems to have been slightly misconstrued; I'm not attacking feminism for ignoring "men's rights."

I do think that sexism against men is dangerously prevalent and generally ignored; heck, you can find examples right here on Metafilter.

But sexism against women has been an astronomically larger problem, and I'm not denying that it requires much greater attention.

I am saying that the semantics of the issue effect the perception of the problem, on both sides. In my opinion, calling it "feminism" only feeds the "us-vs.-them" mentality that causes the problem in the first place.

"Feminism" is something that a complacent man can easily assume is not his problem to worry about. "Feminism" is something an angry woman can't see why any man would want to help with.

But it's the side that everyone should be on. It shouldn't be cause for celebration for Mars, or any man, to claim allegiance to it; it should be perfectly normal. But it isn't.

Why not? Because it's still surprising to find a man on the woman's side.

Sapphireblue drew the excellent analogy between the position of women and the position of blacks. But it wasn't the Black Power movement that every decent human stood up and fought for, but the Civil Rights movement.

It's the power of language and perception.
posted by webmutant at 2:48 PM on September 27, 2000


OKay kids. Thats enough. I started this. Allow me to finish it.
a: the only realistic definition of "feminist" is "a person that identifies themself as a feminist". I would argue it has no meaning other than that.
b: If people can make negative claims about me on the basis of history why can't I make positive claims. I.e. "men have historically abused women and therefore I cannot trust you as a man" and "men have historically built lots of cool stuff, made great art and solved a vast number of medical problems so therefore I must be great to". If I must be stigmatised because I happen to share a gender with jack the ripper why can't I be celebrated because I share a gender with Alun Turing (without whom you kittens wouldn't be here)?
posted by davidgentle at 2:48 PM on September 27, 2000


way to support the women's movement, norm. i hope you don't think that was an appropriate response to your confusion and hurt about being unwelcome.

No. It was inappropriate. Fully granted.
posted by norm at 4:12 PM on September 27, 2000


> i hope you don't think that was an appropriate
> response to your confusion and hurt about being

You see I would have just called them some stupid bitches and been done with it. Maybe a lame joke or two or about their man letting them out of the house. I guess the occassional MFer here (ahem) would call that bluntness or lacking tact. Honestly, people who act this way are up there with white elitests and such - I have little respect for them for drawing lines in entirely the wrong places.

Feminist organisations, historically, have been about pro-woman rights. It's a new and welcome take on it to be about equality. But lets not debate whether 'pro-woman' only lingers.

Even Joe Lunchbox walk-about with a cute lil' KKK membership saying "No, no - our new iteration of beliefs says we don't hate black no more, we just loves whites a bunch"

Uhuh.

Attempts to justify `woman who are pro-woman` are awful. After they've experienced sexism, and how bad it is, they don't defend sexism against everyone and only a single gender.

Feminists are silly bitches AS the irony seems lost on them.
posted by holloway at 4:47 PM on September 27, 2000


>Sure, I am making 70 cents on the dollar to the average man's wage, Kristin, if you let yourself believe that your lack of earning ability is due to "the man" and not your personal problem you only harm yourself. If your income is 70% of "the average man's wage" then it is probably far beneath that of plenty of successful women. You will never achieve more respect and equality of status by being such a pathetic little WHINER.
posted by Catch at 5:06 PM on September 27, 2000


Holy shit.

That is quite probably the single most ignorant, inflamatory statement I have ever seen here. What the hell's the point in trying to discuss something reasonably intelligently - and despite the heat, this has remained a reasonably intelligent thread - and punctuating it with something so blatantly baitful?

If you have a point, say it. Ignorance is the one thing that's most definetely unwelcome here.

posted by cCranium at 5:55 PM on September 27, 2000


Which comment are you responding to, cCranium?

