Complications @ gender intersections

[RB]

The problem I have with gauging all women experiences by the "white" women is that a reality for black or colored women is not represented.

Could I make a claim that white women are very privileged and have benefitted from their whiteness in a racist system.

Here is what I mean

1) In their private sphere white women collude .. seductively with their "white" male partners as lovers, husbands and have the guidance of fathers and male mentors

2) In their public sphere they intend to compete with the "male oppressors" for some wealth. I mean white women can feel free to attack "their" men

If you look back in history black women have always worked as domestic servants, slaves etc. and yet how far have they got even when the white women stayed at home and exploited them

I mean how did all women experiences of work got to be standardised by the "white" women experiences.

Is this the reason why women of color identify "race" as starting point of being oppressed?

[last_niceguy]

What about Muslim women in foreign countries. We seem to be more interested in their rights then the rights of any woman here in Canada.

[Argus]

The problem I have with gauging all women experiences by the "white" women is that a reality for black or colored women is not represented. 

Could I make a claim that white women are very privileged and have benefitted from their whiteness in a racist system.

You can make any claim you want, but I see no evidence of a racist system discriminating against Black and Coloured women. Note: I'm not saying there is not discrimination. I'm saying it's not systemic, but individual, and probably not even due to their skin pigmentation. The biggest problems faced by visible minority women in finding good jobs is not skin colour but language skills, and education

Here is what I mean

1) In their private sphere white women collude .. seductively with their "white" male partners as lovers, husbands and have the guidance of fathers and male mentors

2) In their public sphere they intend to compete with the "male oppressors" for some wealth.  I mean white women can feel free to attack "their" men

You are generalizing. The term "collude" is probably misused, as well. Even feminists who will campaign against a patriarchal system don't neccesarily take that broad campaign down to the individual level, to males who have nothing to do with "oppression", whatever that term means in a free and democratic society like ours.

If you look back in history black women have always worked as domestic servants, slaves etc. and yet how far have they got even when the white women stayed at home and exploited them

Historically, all women were oppressed. White women had only a little more rights than Black women, and that mostly due to the economic value of their mates and families.

I mean how did all women experiences of work got to be standardised by the "white" women experiences.

I doubt the nature of the work experience is very much different for minority women. Not all White women work in high paying jobs, or even office jobs. Many of them are cleaners and store clerks and factory workers.

Is this the reason why women of color identify "race" as starting point of being oppressed?

If someone tells you you're being oppressed then I'd imagine you'd identify race as the starting point, were you a visible minority member. Elsewise, probably sex or religion.

[kimmy]

Reading RB's whinging is also somewhat like being beaten to death with popcorn.

If someone is determined to play the victim card, there's no question that race is the way to go. Women have few serious complaints left... but if you're a visible minority, there's a wide range of avenues available for you to explore your feelings of persecution.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

I fail to see what reason there is to try to think of racism as a gender issue.

[Black Dog]

You can make any claim you want, but I see no evidence of a racist system discriminating against Black and Coloured women.

Just as fish see no evidence of water. I think the best people to speak to the nature of discrimination against women and women of clolur are they themselves.

If someone is determined to play the victim card, there's no question that race is the way to go. Women have few serious complaints left... but if you're a visible minority, there's a wide range of avenues available for you to explore your feelings of persecution.

Kimmy, who the hell are you to say that "women have few serious complaints left"? Are you a woman? Are you aware that almost half of all Canadian women will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime? How about the fact that, worldwide, women work more than men, when both paid employment and unpaid household tasks are accounted for? How about the lack of political representation even amongh western nations0? Access to reproductive services? A media enviornment that constantly sexualizes and objectifies women?

Methinks your understanding of women's issues is, to say the least, lacking.

As for race and gender, that's an interesting subject and one that has been explored in great deal in both academic and lay circles. But I think the point RB is making is the recognition of mulitiple oppressions.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Are you aware that almost half of all Canadian women will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime?

What are the figures for men, I wonder.

[RB]

kimmy Posted Today, 04:54 AM

Women have few serious complaints left

You are correct Kimmy because I have indeed seen less cases of discrimination against women since about a century ago.

Maybe women issues are existing nowadays only in isolated instances which indeed explains how people get blinded when hiring and promoting women or the matter colored women.

