Complications @ gender intersections

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

Your information said financial concerns were a reason that women might not leave an abusive relationship.

Financial concerns are exactly the reason that workers hold onto unpleasant or dangerous jobs.

While arguably both are caught within a harsh capitalist reality, both are, nevertheless making a calculated choice.

[kimmy]

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.

In third world countries, I could buy that we're talking about a very serious issue, but here I can't see how it boils down to anything other than a couple's personal finances. "He has most of the money and she does most of the work" certainly doesn't sound like any couple I know of.

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...

My effort to put a little levity into this discussion has obviously not been well received, and I won't trouble you with it any further. It's sweet that you're sticking up for my mom, though. I'll pass that along; perhaps she'll bake you some cookies.

(warning: mom's cookies kind of suck.)

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.

I noticed yesterday that extremely few people wear straw hats. Is there some barrier preventing people from wearing them? Or is it just that as individuals choosing their fashion accessories, few make the decision that straw hats are something they'd like to wear? Perhaps this trend against straw hats is not evidence of a barrier, just an agregate of individuals making individual choices?

This is why I dismiss female enrollment in programs as evidence of some barrier. It isn't. It has no bearing on our hypothetical well-to-do white chick as she's deciding what she wants to do after highschool. I've heard that male English students are in the minority... is there some barrier keeping men out of university English programs? Should we be concerned about this under-representation? I've heard no calls of alarm over it... Maybe it is presumed that men could choose English if they wished to, but choose not to.

If my experience is any indication, universities are actually pretty aggressive in trying to encourage female students to enroll in science and engineering. A guidance counsellor suggested I'd do well in engineering-- I'll leave it to you to decide whether she was refering to my aptitude, or just my slovenly social skills. Your local university probably has bright, happy, confident female engineering students touring highschools right now, talking to girls about engineering as a career choice. Private companies sponsor scholarships given exclusively to women in science and technology programs. I've talked to a number of female engineering students and their experiences have been uniformly positive, they describe their treatment from their professors and classmates with enthusiasm.

If there's a barrier keeping our hypothetical rich white chick out of science or technology, I strongly suspect that it's a barrier she's imposed on herself, or allowed to be imposed on her- namely that "science is, like, totally not kewl." I don't have much sympathy for somebody who lets that kind of thinking run their life. I don't know why I should be any more concerned for her than I should be for somebody who decides "cigarettes are, like, totally kewl."

Who is harmed by the perpetuation of these things?

Women. And men. And society.

I can tell that you're itching to elaborate on that, so fire away.

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?"

I gather that you don't feel the obvious response, "because they enjoy it," is satisfactory. I suspect I'm going to hear something along the lines that she doesn't actually enjoy it, she's been tricked into enjoying it. Some kind of value judgment-- that such-and-such magazines are inherently bad for women, so they wouldn't buy it unless they'd been brainwashed or something-- is at work in this line of thinking.

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

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.

Perhaps. Which, to me, is an indictment of society.

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?

I don't agree with the idea that not letting women "face the consequenses of their decisions" (which in this case means getting the shit beat out of them) is treating them like children. If the choice is between staying and getting beaten, or leaving and starving, maybe we need to offer better choices.

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.

Half of Canadian women (51%) have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16.

Of all victims of crimes against the person in 2000, females made up the vast majority of victims of sexual assaults (86%), criminal harassment (78%) and kidnapping/hostage-taking or abduction (67%).

Of all female victims of violent crimes in 2000*, 47% were victims of common assault, 9% of sexual assault, 9% of assault with a weapon causing bodily arm, 7% of robbery and 6% of criminal harassment.

Women are much more likely to be victimized by someone they know than by a stranger. In 2000*, 77% of all female victims were victimized by someone they know (37% by a close friend or an acquaintance, 29% by a current or past partner, 11% by other family members - including parents) while 19% were victimized by a stranger.