Goodness knows i've tried to be more civil (ha!).
posted by holloway at 6:08 PM on September 27, 2000


I assume cCranium is responding to me. I deny flaming. It's an accusation cheaply made by someone who disagrees with an opinion. I hold that comparing an individual woman's wage to the average man's is a useless exercise. If Kristin felt that she was being paid less for the same work at the same level of skill and efficiency than a man, she would have a valid complaint, and I hope that she would take steps to remedy her personal situation. There are laws even now in place to prevent employers from that sort of bias. But citing her own level of general financial power as a symptom of male oppression is weak and yes, whining. >If you have a point, say it. I completely agree. What's yours? Your post could be ripped up and transplanted into any MeFi thread. I'm sure, if I looked through past postings, that it has been. You don't make any new points, or inject any opinion. And a hint: other people's opinion needn't be "inflammatory" unless you let it.
posted by Catch at 6:56 PM on September 27, 2000


Wow.

So *this* is why this thread is the longest one this month. :-) No topic drift, either.

Except into holloway-bashing.

I know many strong women. I love them because they are strong. The feminists whom Holloway is complaining about, *they* would call silly bitches, too. I'm pretty certain, but to make sure, I'm going to mail the address of this page to every one of them, and we'll see.

The concave MetaFiltarians who've posted on this thread are probably going to take offense to that, assuming it to be a pot-shot. So be it. If you don't know me well enough to correctly interpret my motivations, *don't*.

And as for the 70% theory, that's been debunked several times in public fora. The theory I'm talking about is this one here. The problem is that most studies of the topic carefully fail to point out that they're not comparing apples to apples, as this piece noted.

That piece wasn't well enough referenced to make me happy, though, so I also tracked down this one for you, as well as this Christian Science Monitor article (which hopefully, you'll credit for journalistic integrity even if you're pagan :-), or even something from out of the X-files (apologies for the Google link; the original server was taking a nap tonight).

There are two common failings taking place in this thread: assuming that anything that *distinguishes* among the sexes is automatically sexist, and failing to question the motives of sources, even when they agree with your position.

Oh, and assuming that "bitch" is automatically a bad thing to call a women. Every woman I know well is *proud* to be a bitch. Context is everything.

I see I've turned this into a screed. Hadn't meant to. Lack of dinner, I suppose. Sorry.

Ok: my turn to get shot at now, folks.
posted by baylink at 8:35 PM on September 27, 2000


holloway,

what do you think of the current 'monopoly' by nz women on the country? I would advise you to drop your 'silly bitches' remarks it doesn't help your argument.
posted by jay at 8:40 PM on September 27, 2000


Well Jay, you crafty begger, I haven't anything even vaguely regarding having a problem with woman. It's such a strange question to ask and one that's probably chosen to rat out what I think of Woman In Power.

Or WIP as I prefer to call them.

Helen Clark is an acceptable prime-minister, certainly much better than the previous one, Jenny Shipley (whether Jenny was actually a woman or not was debatable). The governor-general is a prestigeous position but not one of particular skill or power (`sign here mamm`). Telecom are New Zealand's largely company, but only within New Zealand (the story's a little misleading there) and unless i'm mistaken they loose out to Fletcher Challenge.

I'm rather indifferent about woman or men in power. If they do a good job etc.. etc...

> I would advise you to drop your 'silly bitches'
> remarks it doesn't help your argument.

I'm not trying to win over people to my line of thought Jay. I'm giving you a piece of my mind. Don't assume otherwise.

I don't even know why I bothered responding. Boredom, I guess.
posted by holloway at 9:32 PM on September 27, 2000


ps. I'm rather happy that New Zealand gave woman the vote too.

But feminism? bah.
posted by holloway at 9:34 PM on September 27, 2000


Dear holloway, What do you think of Charlie's Angels? Heh, heh, heh.
posted by Catch at 9:44 PM on September 27, 2000


I'll be darned if I'm going to stop buying my monthly issue of Maxim.
posted by tomorama at 9:52 PM on September 27, 2000


Baylink, even the studies you pointed, while calling into question the 70% number, still documented a wage gap.

In addition. (from the epf piece)

one study using 1980s data estimated that accounting for male/female differences in experience, industry, occupation, and union status narrowed the unexplained portion of the gap to 12 percent.

This study seems to factor out things like industry, occupation, etc. The problem is, differences in these areas are often the result of sexism and discrimination.