This would also explain why when there is a population of 55:45 women to men ratio only 11% women are existing in executive roles, and only 20% of women exist in your cabinet. Maybe it explains why there was only a handful of women presidents worldwide so far.

Perhaps it also explains why women are overly concentrated in care giving jobs such as teaching, nursing, homecare and still find it difficult to break into and network with the traditional male dominated professions.

Maybe a reason why women lawyers quit their high profile jobs after 2 years has already been address.

I wanted to offer some stats of women in male dominated field and how what they give up in order to compete in a man's world

Baby gap (ages 35-39) no children under 12 at home

Women lawyers 42.3%

Women Physicians 32.9%

Academic women 49.6%

All PhD's women 45.6%

Since we are at the education stats I might as well give you the graduating education stats for women of color 17%

well those are only some issues to draw to your attention, try putting some color on those issues as there is hardly statistics around for black folks.

Ontario Human Rights complaints - over 80% is filled with discrimination and race

So I am glad that you believe that the above issues have been addressed and sorted out

Maybe in a synopsis here is what you meant - that there is great evidence, which are highly visible everyday, that efforts are being made to achieve some sort of equality. Hence the the intentions of most leaders are very good - but you did not see beyond this construction

[RB]

Argus

You can make any claim you want, but I see no evidence of a racist system discriminating against Black and Coloured women

I think it is described as "new" racism.

I mean are you saying that:

- it is easy to understand black people feelings

- discrimination against blacks are no longer a problem

- over the years blacks have gotten more than they deserved

- blacks are getting too demanding in this equality rights

Arthur P Brief - Freeman School of Business wrote in the Academy of Management executive about new racism and conducted 3 studies.

You know how long it takes for a black male to peak in middle management 2 years longer than his white counterpart. For a color woman this is the intersection she faces, first she is of color and does not interface with the say a the white male mentor at home, she is female, and she belongs to some race that gets lost and defined by black males.

I mean we hear all the time when something goes wrong for the colored folks they seem to blame it on race and racism - that Apprentice show with the over hyper-visual Omarosa always resorted to blame race - but she was also a well educated black woman.

The term "collude" is probably misused, as well

Collude was used appropriately. But I can rephrase to make it more appealing if you wish. White women collude with white men in their bedrooms - here we have a dynamic dependency and then we have white women collude with white men in their offices for a dynamic counter-dependency.

[RB]

The Terrible Sweal

I fail to see what reason there is to try to think of racism as a gender issue.

Blackdog is correct about the multiple oppressions.

The intersection is race, gender and class etc

If you intersect them you can pick out limitations, differences and watch how dynamics of change disappear

[Argus]

You can make any claim you want, but I see no evidence of a racist system discriminating against Black and Coloured women.

Just as fish see no evidence of water. I think the best people to speak to the nature of discrimination against women and women of clolur are they themselves.

I think that discrimination needs to be demonstrable to a reasonable neutral observer.

If someone is determined to play the victim card, there's no question that race is the way to go. Women have few serious complaints left... but if you're a visible minority, there's a wide range of avenues available for you to explore your feelings of persecution.

Kimmy, who the hell are you to say that "women have few serious complaints left"? Are you a woman?

What does that matter? My assumption is yes, btw.

Are you aware that almost half of all Canadian women will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime?

Yes, and most men, as well. Your point?

How about the fact that, worldwide, women work more than men, when both paid employment and unpaid household tasks are accounted for?

Worldwide? I'm interested in here in Canada.

How about the lack of political representation even amongh western nations0? Access to reproductive services? A media enviornment that constantly sexualizes and objectifies women?

All the product of the society we live in, a society in which women generally are not as intersted in the long hours and mindset needed for political advancement as men are. Reproductive rights seem to be pretty strong ,btw, and most women don't seem to mind being objectified now and then.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Just as fish see no evidence of water. I think the best people to speak to the nature of discrimination against women and women of clolur are they themselves.

That thinking could be taken to an impractical extent -- a surrender to a tyranny of subjectivity.

[Black Dog]

I think that discrimination needs to be demonstrable to a reasonable neutral observer.