In 2000*, 27,154 sexual offences were reported in Canada, including 24,049 sexual assaults and 3,105 other types of sexual offence (such as sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, sodomy and bestiality). Women made up the vast majority of victims of sexual assault (86%) and other types of sexual offences (78%).

Of the almost 34,000 victims of spousal violence reported* in 2000, women accounted for the majority of victims (85%), a total of 28,633 victims.

According to the 1999 General Social Survey, only 37% of cases of spousal violence involving female victims were reported to the police in the five years preceding the survey.

Female victims of spousal violence tend to experience more severe consequences than male victims. Of all victims of spousal violence in the five years prior to the 1999 General Social Survey, female victims aged 15 years and over were almost seven times more likely to be sexually assaulted than male victims (20% versus 3%), five times more likely to report being choked (20% versus 4%), more than twice as likely to report being beaten (25% versus 10%), and almost twice as likely to report being threatened with a gun or a knife or had one used against them (13% versus 7%). Female victims were also pushed, grabbed or shoved almost twice more than male victims (81% versus 43%).

Female victims are more likely than their male counterparts to suffer some kind of physical injury as a result of spousal violence. Of all the victims of spousal violence in the five years prior to the 1999 General Social Survey, female victims aged 15 years and over were three times more likely than male victims to report experiencing a physical injury (40% versus 13%), and five times more likely to require medical attention as a result of a violent incident (15% versus 3%).

In many cases of spousal violence reported in the five years prior to the 1999 General Social Survey, the violence or the threat of violence was so severe that almost four female victims in ten (38%) feared for their lives, while the rate for male victims was less than one in ten (7%).

Women are more likely than men to be victims of multiple incidents of spousal violence. Sixty-five per cent (65%) of all female victims who reported being assaulted by a current or previous partner were victimized on more than one occasion (compared with 54% of male victims) and 26% reported being victimized more than 10 times (compared with 13% of male victims).

In 2001, the number of spousal homicide in Canada rose, accounting for one out of every five solved homicides. In 2001, 86 persons were killed by a current or an ex-spouse, up by 18 victims from 2000. The rise over the past year can largely be attributed to the increase in homicide committed by legally married husbands.

Four of five victims of spousal homicide were female (69 women compared to 17 men - including one male victim in same sex relation):

52 women were killed by a current male spouse (legal or common law).

17 women were killed by a separated or divorced male spouse.

In addition to those killed by a spouse, 6 females were killed by a current or an ex-boyfriend (and 6 male victims were killed by a current or ex-girlfriend). 9

-Source: Stats Can

I can see your agenda. Now let's see you numbers.

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?

I chose this bit to cooment on as it shares the same flaws as other parts of your post: its a mile wide an an inch deep. The unspoken assumption here seems to be that because females respond to socially sanctioned objectification, then objectification is A-OK. Objectification and media-perpetuated body expectations play a major role in many social ills, from abuse to eating disorders, to premarital sex, drug and alcohol abuse. The point here is that you are accepting these things at face value without considering the broader consequenses.

If there's a barrier keeping our hypothetical rich white chick out of science or technology, I strongly suspect that it's a barrier she's imposed on herself, or allowed to be imposed on her- namely that "science is, like, totally not kewl." I don't have much sympathy for somebody who lets that kind of thinking run their life. I don't know why I should be any more concerned for her than I should be for somebody who decides "cigarettes are, like, totally kewl."

*sigh* Like Argus, you don't think past the individual's choices at the social factors that influence them. It's easy to say "Gee, maybe girls just don't like science/politics/whatever." But you have to ask why that is.

I gather that you don't feel the obvious response, "because they enjoy it," is satisfactory. I suspect I'm going to hear something along the lines that she doesn't actually enjoy it, she's been tricked into enjoying it. Some kind of value judgment-- that such-and-such magazines are inherently bad for women, so they wouldn't buy it unless they'd been brainwashed or something-- is at work in this line of thinking.