Experience: Women often get passed over for the best/most important assignments in the work place. This means less real world experience. There's also women who choose to have a child. When they return from maternity leave, they often have to start out on the bottom of the 'experience' ladder, loosing any ground they'd gained.

Industry/Occupation: Math, Science, and technology are considered boy things (remember the hotwheels/Barbi PC debacle last year?), and girls often don't receive the encouragement they need in these areas, or are outright discouraged from taking the advanced math and science classes. These are the areas that lead to jobs in higher paying industries.

Union Status: Unions have typically been boys clubs., and woman have faced discrimination when trying to gain influence there. Less power in the union means less salary.

It's not just he blatant sexism of asshole managers and bosses that feminists are trying to change. It's the sexism that's inherent in our society and culture. There was a recent issue of Ms. magazine that debunked the debunking of the wag gaps, my issues is at the bottom of an unpacked box, does anyone know which one I'm talking about? Of course, I'm sure there are articles that debunk the debunking of the debunking, etc. But even if we take the few articles that baylink posted as gospel, that still leave us with a wage gap.

As for Catch's* 'There are Laws', The law states that men and women must be paid the same wage for the same job. Employers have gotten around this by simply assigning different titles for jobs that are basically the same. (i.e. Woman: Secretary. Man: Executive Assistant).

Plus, too many women fail to speak up about it, for fear of being labeled, a 'silly whiney bitch'. Talk to your female colleges (don't have any . . . what does that say?). If you're comfortable enough to discuss what each of you makes, you'll find more often than not than a woman makes less. Particularly a woman who has children. (It's assumed they won't work as hard because they have kids to take care of. One of my old coworkers was told this outright by a manager. She quit.)

But alas, I have the feeling anyone interested in an adult conversation about this has already fled. Of course, I'm just a silly bitch so what do I know.

*who suspiciously has only posted to this thread. But now I'm just being paranoid
posted by alan at 10:53 PM on September 27, 2000


>*who suspiciously has only posted to this thread. I don't get it. How is my posting "suspicious"?
posted by Catch at 11:09 PM on September 27, 2000


> Baylink, even the studies you pointed, while
> calling into question the 70% number, still
> documented a wage gap.

I would like to make you all aware of an largely unknown fact: Tall people are more prone to violence. I repeat there is heightened violence in tall people.

Studies show that there is a clear difference in the number of fights tall people get into. Why by jove, if we draw the line at here (at height), or here (at gender), or here (at red pants) and do not find the same numbers on both sides... well.. you know.

Oh come on `alan`. Anyone who's spent five minutes in a statistics class knows that all your purported evidence can't necessarily be correlated to any discrimination or even (gasp!) any sexism.

> Woman: Secretary. Man: Executive Assistant

Well my sister's an executive assistant. That's her exact title (well, EA to the Branch Manager). Nuts to you.

> Talk to your female colleges (don't have
> any . . . what does that say?)

That you're paranoid. Bloody paranoid.

I used to be friends with some kick-ass fashion designers, who were women, and their entire industry was populated with women (that and gay guys - like the short bald one in 'Fashion Emergency' - lots of them about). They make bucketloads of money, and that's a skill many woman as children are pressured into (as with guys and their GI-Joes - who can say).

Oh, and in response to Catch's question regarding "Charlies Angels" ;) -- Bill Murray is a genius and i'll watch anything his cute little eyebrows prance about in.
posted by holloway at 11:30 PM on September 27, 2000


Feh. I find it quite telling that all the self-proclaimed feminists on this thread have automatically tried to explain that they're not anti-male/pro-hate, while the opposing side's unified argument is essentially, "Stop whining, you silly bitches." So, who's being judgmental again?
posted by jess at 2:15 AM on September 28, 2000


holloway,Fletcher challenge has been split into three companies, energy, forestry and building. In terms of market capitalization, Telecom is the largest.