But neither you, nor I qualify as such. That's why I mentioned fish and water. Race priviledge exists and whites are the overwhelminging beneficiaries. As whites, we are steeped in it whether we acknowledge it or not and indeed, whether we are concious practicioners of systemic rascism or not.

What does that matter? My assumption is yes, btw.

Because, as a male, experiences with gender-based discrimination are outside my frame of reference and I beleive one actually has to be a member of such a group to fullly comprehend those challenges.

Yes, and most men, as well. Your point?

Do you have any statistics to back up your assumption that "most" men experience sexual or physical violence?

Worldwide? I'm interested in here in Canada.

Same applies in Canada.

All the product of the society we live in, a society in which women generally are not as intersted in the long hours and mindset needed for political advancement as men are. Reproductive rights seem to be pretty strong ,btw, and most women don't seem to mind being objectified now and then

Here we have a great example of some of the barriers women face. First we have the notion (unsupported, I might add, by any supporting evidence) that women, esssentially, aren't cut out for the manly pursuit of politics (a generalization which neatly ignores many successful female politicians while slotting the motivations and aspirations of 50 per cent of the population into a neat, monolithic category). Second we have an assertion thatr reproductive rights are strong, which ignores the difficulties and barriers women experience in ccessing reproductive services such as abortions and birth control. Then there's the icing on the cake: women "don't mind" being objectified. Next, I suppose, we'll hear that "she was asking for it." This is one of the more offensive statements I've read, but then I'll just chalk it up to basic ignorance of gender hierarchies.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, who the hell are you to say that "women have few serious complaints left"? Are you a woman?

I will check and get back to you.

Are you aware that almost half of all Canadian women will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime?

Argus and The Sweal have already asked what the corresponding statistic for men is. I think our society is pretty dangerous for everybody, unfortunately.

Adult women with financial resources certainly have the choice of leaving abusive situations, and we can't make people make smarter choices. Children, poor women, and women in rural areas likely have far fewer options available, and them I have greater concern for. We try to provide options for women in dangerous situations... but those efforts aren't exactly universal. The stuff that in theory is available to all Canadians sometimes isn't available to the poor and to those outside big cities. I think that a number of issues-- access to services, medical, educational opportunities... that some would consider womens' issues are actually poverty issues or rural issues.

How about the fact that, worldwide, women work more than men, when both paid employment and unpaid household tasks are accounted for?

(shrug.) If we're talking about cultures around the world, I'm sure there are real issues in many of them. From RB's message I thought we were talking about North American culture, in which case the problem seems to me to boil down to little more than the division of household chores. I just can't bring myself to view it as an issue of great importance in our society.

If you really can't handle the load of housework, do what my mom did: squeeze out a couple of pups.

How about the lack of political representation even amongh western nations0?

Female politicians do ok. Just as female engineers or female welders do. The fact that fewer women than men enter these fields is, I think, a product of individual choices and not any sort of systematic problem. Consider the number of prominent female politicians in this country, then consider the number of prominent non-white politicians. What was it I said before?

If someone is determined to play the victim card, there's no question that race is the way to go. Women have few serious complaints left... but if you're a visible minority, there's a wide range of avenues available for you to explore your feelings of persecution.

Maybe a bit dismissive, but the sentiment is still there: if you're a non-white woman in Canada, you look around and see white women in the highest positions in our country... and look around and see non-white people in ... well, not really anywhere very prominent at all. What are you going to conclude is the real barrier?

Access to reproductive services?

Quite good, I hear... at least for a wealthy white woman in a major urban centre. I could certainly believe that poor women or women outside major centres, things are not so rosy.

I'd suggest that poverty and lack of programs in rural areas are the barriers here, not gender.

A media enviornment that constantly sexualizes and objectifies women?

I sent an epic poison pen letter to the people at Mott's over their ad that depicts blondes as being too stupid to operate a Caesar without eye injury, and I've undertaken my own personal lifetime boycott of their products. I'd boycott Molson's over their current TV commercial as well, except that I'm already boycotting their products due to crappy quality.

I think people vote with their feet and their wallets and their remote controls. These ads wouldn't be on TV if their sponsors didn't think they'd sell merchandise; those magazines wouldn't be on the shelves if people stopped buying them; the strip club would shut its doors if people stopped going. I don't really know of a good way of making people choose more sophisticated entertainment. Before you blame men for all of this, ask yourself when was the last time you saw a man buying Cosmopolitan.