It's not about being "tricked" but simple socialization. I'm not saying women don't enjoy reading Cosmo or its ilk. in fact I know more than a few women who are quite content living their lives as pale copies of Carrie Bradshaw. That's fine for them. I just think we do women in particular and society as a whole a disservice by not questioning existing attitudes towards women.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If the choice is between staying and getting beaten, or leaving and starving, maybe we need to offer better choices.

Two things:

First, yes, society should offer better choices, but that part of it is not a gender issue.

Second, Canadian society does, usually, offer better choices than starvation.

[Black Dog]

First, yes, society should offer better choices, but that part of it is not a gender issue.

In the context of this subject it is.

Second, Canadian society does, usually, offer better choices than starvation.

Maybe. But there's a fair number of Canadians who think funding for social services (such as, say, women's shelters) are nothing more than-how did one poster describe them? Oh yes: a "waste." I don't think simply saying "oh well, we're doing okay" (when in fact, we aren't) is really a good strategy.

[Argus]

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.

Half of Canadian women (51%) have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16.

Sorry. But these are quotes I can't research. I googled the survey indicated and it would cost me $26 to actually obtain that survey in order to decide how biased and prejudiced it was or was not. A vague memory of the news and columnist opinions of the time is that this study was described as extremely biased for a variety of reasons.

The problem with statistical studies is that if you don't know the criteria used to judge results, or the questions asked, you have no idea of whether they're at all realistic.

And in truth, nothing you've quoted has much relevence to whatever case you're trying to make. I'm not talking about spousal violence or sexual assault. I wouldn't doubt that women make up the majority of reported cases of sexual assault, for example. But what percentage of violent crimes are commited against women as opposed to men? You don't appear to be dealing with that. What you are responding to above, after all, is my response that men are subject to violence even more often than women. I think your original outraged quote was that over half of Canadian women will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. My response was "Yes, and most men too." So what was your point again? You really want me to find statistics to show that more than half of men will experience some kind of physical violence in their lives? Do you know any men who haven't experienced physical violence in their lives?

I can see your agenda. Now let's see you numbers.

I don't have an agenda. Your paranoia and inate suspicion of anyone with a different opinion is deluding you. And since you've presented no evidence I don't feel the need to research some to present back.

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?

I chose this bit to cooment on as it shares the same flaws as other parts of your post: its a mile wide an an inch deep. The unspoken assumption here seems to be that because females respond to socially sanctioned objectification, then objectification is A-OK.

I dunno. There are a couple of ways of approaching this sort of thing. The first is to ask who you are to say that society is wrong, the women are wrong to sometimes enjoying being sexualized and objectified and men are wrong to do it? Who are you to tell women that something is wrong with them if they enjoy being looked at and lusted after.

The second way is that within the context of the discussion the above statement was merely a reply to your apparent indignation that I pointed out women sometimes like being objectified. Are you denying the veracity of my statement, or merely expressing your outrage that I dared to say it?

Objectification and media-perpetuated body expectations play a major role in many social ills, from abuse to eating disorders, to premarital sex, drug and alcohol abuse. The point here is that you are accepting these things at face value without considering the broader consequenses.

Yes, yes, and some people become alcoholics, because they can't handle their booze, and some people become addicted to gambling, because they can't handle it, and some people become addicted to pornography, or let video games or movies turn them into crazed killers, etc. etc. All kinds of aspects of society can and are taken in overdose volumes by various problematical personalities. So what's your point?

If there's a barrier keeping our hypothetical rich white chick out of science or technology, I strongly suspect that it's a barrier she's imposed on herself, or allowed to be imposed on her- namely that "science is, like, totally not kewl." I don't have much sympathy for somebody who lets that kind of thinking run their life. I don't know why I should be any more concerned for her than I should be for somebody who decides "cigarettes are, like, totally kewl."

*sigh* Like Argus, you don't think past the individual's choices at the social factors that influence them. It's easy to say "Gee, maybe girls just don't like science/politics/whatever." But you have to ask why that is.

Why? You're presuming it's wrong? Why? Why do you feel it would be in society's interests for women to share exactly the same desires and values and ambitions and preferences in all areas as men? And why aren't you concerned that there aren't enough men in nursing or teaching or other professions? No one ever seems to care when men are underrepresented, only women.

[I Miss Trudeau]

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.

The problem is that some people are not willing to try to bridge the gap between individual experiences by trying to the best of their ability to adopt the other experience. They've closed themselves off from seeing any "evidence" of inequality by demanding evidence of it before they bother looking for evidence.

How do you expect that to work?

[August1991]

Here is data from the Attorney-General of California about the gender (and race) of murder victims between 1994-2003. There is no question about mis-reporting murder data.

The victim is a man in about 80% of cases and a woman in about 20% of cases.

I doubt the proportion would be radically different in Canada.

This is the Attorney General of California general web site.

----

Incidentally, I believe the data also shows that a person in Canada has more chance of being a victim of murder than a white person in California. According to Statistics Canada, there were 548 murders in Canada in 2003. In California (similar population), 444 white people were victims of murder.

[Guest eureka]

About 2% of women admitted to hospital in the United States are there because of physical spousal abuse. The FBI has estimated that the true number is closer to 50%.

That can be found byr searching under abused women. I don't remember the site, but it is there.

[kimmy]

If there's a barrier keeping our hypothetical rich white chick out of science or technology, I strongly suspect that it's a barrier she's imposed on herself, or allowed to be imposed on her- namely that "science is, like, totally not kewl." I don't have much sympathy for somebody who lets that kind of thinking run their life. I don't know why I should be any more concerned for her than I should be for somebody who decides "cigarettes are, like, totally kewl."

*sigh* Like Argus, you don't think past the individual's choices at the social factors that influence them. It's easy to say "Gee, maybe girls just don't like science/politics/whatever." But you have to ask why that is.

I gather that you don't feel the obvious response, "because they enjoy it," is satisfactory. I suspect I'm going to hear something along the lines that she doesn't actually enjoy it, she's been tricked into enjoying it. Some kind of value judgment-- that such-and-such magazines are inherently bad for women, so they wouldn't buy it unless they'd been brainwashed or something-- is at work in this line of thinking.

It's not about being "tricked" but simple socialization. I'm not saying women don't enjoy reading Cosmo or its ilk. in fact I know more than a few women who are quite content living their lives as pale copies of Carrie Bradshaw. That's fine for them. I just think we do women in particular and society as a whole a disservice by not questioning existing attitudes towards women.

I guess what we have here is a fundamental difference of philosophy. I just feel that people have more ability to control their lives than you apparently do. Before I'm accused of being a "rugged individualist" or something equally sarcastic, I'm very aware that for a lot of factors-- certainly poverty, certainly mental or physical disabilities, quite possibly race-- that limit peoples' ability to control their own destiny. I just dispute that our hypothetical rich white (and able-bodied) chick falls into that group. Really, only if she lets herself.

For most of us, there's a wake-up call in life, a moment when we realize that we're *not* Carrie Bradshaw. For a great many of us, that comes during our first job, as a ... well, I did McDonald's and Subway. From the moment you realize that (name your fantasy role model) probably never worked at a Subway, you start figuring out what you're going to do instead.

I did not emerge ex machina as a fully formed self-assured Rugged Individualist. I spent most of my life following the herd... my parents pushed me into sports because the frankly didn't think I was very bright... I probably didn't give them much reason to think otherwise... I spent more mental energy in highschool on tormenting the Dungeons and Dragons club and trying to pick the right clothes than on academics. I even got in trouble with the police once because I did something stupid trying to be cool. I do understand the influences you're talking about, BD, because if there's anybody who could have fallen victim to this sort of thinking, it would probably have been me.

But I believe that we have the ability to make our own experiences. Between a couple of teachers and counsellors, my friends, the right boyfriends, the wrong boyfriends, a few books and magazines, maybe even TV or the internet, I've somehow learned a lot about myself, come to the (possibly erroneous) conclusion that I'm a pretty gifted person with a lot of choices. I don't think I'm in any way unique. I have sometimes regretted that nobody recognized me for the special snowflake I am earlier in life; I've sometimes wondered that perhaps maybe if I'd been male, or if I'd been brunette instead of blonde, maybe somebody would have recognized how bright I am much sooner; maybe I could have been pointed in the right direction and be doing something really awesome by now. Maybe I could have been working on a PhD by now, or have a talk-show on CBC Newsworld, or something, who knows, but (and here's the thing) I think probably almost everybody has those same thoughts; I hardly think it's exclusive to women. Think how much financial pressure there is on men to be providers; I wonder how many men missed their true calling because they were too busy working, or how many wished they could have tried something different but never got the chance because they had to keep providing.

At any rate, my initial comment was that relative to other groups, women don't have much to complain about. And now we're discussing socialization... which whether or not you believe is a real or serious issue, I'd suggest it's equally applicable to any group in society.

Of the issues raised in this thread, I certainly agree that domestic violence and sexual violence are serious and more women's issues than anything. As for non-sexual violence, I think August mentioned earlier that most murder victims are men. I'd also suggest that the majority of victims of non-sexual violence are men... I don't have statistics handy, but most of the men I know have been either in a physical confrontation or threatened with physical violence in some situation. In my recollection, when I hear of stabbings or beatings at nightclubs and so on, it's usually male victims. And I believe statistics indicate that it's disproportionately non-whites who are involved in violence as well.

-kimmy

{ex Sandwich Artist.}

{{my sincere apologies to anybody who was in the Dungeons and Dragons club...}}

[The Terrible Sweal]

{{my sincere apologies to anybody who was in the Dungeons and Dragons club...}}

Hey, you are female, and you noticed them. What more could they want?

[Black Dog]

The first is to ask who you are to say that society is wrong, the women are wrong to sometimes enjoying being sexualized and objectified and men are wrong to do it? Who are you to tell women that something is wrong with them if they enjoy being looked at and lusted after.

*sigh* Would you give your daughter a copy of Maxim (or worse: Cosmo) to show her what girls are suppossed to be like? If not, why not?

The problem isn't with women getting "looked at". It's objectification, which means women aren't desired for their individual traits, but for how closely they resemble the socially crafted (heterocentric, male-driven( ideal. Their personality, their indiviudality is irrelevant.

The second way is that within the context of the discussion the above statement was merely a reply to your apparent indignation that I pointed out women sometimes like being objectified. Are you denying the veracity of my statement, or merely expressing your outrage that I dared to say it?

I'm outraged by the suggestion that a state of affairs that is responsible for pre-teen girls wearing thongs and low cut jeans and 8 year olds on diets is a healthy one for society and for the individual's psyche, or at least an acceptable one.

Why? You're presuming it's wrong? Why? Why do you feel it would be in society's interests for women to share exactly the same desires and values and ambitions and preferences in all areas as men?

Why wouldn't it be? Why do we have a society that tells girls they can be whatever they want (provided its in one of teh areas that "girls" excel at)?

And why aren't you concerned that there aren't enough men in nursing or teaching or other professions? No one ever seems to care when men are underrepresented, only women

Interestingly enough, I'm sure a lot of men don't enter those professions because of the perception that they are "women's work". So it cuts both ways.

[Argus]

quote=Black Dog,May 6 2005, 09:09 AM]

The first is to ask who you are to say that society is wrong, the women are wrong to sometimes enjoying being sexualized and objectified and men are wrong to do it? Who are you to tell women that something is wrong with them if they enjoy being looked at and lusted after.

*sigh* Would you give your daughter a copy of Maxim (or worse: Cosmo) to show her what girls are suppossed to be like? If not, why not?

But neither Cosmo nor Maxim are supposed to be guides to teenage girls to tell them what they are supposed to be like. Parents are supposed to take care of that. And while I grant you the sexualization of females, incl very young girls is pervasive in society the only real damage comes when parents and other authority figures like teachers and coaches fail to provide the proper framework and value system, not to mention proper knowledge about sexuality and sex.

I might also add that boys also face societal expectations regarding looks, strength, size, athletic ability., etc. As has been remarked earlier - if they fail to measure up, like the dungeons and dragons crowd, girls spurn them. So yes, we have problems in society where jocks who are jerks are looked up to, as well as airhead barbie dolls, while more intelligent, sensitive boys and girls are looked down on for not measuring up in the area of physical perfection. But that's not so much a gender issue as a problem of societal values and "lookism', if you will.

The problem isn't with women getting "looked at". It's objectification, which means women aren't desired for their individual traits, but for how closely they resemble the socially crafted (heterocentric, male-driven( ideal. Their personality, their indiviudality is irrelevant.

The only time, in my experience, where only female looks count is when you don't know the female in question and have no chance of ever knowing her. I don't know anyone who ignores the personality and intelligence and spirit of females we actually know and interact with. I am as much a subject to this culture's value judgements about female looks as anyone else. But if I was going to list the women of my immediate acquaintance by looks, and then list them by which ones I'd like to spend more time with, the lists would definitely not match up.

And, to reiterate, men are subject to the same societal judgement based on their musculature and looks.

The second way is that within the context of the discussion the above statement was merely a reply to your apparent indignation that I pointed out women sometimes like being objectified. Are you denying the veracity of my statement, or merely expressing your outrage that I dared to say it?

I'm outraged by the suggestion that a state of affairs that is responsible for pre-teen girls wearing thongs and low cut jeans and 8 year olds on diets is a healthy one for society and for the individual's psyche, or at least an acceptable one.

Again, that's a matter of parents and authority figures making it a point to communicate with young girls and make sure they know their entire value as females is not based on their breast size or how thin they are. As for thongs and low-cut jeans - I don't have a problem with young people flaunting their looks, as long as they have a healthy self image in other areas and a strong awareness of sexuality and sex education.

Pre-teen girls are actually another subject entirely. I don't know when parents and society started dressing young girls the same as their older sisters. It wasn't that way in my youth. Twelve and thirteen year olds dressed like girls, and the kind of clothes they wore was very, very different from what you'd see on a seventeen year old. Nowadays they all tend to dress the same. Which means parents have a much more difficult time in communicating to their very young daughters (and sons) about what values they hold important and how to recognize and deal with sexualization. A little discipline wouldn't help either. You don't have to buy your ten year old a thong just because she's whining.

Why? You're presuming it's wrong? Why? Why do you feel it would be in society's interests for women to share exactly the same desires and values and ambitions and preferences in all areas as men?

Why wouldn't it be? Why do we have a society that tells girls they can be whatever they want (provided its in one of teh areas that "girls" excel at)?

Who says girls are being turned away from those areas? I think society is doing a lot to encourage girls to go into non-traditional areas. But there will always be differences in preferences between boys and girls, men and women. It's that whole men are from mars, women are from venus thing. Women have different priorities in a lot of areas than men do. And I really don't see how you could change that or why you would try.

[RB]

And why aren't you concerned that there aren't enough men in nursing or teaching or other professions? No one ever seems to care when men are underrepresented, only women

Well no one is worried about men being under-represented as nurses because they are over-represented as doctors and did I mention a salary difference so I am sure no prejudices exist as we look forward for conservatism to prevail.

I have an ancient scorn when I hear stories of women who are unable to share similar experiences of becoming doctors as their male collegues. These experiences differ in the medical profession, law, politics, engineer, astronomy.

The truth about women socialization into the professions is one sex emerge into an expected hierarchy.

Nothing has change from the do's and don'ts of long ago

Don'ts for nurses

1) Never speak to the doctor unless it’s about the patient

Do's for nurses

1) Do work quickly and quietly

2) If the doctor speaks to you, stand still

You do see a hierarchy that stifles questioning or dissent through fear - the need to show deference to superiors, to pretend confidence, to sacrifice family in order to succeed in medicine.

Generations later doctors "males" do not need to change. It is women who have to sacrifice to fit into this man's world. Put a black woman seeking to become a doctor is unlikely and hardly represented to bring about a change.

For teaching women caregiving roles are extended into the classroom. When the government decides to cut afterschool/lunch programs teachers shoulders the additional responsiblity of taking care of children. Guess what, they are compete at home with these activities, so no problem, an extension of their natural abilities.

Let me theorize here why would a man want to be in a teaching profession besides low wages and being overworked.

[kimmy]

You have to sacrifice family to succeed in a great many professions. It was never considered that big a deal when it was men who were making the sacrifice. There were many times that I didn't see dad for days at a time because some project was behind schedule or there was some project crisis that needed to be resolved quickly. There were other times when I didn't see him for months because he'd taken a contract in some location and it wasn't appropriate to move the whole family. Perhaps the balance between work and family is not a women's issue, but a society issue.

There is a hierarchy at the hospital for a reason.

First of all, the doctor has had far more training than the nurse.

Secondly, and more importantly, the doctor has been tasked with primary responsibility for the patient's stay. The doctor makes decisions; the doctor bears the blame if things don't work out properly.

I audited a medical course last term at the university. Of the students in the class, fully half were female. While there were no black students in the course, I did notice that of the female students, a disproportionate amount were Asian. By disproportionate, I do not mean "too many Asians". I mean that in a typical day in Edmonton, I would guess that perhaps 1 in 4 people I meet are Asian; in this class, fully half of the female students were Asian. I'd suggest that either minority women are doing quite well, or white women are doing rather poorly.

I notice that your writings often make mention of black people, RB, but almost never mention Asians, who make up a much larger portion of Canada's populace than black people. It makes me wonder if you're using American sources for your data.

-k

[RB]

Kimmy

Would you agreed then that women do not belong in mainstream thoughts?

In the lawyers’s circle when a woman decides to take off to have a baby – they are heading on the mommy track. Earlier somewhere I did write how some women have to live as men in order to succeed in a man’s world.

Here is a stats that shows a linkage to children in female dominated professions such as education and nursing compared to women with children in male dominated professions. It shows women in male dominated professions are less likely to have children than the women in traditional female professions.

Education

No kids 39%

Kids 61%

Nursing

No Kids 38%

Kids 62%

Business

No Kids 52%

Kids 47%

Engineering

No Kids 48%

Kids 52%

What I mean is the point about wanting equality is not about women living as men but forcing changes so that men and women could participate equally in work and family lives. I mean I understood why my marriage failed – (gasp) I thought that the female was supposed to assist with the dishes .

I think you misunderstood my point about doctors and nurses. Agreed, there is a hierarchical relationship as in every business. My point was that these males doctors tend to think in terms of power structure, dominance and their identify social norm are part of their “norm”. Groups such as women, or blacks are marginalise and get interwoven into desperate situation and experience powerlessness hence the nurses submissive state.

Look, different groups of people are socialised differently even when they are heading to become a doctor. A woman doctor experience is different from a male doctor experience. For women medicine does not become a part of her but the other way around.

Women in medicine are more or less “men” during their medical training. Women experience powerlessness in male professions. As if I didn't mentioned this, males operate from a powerful standpoint. They have social status, economic and advantageous position over women, the nurses are demur and are fearful. Plus there is a disproportional representation of doctors from prestige positions who can have their say.

I notice that your writings often make mention of black people, RB, but almost never mention Asians, who make up a much larger portion of Canada's populace than black people. It makes me wonder if you're using American sources for your data.

I guess because I am looking for economic wealth for the females and the way to acheive wealth is though hard work. Trading with the US is a big part of Canada is a probable explanation. We don't have enough data about blacks or other groups in Canada and as usual the US stats becomes handy plus I was partially educated in the US.

Your point is taken though, a fair criticism. In my linear thinking its either "white" or "black".