I posed the question as when I was at Canterbury I frequently heard from feminists that New Zealand was a male dominated society. Umm... with women in all the powerful positions in New Zealand it sort of dispels that myth. Has anyone read Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power?The book goes into great detail in how it is society who has oppressed women and men, not men oppressing women. Some of the statistics make interesting reading. The writer spent years on the board of directors of the NYC chapter of the National Organization of Women and knows the feminist movement quite well.
posted by jay at 2:41 AM on September 28, 2000


> the opposing side's unified argument is
> essentially, "Stop whining, you silly bitches."

You're missing my point rather spectacularly.

Feminism doesn't have it's roots in helping people to fight sexism. It was about females helping each other against sexism - and these days it's still pretty much the same thing. I don't believe for a second that feminists are at all as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights.

After feminists have experienced sexism, and how bad it is, they don't defend sexism against everyone and only assist a single gender.

Feminists are silly bitches as the irony seems lost on them.

ps, Jay: Thanks for the correction regarding Telecom vs Flechter's size :)
posted by holloway at 2:47 AM on September 28, 2000


Holloway, never before have I seen an individual withstand the MeFi lynch mob with such style and grace. The egos, the threats, the insults, it all rolled of ya back. They tried every possible tactic to intimidate you into silence but you held your ground. I don't care what your views are, what matters to me is that you were not bullied by the Mefi mob.

Well done, dude.

MK
posted by murray_kester at 5:39 AM on September 28, 2000


Holloway, I was referring to Catch's statement.

Catch, go here, because our discussion is terribly off-topic.
posted by cCranium at 5:53 AM on September 28, 2000


The NAACP crusades for African-Americans. The Anti-Defamation League crusades for Jewish people. Since both of these groups are championing the cause of a specific group in the name of furthering equality, I can only imagine what Holloway would call them.

The idea that feminists should care as much about male rights as they do female rights is straight out of the playbook of David Duke, who used the same kind of brainless logic to found the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Only an idiot would expect an oppressed minority to champion the rights of its oppressor.

I don't care what your views are, what matters to me is that you were not bullied by the Mefi mob.

And your admiration has nothing to do with the fact that Holloway ends every message with a statement that feminists are bitches? I gotta say I find that hard to believe.
posted by rcade at 7:49 AM on September 28, 2000


And that's a problem, Rob?

I have to say, I was thrown a bit by all these people replying to "Jay". I was like "I didn't say that..." :-)

On the topic of fundamental causes for wage unevenness, if we narrow it down to the *specific* case of "two people with equal seniority and experience in the same job in the same company in the same place" and we still come up with an across the board difference that is statistically valid (large enough sample size, carefully enough chosen subjects, etc)... is legislation really the right way to fix this?

What's a large enough percentage?

But apart from that, touting the "24% wage gap" as ammunition for your position in the face of all the evidence that that number doesn't *measure* what you say it does is sufficiently disingenuous to qualify at least for "silly", I'd say; no?

As for "bitches", discounting my earlier comments about context, I'd say that the behavior holloway described from the student groups whose members he talked to would be the kind of behavior that would get you called a bitch, if you were female, or a bastard, if you were male.

And I must say that I agree with Murray above, there; holloway is doing an excellent job of holding his position without being overly emotional about the whole topic, as, for that matter, are most of the people on this thread.

Most of them.

I've always considered resorting to emotions in debate the last refuge of... the person who's losing, myself.

Anger is *always* fear in drag; ask yourself: what are you afraid of?
posted by baylink at 8:03 AM on September 28, 2000


It's a problem only in that Catch uhh... caught me :-) on that whole "what's your point?" bit, since I was off-topic. I figured I'd move it so no one else would have to deal with the dirty laundry.

Since I'm posting in this thread again, I figure I probably should say something about the topic.

I have first-hand knowledge of wage inequality between men and women. When I started at my previous employers, I was fresh out of college with no bank machine/ATM (uh... it was bank machine related work :-) experience.

My now girlfriend had worked there for like, 2 years. When I started I was making almost $10,000/year more than she was. I had a couple of additional responsibilities (network and workstation maintenance) and a college diploma, but she knew (and still does, though she's elsewhere now) the entire company inside and out. She was employee number 3, I was number 27 or so.

When I think about the fact that she made that significant an amount less than me, I get angry.