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

Adult women with financial resources certainly have the choice of leaving abusive situations, and we can't make people make smarter choices.

That's bullshit too as it disregards a host of factors. At best its ignorance, at woprst it come dangerously close to victim blaming.

Why don't they just leave?

I think that a number of issues-- access to services, medical, educational opportunities... that some would consider womens' issues are actually poverty issues or rural issues.

Of course they're not all exclusive. However, poverty issues, for instance, tend to disproportionatly affect women.

From RB's message I thought we were talking about North American culture, in which case the problem seems to me to boil down to little more than the division of household chores. I just can't bring myself to view it as an issue of great importance in our society.

Oh well, if it's not an issue to you, then I guess it doesn't matter to anyone....

If you really can't handle the load of housework, do what my mom did: squeeze out a couple of pups.

We really need a vomiting smilie.

Female politicians do ok. Just as female engineers or female welders do. The fact that fewer women than men enter these fields is, I think, a product of individual choices and not any sort of systematic problem. Consider the number of prominent female politicians in this country, then consider the number of prominent non-white politicians. What was it I said before?

Canada has one of the lowest rates of female representation in the western world. Instead of shrugging one's shoulders, maybe you need to expolore the reasons why women don't enter politics. Individual choices are influenced by cultural norms and and dominant social attitudes. If the underlying culture is racist or sexist, then individual choice is limited. The kind of dismissive crap emanating from you and Argus perpetuates those attitudes. And just because a small fraction of women become successful politicians or any other profession does not indicate that barriers to women's success do not exist.

Maybe a bit dismissive, but the sentiment is still there: if you're a non-white woman in Canada, you look around and see white women in the highest positions in our country... and look around and see non-white people in ... well, not really anywhere very prominent at all. What are you going to conclude is the real barrier?

Barriers exist for women. Those barriers are amplified when gender meets race and meets socio-economic standing. A poor, black woman may be more oppressed than a well to do white woman, but that doesn't mean there aren't common barriers.

I think people vote with their feet and their wallets and their remote controls. These ads wouldn't be on TV if their sponsors didn't think they'd sell merchandise; those magazines wouldn't be on the shelves if people stopped buying them; the strip club would shut its doors if people stopped going. I don't really know of a good way of making people choose more sophisticated entertainment.

Ask yourself this: who benefits from perpetuating these things?

Before you blame men for all of this, ask yourself when was the last time you saw a man buying Cosmopolitan.

Who owns Cosmo?

[The Terrible Sweal]

As for leaving abusive relationships, the failure of the authorities to protect women and children from violent estranged partners is notorious. Thus, fear for self or children seems to be a sensible reason for not staying, but being sensible and measured about any escape plan.

However, I must say I find other excuses rather faulty. Financial reasons, for example -- lots of people accept physical risks for money, are they all abused?

[Black Dog]

However, I must say I find other excuses rather faulty. Financial reasons, for example -- lots of people accept physical risks for money, are they all abused?

Huh? You are comparing people who willingly take physical risks for money with people who stay in abusive relationships because of a lack of financial support? What kind of shit is that? Women who are abused don't think "gee, I'll get beaten, but its worth it for the money!" Mostly, these women lack the financial independence which would enable to break away from their abuser.

[The Terrible Sweal]

However, I must say I find other excuses rather faulty. Financial reasons, for example -- lots of people accept physical risks for money, are they all abused?

Huh? You are comparing people who willingly take physical risks for money with people who stay in abusive relationships because of a lack of financial support?

Yep.

What kind of shit is that?

It's called an 'analogy'.

Women who are abused don't think "gee, I'll get beaten, but its worth it for the money!"

On the plain meaning of the source you cited, it seems to me that is precisely the calculation (in the financial category of reasons).

Mostly, these women lack the financial independence which would enable to break away

Just as the steeplejack lacks the financial independence to quit to seek safer work.

[kimmy]

...

That's bullshit too as it disregards a host of factors. At best its ignorance, at woprst it come dangerously close to victim blaming.