The thing about *-isms that really irritate me is that it's just sheer stupidity. There's differences between men and women, but those differences at that general a lever have absolutely nothing to do with ability to do most jobs. Even in the case of the few exceptions I can think of that a generally gender-oriented, there are thousands and thousands of examples of specific people doing extremely well, despite preconceived notions.

Stupidity, or more accurately ignorance (some very smart people somehow manage to let their prejudices control them), of any sort just irritate the piss out of me.
posted by cCranium at 8:47 AM on September 28, 2000


eCranium, it's not just sheer stupidity... oppression plays a crucial role in a capitalist system such as the emerging global economy which depends upon artificial social hierarchies to function properly. (by function properly i mean serve the interests of the powerful, of course.)
posted by sudama at 9:10 AM on September 28, 2000


I wrote my last comment in the clear-eyed light of the afternoon; as I re-read it in a pre-caffeine morning fog, it occurs that a clarification may be in order. I wasn't so much attempting to promote certain strategies for achieving gender equality (hiring quotas, for example) as I was attempting to demonstrate that proposals which appear to promote women at the expense of men may, on closer inspection, be reasonable tools for remedying standing injustices unlikely to change of their own accord.

I get really tired of people who talk up gender equality but discard any concrete proposal for achieving it because the scheme is "biased against men."

::sits on hands to keep from writing customary sig::
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:13 AM on September 28, 2000


sudama: While you're right that at a high level the concious decision to keep things in place is a definite issue, for Joe Average *-ist, who's awash in propoganda and buys into it without learning anything about what they're basing their predjudice on, that level of manipulation just doesn't come into play.

And I'm not sure if it's an honest mistake because of the font or if it's a very clever comment on my latest MetaTalk post, but it's actually two Cs at the start of my nick, the first being lowercase. (there is, suprisingly enough, a backstory to that which, not suprisingly, not one cares about. :-)

Although eCranium is in itself a rather clever nick. :-)
posted by cCranium at 9:22 AM on September 28, 2000


Actually, I was *just about* to ask what the hell the deal was with that, Rob. :-)
posted by baylink at 10:20 AM on September 28, 2000


`feminists aren't nearly as concerned with male rights as they are with female rights`

I don't believe for a second that Feminists are as touchy about male rights as they are about female rights - hence my opinion.

That's idiotic. And just what rights have men been deprived of? Women have the right to be murdered because they were raped? The right to be held down and have their clitoris removed because they are women and are therefore temptresses sent my Satan? The right to be paid less for the same work? The right not to vote?

And Holloway, did you ever stop to think that those 14 feminist groups that didn't want you as a member probably didn't want you because you are a sexist toad?

I'm not trying to win over people to my line of thought Jay. I'm giving you a piece of my mind. Don't assume otherwise.

Watch how much you give, Holloway. It doesn't look like you can afford it.

Holloway has single handedly made the argument for why people (men and women) need to continue to fight for women's equality. Because as long as sexism still exists, we need to keep fighting. Same goes for racism.

P.S. I have met Gloria Steinem a couple of times in my role as a volunteer for Voters for Choice, and she is most certainly not a man hater.
posted by terrapin at 10:31 AM on September 28, 2000


[cCranium] My now girlfriend had worked there for like, 2 years. When I started I was making almost $10,000/year more than she was. I had a couple of additional responsibilities (network and workstation maintenance) and a college diploma, but she knew (and still does, though she's elsewhere now) the entire company inside and out

This is a problem your girlfriend should have addressed with the company. From the evidence you gave, it isn't clear to me that this is sexism. In a lot of fields, new hires end up getting paid more than people with experience in the company, even in the same position! The company my wife worked for right out of college hired her and several others at a wage several thousand dollars above what they were paying other employees in the same position who had one or two years of experience. It didn't have anything to do with sexism; rather, the company had to keep up with the going rate for new hires straight out of college, but they faced less pressure to keep raising salaries of those already employed. Was it right? No, but my point is that your higher pay may have been more related to timing and skills (you said yourself you had additional responsibilities, which perhaps commanded a higher market value) than sexism. Obviously you know more about the situation, but based on the evidence you gave, I'm not convinced.