I didn't say it was easy to do. I just said it was ultimately up to the women themselves, and it is. If you want to equate that with blaming the victim, then I'm not interested in talking with you further.

Could we do more as a society to provide assistance? Probably, particularly in the cases of poor women, rural women, and women who are uneducated or don't speak english very well. And also probably for children, and for men who are affected by domestic violence but are too ashamed to seek help.

From RB's message I thought we were talking about North American culture, in which case the problem seems to me to boil down to little more than the division of household chores. I just can't bring myself to view it as an issue of great importance in our society.

Oh well, if it's not an issue to you, then I guess it doesn't matter to anyone....

I'm sorry, but division of household chores has to rank up there with the price of womens' hairstyles as an issue least likely to inspire sympathy for womens' issues. Griping about this sort of triviality is probably the reason mainstream society has largely tuned out womens' activists.

If you really can't handle the load of housework, do what my mom did: squeeze out a couple of pups.

We really need a vomiting smilie.

Scoff if you must, but mom has barely had to leave the couch since I became tall enough to reach the controls on the washing machine.

Barriers exist for women. Those barriers are amplified when gender meets race and meets socio-economic standing. A poor, black woman may be more oppressed than a well to do white woman, but that doesn't mean there aren't common barriers.

Ok, let's talk about these barriers.

Poverty, obviously.

I can imagine race could be be.

But what about our well-to-do white woman? She's just graduated from highschool, her family is providing her with the financial resources to do whatever she wants, and she says "I want to be a ____!" Ok, so what ____ can't she choose, and what's holding her back?

I'm not interested in hearing some argument like "only 25% of students in such-and-such undergraduate program are women." That's not a barrier, and it's not evidence of a barrier in and of itself. I don't want to hear about trends, I want to hear about our one individual and try and find out what's preventing her from doing anything she puts her mind to.

I think people vote with their feet and their wallets and their remote controls. These ads wouldn't be on TV if their sponsors didn't think they'd sell merchandise; those magazines wouldn't be on the shelves if people stopped buying them; the strip club would shut its doors if people stopped going. I don't really know of a good way of making people choose more sophisticated entertainment.

Ask yourself this: who benefits from perpetuating these things?

... ... uh, people who like to buy stupid magazines and go to strip clubs?

Who is harmed by the perpetuation of these things?

Before you blame men for all of this, ask yourself when was the last time you saw a man buying Cosmopolitan.

Who owns Cosmo?

... some publicly traded corporation, I imagine...

If women stopped buying Cosmo, the answer would be "nobody", because Cosmo would cease to exist very quickly.

-k

[Black Dog]

It's called an 'analogy'.

It's a crap analogy.

On the plain meaning of the source you cited, it seems to me that is precisely the calculation (in the financial category of reasons).

Sure...if you're intent on blaming the victim, that reasoning makes perfect sense.

Just as the steeplejack lacks the financial independence to quit to seek safer work.

The steeplejack chooses to enter a certain line of work, knowing the risks. If the risk outweighs the benefits, then chances are, they won' go into that line of work. Women don't choose to be abused.

I didn't say it was easy to do. I just said it was ultimately up to the women themselves, and it is. If you want to equate that with blaming the victim, then I'm not interested in talking with you further.

Sure, its "ultimately" up to the victim to leave. But its up to society to help them make that choice by providing them with options once they leave, ensuring their continued safety etc etc.

Could we do more as a society to provide assistance? Probably, particularly in the cases of poor women, rural women, and women who are uneducated or don't speak english very well. And also probably for children, and for men who are affected by domestic violence but are too ashamed to seek help

Agreed. These are all problems of society.

I'm sorry, but division of household chores has to rank up there with the price of womens' hairstyles as an issue least likely to inspire sympathy for womens' issues. Griping about this sort of triviality is probably the reason mainstream society has largely tuned out womens' activists

Serious people (you know, one's who aren';t immediatelty dismissive of any issue they annot relate to) would find any system where women get most of the burden of labour, and most of the unpaid labour, but men collect most of the income and rewards resulting from the labour to be a serious issue. I'm sorry you can't get your head around the fact that there's more to this than who does the vaccumming.

Scoff if you must, but mom has barely had to leave the couch since I became tall enough to reach the controls on the washing machine.

Awesome and all she had to do was carry you for nine months (during which time, wone presumes, she was still doing all the housework), push you out through her vagina, feed, clothe and otherwise look after you uuntl such a time as you could assume your duties. of course, there's the question of what about those women who don't want or can't have kids. I guess they should just stop their griping AND get back in the kitchen...

But what about our well-to-do white woman? She's just graduated from highschool, her family is providing her with the financial resources to do whatever she wants, and she says "I want to be a ____!" Ok, so what ____ can't she choose, and what's holding her back?

I'm not interested in hearing some argument like "only 25% of students in such-and-such undergraduate program are women." That's not a barrier, and it's not evidence of a barrier in and of itself. I don't want to hear about trends, I want to hear about our one individual and try and find out what's preventing her from doing anything she puts her mind to.

Your arbitrary dismmisal of relevant data is a touch farcical. Trends are really all we have to look at when dealing with such broad subjects. There's so many variables to take into account when looking at individual cases, even when one starts with the basic sketch of a white, middle class female. That's why one has to step back and look at the broader numbers to see what trends emerge.

Who is harmed by the perpetuation of these things?

Women. And men. And society.

If women stopped buying Cosmo, the answer would be "nobody", because Cosmo would cease to exist very quickly.

But you still ask the wrong questions. The question isn't "who's buying Cosmo?" but "why do women buy Cosmo?"

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's called an 'analogy'.

It's a crap analogy.

Sez you, but kneejerk reactions don't amount to arguments.

On the plain meaning of the source you cited, it seems to me that is precisely the calculation (in the financial category of reasons).

Sure...if you're intent on blaming the victim, that reasoning makes perfect sense.

I'm not blaming the victim. And you have offered nothing that refutes the validity of the analogy, bluster notwithstanding.

The steeplejack chooses to enter a certain line of work [for money reasons], knowing the risks.

Just as, apparently, some women remain in abusive situations (for money reasons), knowing the risks.

[Black Dog]

Just as, apparently, some women remain in abusive situations (for money reasons), knowing the risks.

And you're basing this belief on...what, exactly?

Certainly not the information I presented, which showed that financial concerns are a barrier to women leaving abusive relationships, not an incentive to stay.\

But I'll tell you what: chances are, there's a women's shelter in your area. Why not go ask soem of the residents why they chose to get beat up despite "knowing the risks?"

[August1991]

Just as, apparently, some women remain in abusive situations (for money reasons), knowing the risks.

And you're basing this belief on...what, exactly?

Certainly not the information I presented, which showed that financial concerns are a barrier to women leaving abusive relationships, not an incentive to stay.\

But I'll tell you what: chances are, there's a women's shelter in your area. Why not go ask soem of the residents why they chose to get beat up despite "knowing the risks?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD, I think the point is that people make choices and one suspects that people choose the best alternative from what's available. If a woman chooses to stay in an abusive relationship, it's likely that in the woman's mind at least, the alternatives are worse.

Money does play a role here. Just as some people accept risky jobs because of the higher pay, a woman may accept to stay with an abusive husband if she fears poverty without him. If women had more independent income, then there would be fewer battered wives.

In this sense, I'm sympathetic to your basic argument BD (even though I find Kimmy's posts more entertaining and clear-minded).

But BD, your argument has a logical flaw. You ask us to respect a woman as an individual but then you say a woman should not have to suffer the consequences of her choices. When a child makes a mistake, I am forebearing. Should women get the same break? Should we treat women as children?

----

My argument above is Leftist-style. A better approach to the whole question, it seems to me, is to consider the consequences of treating women differently. I'm still thinking about this.

Very interesting thread.

[Guest eureka]

I would say that women stay in abusive relationships for many reasons: several of which apply to any instance.Financial considerations are one, certaainly, but probably not the most prominent

Historically, women and children were considered property and that has not completely disappeared from our culture. Possibly the majority of women today still feel subordinate to the male spouse. They are conditioned to that from childhood.

Feelings of lack of self confidence and self worth also are a factor. Many women are afraid, after lengthy relationships to try to make it on their own again - and with some reason given the social consequences as well as financial, particularly when there are children to care for.

There is the fear of the loneliness that may, likely will, follow, separation, again particularly when there are children.

Women are also conditioned to a nurturing role and frequently take blame for a relationship that has gone sour. They are the partner that is supposed to make it work; to make a home. Guilt comes with the failure.

They may have grown up in abusive homes and see some degree of abuse as a normal part of life. Abuse is usually a gradual affair becoming serious only after a long relationship. It may be difficult to see it comong and when it is serious, a natural inertia may well have settled in.

Then, abuse may be verbal as much as physical. A look around will show that verbal abuse is almost a norm and it may be difficult to distinguish when it becomes intolerable since the victim may well be inured to it; emotionally deadened.

Abuse is still not so socially unacceptable that there is any real recourse. It is all around us and yet there is little discussion or concern within families even though it may be known or suspected. When it does come to a head, it is difficult to prove in court should it ever get to that stage.

This is not too surprising since it is, historically, only a short time since women have even been considered as persons worthy of equal treatment with males.

I have not elaborated on any of the points since it would make this the book I do not want to write and I have left out the male victims since the problem is lesser..

[Argus]

I think that discrimination needs to be demonstrable to a reasonable neutral observer.

But neither you, nor I qualify as such. That's why I mentioned fish and water. Race priviledge exists and whites are the overwhelminging beneficiaries. As whites, we are steeped in it whether we acknowledge it or not and indeed, whether we are concious practicioners of systemic rascism or not.

That's an argument that doesn't work. If you want the majority to rectify some misbehaviour on their part you have to be able to demonstate the behaviour. You have to be able to show what is being done wrong. You can't simply substitute the unsupported beliefs or suspicions of a minority which says it is being mistreated, and then say "well, you wouldn't underestand because you're not X". Biased, I might well be, but I'm not blind. And if you can't prove or even demonstrate a thing exists then don't expect any sympathy or changes.

What does that matter? My assumption is yes, btw.

Because, as a male, experiences with gender-based discrimination are outside my frame of reference and I beleive one actually has to be a member of such a group to fullly comprehend those challenges.

Life on other planets is beyond my frame of reference, too, but I have a pretty good imagination. Most of what is written in fiction is beyond the writer's personal frame of reference. But if one has an abundance of knowledge and a reasonable degree of empathy and imagination one can develop a pretty decent understanding, especially given there is no one single "experience", that every person experiences life and discrimination in different ways.

Yes, and most men, as well. Your point?

Do you have any statistics to back up your assumption that "most" men experience sexual or physical violence?

I've seen them, and I suppose I could find them if I put the effort in, but you have provided no statistics whatsoever to back up your claim about women either. Many of the statistics I've seen about women have been wildly overblown and obviously developed by people with agendas.

All the product of the society we live in, a society in which women generally are not as intersted in the long hours and mindset needed for political advancement as men are. Reproductive rights seem to be pretty strong ,btw, and most women don't seem to mind being objectified now and then 

Here we have a great example of some of the barriers women face. First we have the notion (unsupported, I might add, by any supporting evidence) that women, esssentially, aren't cut out for the manly pursuit of politics (a generalization which neatly ignores many successful female politicians while slotting the motivations and aspirations of 50 per cent of the population into a neat, monolithic category).

What I said was that the system is rough and tumble, and based on agressive efforts at self advancement to the exclusion of all else. Women tend not to be as interested in that sort of behaviour as men. They also tend not to be as willing to make the sacrifices of family as men. And pushing individuals as contradicting a general rules is a logical fallacy of the first order. There are always individuals in any group which vary wildly from the mean.

Second we have an assertion thatr reproductive rights are strong, which ignores the difficulties and barriers women experience in ccessing reproductive services such as abortions and birth control.

People have difficulties accessing all health care services. This is because our health care system is a bloated socialist nightmare filled with vast numbers of overpaid, underworked people where long waits for every conceivable service is the norm.

Then there's the icing on the cake: women "don't mind" being objectified. 

No offence but - have you ever met a woman? Women are as much a product of the culture as men. Just as men objectify women from a very early age, women (again recognizing we're generalizing) seek approval of their physical attractiveness and get considerable esteem boosts by receiving that approval. What, you think all those teenage girls wearing hip-hugging jeans and crop tops do so for some OTHER reason than wanting to be seen as hot?