[Mars] I was attempting to demonstrate that proposals which appear to promote women at the expense of men may, on closer inspection, be reasonable tools for remedying standing injustices unlikely to change of their own accord.... I get really tired of people who talk up gender equality but discard any concrete proposal for achieving it because the scheme is "biased against men."

Mars, the reasons I personally worry about "proposals which appear to promote women at the expense of men" instituted for the purpose of "remedying standing injustices" are these:

(1) They may do more harm than good in that the males who have been "discriminated against" based on their gender and other sympathetic parties will feel resentment for the policies and for the women who benefited from them. There's a chance that any woman who is promoted or given a job, even if they were the most qualified, will be less respected because of suspicions of unfairness.

(2) Is it an injustice on its own if there are more men than women in particular positions of power? It may be true that this environment could foster more discrimination towards women or create barriers for women attempting to join the ranks, so to speak. But is it automatically such an inherent injustice that we must take active measures to favor women over men to equalize numbers? Even if this doesn't breed resentment, what about the qualified men who were passed by? Although in the big scheme of things, things are more balanced, is the overall balance more valuable than an individual's opportunity, regardless of gender? What if there is a situation where there are more women than men in positions of power in a particular situation? Should we then make active efforts to balance the field, so to speak, by favoring men over women in hiring and promotion? If not, why not?

I don't consider myself a feminist, but I am sympathetic to situations where women are being oppressed. I generally don't agree that there remains a systematic effort in the United States to exclude or oppress women. In any situation where a woman or any number of women are being oppressed, I will stand up for their rights, but I'm not sure what more good any new governmental policy can do to help. As has been pointed out, equal rights for women has been codified, now we need to ensure those rights are protected. Maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten me because I want to understand your point of view.
posted by daveadams at 10:51 AM on September 28, 2000


dave,

are you seriously making the argument that we shouldn't take steps to equalize the situation for women because men might resent it, which might then cause further problems for women?

I'm not generally in favor of preferential treatment for anyone, but, in light of the prevailing sexism (amply demonstrated by this thread) how do you ensure equity for women? do we just wish for it and hope it happens?

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:00 AM on September 28, 2000


daveadams:
This is a problem your girlfriend should have addressed with the company.

You're absolutely right, and she did, and I did, which is part of the reason neither she nor I currently work for that company. Mind you, that company as a whole was a vortex of ignorance, and there are many reasons we both left. For the most part, independantly of each other, also, but the sexist regime there definetely played a part.

Obviously you know more about the situation, but based on the evidence you gave, I'm not convinced.

You're absolutely right of course, that entire paragraph is accurate. I don't feel like typing up the existing situation at the company when I left though, since it really was just a lead-in to my main point: Sexism, racism, *isms are just plain ignorance, and ignorance pisses me off. :-)
posted by cCranium at 11:10 AM on September 28, 2000


"Holloway, never before have I seen an individual withstand the MeFi lynch mob with such style and grace. The egos, the threats, the insults, it all rolled of ya back. They tried every possible tactic to intimidate you into silence but you held your ground"

And I'm amazed anyone could withstand the ego and insults holloway is throwing at everyone repeatedly.

holloway, you're using inflammatory language and obscuring any sort of constructive discussion that might take place. I've gotten several emails from people that aren't posting intelligent answers because the environment a comment like "silly bitches" creates is a hostile one.

I created this site to facilitate constructive discussions among many voices and varying viewpoints. You don't seem to want to convince anyone of your particular viewpoint, and that just seems like a troll to me.

This thread is going in circles while everyone talks past each other, so I'm closing it. I don't like the precedence it sets - that insults are ok to throw around willy-nilly. I don't automatically shut out voices I disagree with, in fact I love to hear someone discuss a viewpoint I vehemently disagree with, but holloway, your tone is not one of constructive discussion.
posted by mathowie at 11:17 AM on September 28, 2000


« Older Malcolm Gladwell on JFK Jr's Crash...  |  And you thought the 2600 was d... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments