Why so much hatred for feminism?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

I'd wager that the impact is going to vary from field to field. A person on hourly pay is going to take a big hit missing 1/3 of a year. Somebody on salary probably has varying stipulations depending on the employer.

I do know that my current wife, as a massage therapist, is still recovering and our son is over a year old. She missed a few months of work, lost clients to other therapists, and is lower on the "on call" list as a result. It takes a lot of time to work your way back from that. My ex wife, when we had our daughter, was in the military and neither her pay nor position changed.



But there is more to that to consider. A couple, hypothetically with all things being equal, decides to have a child. OK, now somebody needs to take some time off right? Well the mother is going to lose three months as it is because she's the one with the stitches in her vagina, taking pain medication at home, who can't walk and her doctor isn't recommending her return to work anyway. The father doesn't miss a day unless he takes vacation. Logically, the stay at home parent, at least for those months, is the mother. Six months from then though? Do people fall into a pattern then? Does the mother have to start over in her career? Does she even still have a job? Who is closer to a promotion and a pay raise? Maybe a part time job for less but with flexible hours makes more sense?

Then two years later they decide to have another one. Repeat the process.

I don't have any evidence of anything though. Just observations from conversations and thoughts I have had going through some of this twice.

my experience as well and many women I know. Additionally C sections and breast feeding play into it. And so does maternity leave. Men should be able to get paternity leave as well for a month or two. But society can't always afford to do these kinds of things because we live in capitalism.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Better data and a clear understanding of the controls. For example, if someone brings up that men work more hours than women a week, about four if I remember correctly, what control is employed? If it's simply the hours in wage difference, that control is inadequate. A person who works four hours a week more doesn't just have four hours a week more money, but 200 or so more hours of experience per year. How much is that experience worth? How is that controlled for? What of the assumption that an hour is worth an hour? After a certain number of hours, the worth of each additional hour goes up. How much? These questions require value judgements some of which can be 'hard' (backed up by clear methodology and data) and others cannot. How much is working during the day worth over working over nights? In some cases we can say, 'well that job gets payed 40 cents more an hour for over nights' but the jobs themselves aren't always the same. How much are safe environments worth, and how much should they be worth? Are the pay levels in some fields messed up in ways unrelated to gender that confound the data?

It's a messy estimate that I'm not qualified to sort out with conflicting claims by experts but one consistent theme is a lament by researches for better data. I discount it because I can't use it to my satisfaction in a value judgement.

Valid points. The problem is that when you such a large number of variables, as a practical matter you will never have perfect data and you have to settle for what we have. I think your expectations are unrealistic.

The raw wage gap exists. That is uncontested. Dozens of studies on both sides and even the researchers with agendas who cheat (CONSAD) can't close it. Barring some new study, I think it is safe to assume something weird is going on.

In a way, it reminds me of global warming denialism. Even though all the data points one way, critics cry for more data, more variables. At some point enough is enough.

Quote:

That the differences and problems of gender inequality aren't as a significant factor for most people as other factors, such as the rich-poor divide. This does NOT detract from cases where gender inequality has negatively impacted individuals and the 'women/men have it worse than men/women' isn't nearly as productive as working on specific inequalities without regard to who generally has it worse.

That sounds all well and good but I've pointed out numerous specific problems in this thread that happen to deal with sexism against women and the problem is either denied, justified, minimized or ignored. If someone brings up a male inequality everyone (myself included) eagerly accept its existence as a given, no muss, no fuss.

This thread is now many pages long now. I don't recall single concrete example of ongoing sexism against women that hasn't come up against a fight. On the other hand, male inequalities slide right on by without a evidence.

People claim they see inequality on both sides. We've only accepted one.

Quote:

Yes. There are more effects from that happening for everyone than just the men getting more benefits.

Guess that depends on what effects and benefits you are talking about. Anything specific?

Quote:

And then those vacant jobs will have to adapt to the workforce's new priorities, which would make those jobs better for men and more attractive for women. More women will then be inclined to compete for those jobs. It would, hopefully, change the reasons why women currently aren't attracted to those jobs, and change other fields to be more man attractive. A high tied raises all boats.

I don't think that would fix much. I suspect the vacant jobs would just be filled with more men.

Imagine a dangerous job that is almost exclusively male and doesn't favor the male body type (e.g. it doesn't require upper body strength). What aspects of those jobs attracted so many men in the first place? High pay? Good hours? Low skill? Those qualities are good for both genders but men still outnumber women. Why would adjusting a particular attractor suddenly make women reach for their resumes when they didn't before? Maybe the it's the idea that dangerous work is "man's work".

[truethat]

Your OP and the title of the thread is why people hate feminists. The debates in this thread are then off topic. So my answers have been aimed at answering the question you asked. But if you're not really asking that question. Then you should make it more clear.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by truethat

You've never demonstrated the "harm."

I didn't have to. You admitted it:

Quote:

I see for example that most men in society are automatically expected to get a job, pay the bills pay for everything. Divorced men are expected to pay maintenance on wives that don't work. Men are expected to pay maintenance on unwanted children because women don't want to have an abortion. There's a total economic set up in society that creates the hegemony that a man's job is to work.

So because they are expected to work, they often have more money. Then this is turned against them since we live in a capitalistic society. But many men I know have no time for personal development and interests and desires because they are working two jobs trying to pay for everything.

I actually feel a bit sorry for the pressures put on men, mostly because they are completely ignored in society.

You think men have no time for personal development, are forced to pay for others and are ignored because of the societal hegemony and AND feel sorry for them but it's somehow not harm.

Quote:

*snip to maintain focus on a single issue*

Quote:

Also King Merv your arguments are classic feminist speak usually by women who don't have any children.

"Don't make generalizations, especially about a group you are not part of. Childless feminists do that."

Think about that for a sec...

Quote:

So perfect example you just assume that there's a problem with women staying home. You don't honor women as intelligent autonomous empowered women who choose to stay home because they want to and enjoy it tremendously. No somehow there's a problem because they are not "furthering their career" which you have deemed more important.

*Insert message #2394 expressing sincere joy and respect for your decision.*

I told you last time would be the last time I clarify my feelings on this. I've gushed over you enough. It's getting embarrassing.

Quote:

Thank you for your permission as long as we all do the prerequisite self education that you require. How about stop telling other people what's going to make them happy.

I'm genuinely frustrated with you at this point. Maybe someone else can explain to me where the communication breakdown is. Whether it is my fault, yours, or no one's, we clearly don't understand each other.

You said I wanted people to make a particular choice. I said that was wrong and I just wanted people to be aware of their unstated assumptions, step aside, and THEN let people choose. No where did I say self education was "required". People are free to ignore me. People can hear me and disagree. You then sarcastically call this "giving permission". I honestly think you want to read between the lines but there is nothing there. You respond with pulling out your pen.

I say education, you hear re-education fortress of doom.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Valid points. The problem is that when you such a large number of variables, as a practical matter you will never have perfect data and you have to settle for what we have. I think your expectations are unrealistic.

But many of the researchers are also asking for better data and more specific studies. My expectation is not so out there.

Quote:

The raw wage gap exists. That is uncontested. Dozens of studies on both sides and even the researchers with agendas who cheat (CONSAD) can't close it. Barring some new study, I think it is safe to assume something weird is going on.

What is weird and how to address it is one subject of a lot of discussion. There is a phenomena of some sort. What causes it and how to address it is tricky. Which brings us to...

Quote:

In a way, it reminds me of global warming denialism. Even though all the data points one way, critics cry for more data, more variables. At some point enough is enough.

I understand how heated the thread has become, but do you think this comparison is honestly all that helpful? I could compare the above to ghost/ufo advocates. There is a phenomena, it must be a ghost/alien. There is a wage gap, it must be (white) men's fault/sexism/addressable by this or that feminists theory. Of course that breaks down in the same way your above example does. We can test global warming factors directly. The existence of a phenomena can't be used as evidence that the phenomena is caused by something specific without going into the specific details. Which I why I'd rather focus on the specific details.

Quote:

That sounds all well and good but I've pointed out numerous specific problems in this thread that happen to deal with sexism against women and the problem is either denied, justified, minimized or ignored. If someone brings up a male inequality everyone (myself included) eagerly accept its existence as a given, no muss, no fuss.

This thread is now many pages long now. I don't recall single concrete example of ongoing sexism against women that hasn't come up against a fight. On the other hand, male inequalities slide right on by without a evidence.

People claim they see inequality on both sides. We've only accepted one.

How does that address what I've said? Besides that, much of the fight seems to be the standard 'privileged' arguments that I've been just skimming. It's well and good that we all here accept the inequalities against men but for one, that's not even true, and two, gender inequalities are already the purvue of feminism.

There aren't sides of gender inequality. *

Quote:

Guess that depends on what effects and benefits you are talking about. Anything specific?

Besides the stuff I listed before? "Men should not feel compelled socially or economically to work more dangerous jobs, worse hours, with fewer health benefits, for more hours per week without taking as much vacation or time off for child care." Women also report better job satisfaction.

Quote:

I don't think that would fix much. I suspect the vacant jobs would just be filled with more men.

Why?

Quote:

Imagine a dangerous job that is almost exclusively male and doesn't favor the male body type (e.g. it doesn't require upper body strength). What aspects of those jobs attracted so many men in the first place? High pay? Good hours? Low skill? Those qualities are good for both genders but men still outnumber women. Why would adjusting a particular attractor suddenly make women reach for their resumes when they didn't before? Maybe the it's the idea that dangerous work is "man's work".

The idea that dangerous work is 'man's work' is wrong and should be argued against. But yes, the things you listed do attract both men and women, but women those attracting factors don't overcome the negative factors of dangerous, inconvenient hours, less vacation, etc. Make the jobs less dangerous, and whatnot, then women would stay away less. Of course this would also make the job pay less. Some may think this means women would still be making less than men for the same work, except then the job would pay less for men as well, while the non-monetary benefits would increase likewise for both sexes in that given industry.


*EDIT: Well, there are actually sides in gender inequality, but those sides aren't or shouldn't be men vs women.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by truethat

my experience as well and many women I know. Additionally C sections and breast feeding play into it. And so does maternity leave. Men should be able to get paternity leave as well for a month or two. But society can't always afford to do these kinds of things because we live in capitalism.

I send you statistics and you admit to intentionally ignoring them.

He tries to explain a complicated mathematical problem without any kind of evidence and you don't object its validity because it fits your personal experience.

So...very...tired.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

I'd wager that the impact is going to vary from field to field. A person on hourly pay is going to take a big hit missing 1/3 of a year. Somebody on salary probably has varying stipulations depending on the employer.

I do know that my current wife, as a massage therapist, is still recovering and our son is over a year old. She missed a few months of work, lost clients to other therapists, and is lower on the "on call" list as a result. It takes a lot of time to work your way back from that. My ex wife, when we had our daughter, was in the military and neither her pay nor position changed.

But there is more to that to consider. A couple, hypothetically with all things being equal, decides to have a child. OK, now somebody needs to take some time off right? Well the mother is going to lose three months as it is because she's the one with the stitches in her vagina, taking pain medication at home, who can't walk and her doctor isn't recommending her return to work anyway. The father doesn't miss a day unless he takes vacation. Logically, the stay at home parent, at least for those months, is the mother. Six months from then though? Do people fall into a pattern then? Does the mother have to start over in her career? Does she even still have a job? Who is closer to a promotion and a pay raise? Maybe a part time job for less but with flexible hours makes more sense?

Then two years later they decide to have another one. Repeat the process.

Thanks for your story.

Quote:

I don't have any evidence of anything though. Just observations from conversations and thoughts I have had going through some of this twice.

Thanks for the honesty. A hypothesis it remains.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I send you statistics and you admit to intentionally ignoring them.

He tries to explain a complicated mathematical problem without any kind of evidence and you don't object its validity because it fits your personal experience.

So...very...tired.

You don't have to read her stuff or respond to her. I've been very tired for some time.

You've tried very hard but you never stood a chance, for you're not talking to someone who listens and is willing to learn.

By all means, keep up the good fight, but you don't have to waste time and energy on all comers.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

But many of the researchers are also asking for better data and more specific studies. My expectation is not so out there.

There is always someone who says "some experts believe" no matter how big the consensus. Who exactly are we talking about here?

Quote:

I understand how heated the thread has become, but do you think this comparison is honestly all that helpful?

No, probably not. My blood pressure has risen recently...not sure why. Sorry, my intention wasn't to dismiss you. I admit it was a morally loaded analogy but I don't think the comparison is totally without merit. 50 studies say X. 2 poorly constructed studies say "not X". Anti-Xers demand "more data" until the helium flash.

Quote:

I could compare the above to ghost/ufo advocates. There is a phenomena, it must be a ghost/alien. There is a wage gap, it must be (white) men's fault/sexism/addressable by this or that feminists theory. Of course that breaks down in the same way your above example does. We can test global warming factors directly. The existence of a phenomena can't be used as evidence that the phenomena is caused by something specific without going into the specific details. Which I why I'd rather focus on the specific details.

Except I think I can be measured, at least indirectly. If a survey says that society views men are better political leaders than women and there is no good evidence to support that belief, we have just measured sexism. More specifically, we have measure sexist gender roles.

Quote:

How does that address what I've said?

It probably didn't. Just wanted to vent. Wanna give me an example of serious sexism against women to make me feel better?

Quote:

Besides the stuff I listed before? "Men should not feel compelled socially or economically to work more dangerous jobs, worse hours, with fewer health benefits, for more hours per week without taking as much vacation or time off for child care." Women also report better job satisfaction.

You said women suffer discrimination in the workplace too and that helping men would indirectly help women. How does this benefit women?

Quote:

The idea that dangerous work is 'man's work' is wrong and should be argued against. But yes, the things you listed do attract both men and women, but women those attracting factors don't overcome the negative factors of dangerous, inconvenient hours, less vacation, etc. Make the jobs less dangerous, and whatnot, then women would stay away less.

Why don't men stay away NOW?

See what I'm getting at? Generic work characterists are gender neutral. Men and women both dislike "less vacation". Why do you assume it keeps women away but men soldier on?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I send you statistics and you admit to intentionally ignoring them.

He tries to explain a complicated mathematical problem without any kind of evidence and you don't object its validity because it fits your personal experience.

So...very...tired.

As I have said before, my issue with making statistics for these sorts of things is that ultimately it boils down to personal choice.

You can't use "statistics" to answer WHY someone does something. Each persons experiences are individual and cannot be explained by statistics. If you are both "TIRED" it's because you are trying to make something "FIT" that doesn't fit.

My personal experiences are why I did something. His personal experiences show you two different women with two different situations and two different choices. What in the world is so difficult and tiring to understand about that?

You can't use "statistics" to talk about people's personal motivations. That's my whole point. Through this entire thread you and others have tried to use statistics to explain personal motivation. Personal motivations are unique to the person making them.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. People are not borgs or robots that are "vulnerable" to societal pressures. If they were, people would all do the same thing.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by truethat

You can't use "statistics" to talk about people's personal motivations.

Sure you can. They are called "surveys".

I'm done with this conversation. Thanks for insights into personal motivations.

On the upside, I can walk away happy knowing you already sorta agree with me even if you won't admit it to yourself:

Originally Posted by truethat

I see for example that most men in society are automatically expected to get a job, pay the bills pay for everything. Divorced men are expected to pay maintenance on wives that don't work. Men are expected to pay maintenance on unwanted children because women don't want to have an abortion. There's a total economic set up in society that creates the hegemony that a man's job is to work.

So because they are expected to work, they often have more money. Then this is turned against them since we live in a capitalistic society. But many men I know have no time for personal development and interests and desires because they are working two jobs trying to pay for everything.

I actually feel a bit sorry for the pressures put on men, mostly because they are completely ignored in society.

The only difference between you and me is that I think both sexes suffer under that hegemony and...crazy me...I want to do something about it.

Good night, good luck.

Cue victimization rant and heartfelt anecdote.

[ConspiRaider]

King? You're full of beans. Hey it's been a day or two since I reviewed this threadster and my conclusion: Beans.

You can't be taken seriously, for one. Credibility problem. As a man, all you've got are stats (which can be whipped up and skewed in a variety of directions) and what women have told you, what you've read about. You see how you cannot be a feminist? A woman, however, can describe herself as such if she chooses (I'd rather she not) but at least we get started on a path of credibility. Next, I want personal anecdotes from her life that can augment her mindset, explain it. You don't ever get to have that, being a man.

In this country - at this time - feminism does draw winces from many many people. Deservedly so. The mantra of feminism today is essentially anti-male, blame men for everything - up to hatred of all men on the planet in an extreme interpretation of feminism. Imagine the monstrosity - a woman struggling with the task of hating more than 3 billion people, all at once, on this planet. Monstrous. Even Hitler couldn't hate 3 billion people (admittedly there weren't that many folks around when he was taking breath, the little bastard).

Anyway, here I am a white male and my income is zero. I have no health care, no house, no property, no pension - I do have a 5 year old car. I've got my wits and that's about all. I'm racking my brain trying to think of ways to have folks give me money for my work output. Zip, so far. Where the hell is this son of a bitching privilege for whitey I keep reading of on this thread? I mailed off my White Boy Application and yet nothing is happening? I want my privileges, and smartly!!!11!1!!!111

I'll just keep smiling and trying and eventually something good should happen. Sure as hell am not going to be a crybaby and start blaming "them" for my current lack of success. Sure was nice when my software distributor was sending those monthly royalty checks. Oh King, did I mention that my software distributor was - a WOMAN???

[truethat]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Sure you can. They are called "surveys".

I'm done with this conversation. Thanks for insights into personal motivations.

On the upside, I can walk away happy knowing you already sorta agree with me even if you won't admit it to yourself:



The only difference between you and me is that I think both sexes suffer under that hegemony and...crazy me...I want to do something about it.

Good night, good luck.

Cue victimization rant and heartfelt anecdote.

GMAFB the old "you agree with me you just won't admit it" line? Wow what's next King, "she said no but her body said yes."

Statistics are generalizations. They aren't motivations. You keep asking WHY and that's the problem. You're trying to make the why match what you think it does. I'm trying to make the why match what I think it does. Neither of us are correct. This is why "Isms" and sociology are pointless.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So, is it confirmation bias because I am using the standard definition of white male privilege?

You haven't been paying attention to how the term "privilege" has been used in feminism and critical race theory.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Don't know what you mean?

I asked because me and Bookitty recently argued about "privlege" in a another feminism thread here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=282
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=304

My strong response was because I have encountered what she posted many times before. Here is an excerpt from her own article hyped as the "very, very best" on privilege that she recommended others read:

Quote:

Most privilege is like this.

A straight cisgendered male American, because of who he is and the culture he lives in, does not and cannot feel the stress, creepiness, and outright threat behind a catcall the way a woman can. His upbringing has given him fur and paws big enough to turn the dials and plopped him down in temperate Ohio. When she says “you don’t have to put up with being leered at,” what she means is, “you don’t ever have to be wary of sexual interest.” That’s male privilege. Not so much that something doesn’t happen to men, but that it will never carry the same weight, even if it does.

So what does this mean? And what are we asking you to do, when we say “check your privilege” or “your privilege is showing”?

Well, quite simply, we want you to understand when you have fur. And, by extension, when that means you should listen. See, the dog’s not an ******* just for turning down the temperature. As far as he knows, that’s fine, right? He genuinely cannot feel the pain it causes, he doesn’t even know about it. No one thinks he’s a bad person for totally accidentally doing harm.

Here’s where he becomes an *******: the minute the gecko says, “look, you’re hurting me,” and he says, “what? No, I’m not. This ‘cold’ stuff doesn’t even exist, I should know, I’ve never felt it. You’re imagining it. It’s not there. It’s fine because of fur, because of paws, because look, you can curl up around this lamp, because sometimes my water dish is too tepid and I just shut up and cope, obviously temperature isn’t this big deal you make it, and you’ve never had to deal with mange anyway, my life is just as hard.”

And then the dog just ignores it. Because he can. That’s the privilege that comes with having fur, with being a dog in Ohio. He doesn’t have to think about it. He doesn’t have to live daily with the cold. He has no idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn. He can keep making the lizard miserable until the day they both die, and he will never suffer for it beyond the mild annoyance of her complaining. And she, meanwhile, gets to try not to freeze to death.

So, quite simply: don’t be that dog. If you’re straight and a queer person says “do not title your book ‘Beautiful **********,’ that’s stupid and offensive,” listen and believe him. If you’re white and a black person says “really, now, we’re all getting a little tired of that What These People Need Is A Honky trope, please write a better movie,” listen and believe her. If you’re male and a woman says “this maquette is a perfect example of why women don’t read comics,” listen and believe her. Maybe you don’t see anything wrong with it, maybe you think it’s oh-so-perfect to your artistic vision, maybe it seems like an oversensitive big deal over nothing to you. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES, YOU HAVE FUR. Nevertheless, just because you personally can’t feel that hurt, doesn’t mean it’s not real. All it means is you have privilege.
https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/

I am genuinely curious on what you think of that article on privilege.

Quote:

Because you make the same mistake as others in this thread. All white males do not benefit, and of course there are women and minorities who do well in this society.

I made no mistake, look again at what I wrote and then at what Bookitty posted as being what privilege was about. You and KingMerv are clueless about how the concept is used in practice. Dissent and critical thinking are attacked as being the result of one's privilege with a power scheme that has predetermined who is right regardless of truth.

It's another version of the logic is just patriarchal oppression meme that feminists needed to cover for their bigotry.

Quote:

Middle class, yes and yes, in that order. Is there a point?

Since you were listing off things as being white MALE privilege that apply far better to you then me what exactly do you want to happen with the privilege concept? It's your rhetorical device, what's the point?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

King? You're full of beans. Hey it's been a day or two since I reviewed this threadster and my conclusion: Beans.

Listen here you sonofa...oh

Uh thanks I guess.

*Stupid generational idioms*

Quote:

As a man, all you've got are stats (which can be whipped up and skewed in a variety of directions), and what women have told you, what you've read about. You see how you cannot be a feminist? A woman, however, can describe herself as such if she chooses (I'd rather she not) but at least we get started on a path of credibility. Next, I want personal anecdotes from her life that can augment her mindset, explain it. You don't ever get to have that, being a man.

My credibility is gender dependent? In a thread about feminism, I feel the urge to say something clever.

Don't suppose you'd want to TALK about the stats instead of handwaving and mumbling at them?

Quote:

In this country - at this time - feminism does draw winces from many many people. Deservedly so. The mantra of feminism today is essentially anti-male, blame men for everything - up to hatred of all men on the planet in an extreme interpretation of feminism. Imagine the monstrosity - a woman struggling with the task of hating more than 3 billion people, all at once, on this planet. Monstrous. Even Hitler couldn't hate 3 billion people (admittedly there weren't that many folks around when he was taking breath, the little bastard).

Yes, yes. It seems there is no end to the number of people in this thread who want to remind me of this utterly FASCINATING bit of historical lore. I get it. I got it literally YEARS ago. The well is overflowing with poison, guilt has been sufficiently associated and the horse has been killed more times than Rasputin.

BTW, I'm an atheist too. Did you know Stalin was an atheist and he killed millions of people?

Quote:

Anyway, here I am a white male and my income is zero. I have no health care, no house, no property, no pension - I do have a 5 year old car. I've got my wits and that's about all. I'm racking my brain trying to think of ways to have folks give me money for my work output. Zip, so far. Where the hell is this son of a bitching privilege for whitey I keep reading of on this thread? I mailed off my White Boy Application and yet nothing is happening? I want my privileges, and smartly!!!11!1!!!111

I'll just keep smiling and trying and eventually something good should happen. Sure as hell am not going to be a crybaby and start blaming "them" for my current lack of success. Sure was nice when my software distributor was sending those monthly royalty checks. Oh King, did I mention that my software distributor was - a WOMAN???

For the 4th (5th? 6th?) time in this thread...overlapping bell curves.

If it seems like I'm miffed, I am. I started this thread and made it clear I disagree with radicals and don't hate men or victimize women. It didn't matter. From the beginning, people questioned my motives, my credibility, my associations, my sanity, and my virility. (OK, the last one was funny in a pathetic kind of way.) I don't gripe because I'm offended, I gripe because I'm disappointed in a forum which has usually treated me respectfully. It really doesn't help that you, a friend, comes along and plops the cherry on top by graciously reminding me that *gasp* some feminists are radical for the eleventy zillionth time.

(Grumbles at no one in particular.)

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

There is always someone who says "some experts believe" no matter how big the consensus. Who exactly are we talking about here?

While I admit to not following every link in this thread, in past threads I can think of maybe two studies that didn't comment on lack of good data and a need for better data. Of course many studies in many fields do the same thing even when drawing conclusions. I sung back and forth before settling on my current, "I don't know, and it isn't especially important because either way there are still specific problems."

Quote:

No, probably not. My blood pressure has risen recently...not sure why. Sorry, my intention wasn't to dismiss you. I admit it was a morally loaded analogy but I don't think the comparison is totally without merit. 50 studies say X. 2 poorly constructed studies say "not X". Anti-Xers demand "more data" until the helium flash.

Well that's not actually the case here though. We have many studies measuring different things that may indicate X. The limitations of the studies doesn't mean they should be dismissed, but neither should they over-reach.

Quote:

Except I think I can be measured, at least indirectly. If a survey says that society views men are better political leaders than women and there is no good evidence to support that belief, we have just measured sexism. More specifically, we have measure sexist gender roles.

Which is a much different measurement than the wage gap. It's also a much more direct measure of a much more specific and actionable problem.

Quote:

It probably didn't. Just wanted to vent. Wanna give me an example of serious sexism against women to make me feel better?

Of course. See the military. They could be in much more active combat rolls, but there is stupid opposition to it. Also, see rape in the military and the 'what did they expect' FOX News 'lady' Liz Trotta. The not seeing women as leaders is one too.

Quote:

You said women suffer discrimination in the workplace too and that helping men would indirectly help women. How does this benefit women?

If women being kept from certain jobs is harmful, and the wage gap is harmful, then what I advocate in part helps.

Quote:

Why don't men stay away NOW?

Why don't women go there now? Men are socialized to be 'providers' and such, which is harmful to both genders in modern life.

Quote:

See what I'm getting at? Generic work characterists are gender neutral. Men and women both dislike "less vacation". Why do you assume it keeps women away but men soldier on?

I'm not assuming that and I'm confused why you think I am. Wasn't that part of some of the data you presented? Women take more vacation, work fewer hours, work more convenient hours which would indicate they value these things more than their male counterparts. Men work jobs that lack these things but earn more, indicating that they value the pay more.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

For the 4th (5th? 6th?) time in this thread...overlapping bell curves.

So why focus on gender generalities rather than addressing the more relevant characteristic of power/money? I'd say arguing about how white men generally have it better based on one end of the curve does more to drive people away from the discussion than it adds to it.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

The quote function worked just fine in post #273, as you are well aware.

You made no argument. I'm still waiting.

Quote:

In any case, my point is proven by your continuing to dodge the question,

Even if "dodging" were true, it does not follow that you prove yourself right this way.

A feminist using logical fallacies? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Quote:

the type of feminism I asked about doesn't denigrate women at all...

No true scotsman.

The type of feminsim I am pointing out is rampant throughout this thread: relentless painting of women as victims. Have you no self-respect? You don't gain respect by relentlessly framing yourself as a victim.

The best way to gain respect from other people is to start showing respect for yourself.

The very example you tried to appeal to does just that: women are victims because there is a kind of cancer that privileged men did not spend enough time on. You can't just say "We do breast cancer research" or whatever.

Quote:

you were simply parroting an overgeneralized stereotype with nothing to back it up but blind faith.

I'm observing the kind of feminism rampant in this thread. The OP in particular, but you as well - using logical fallacies pointed out above and this last one

So I bid you goodbye, and by all means have the last word and declare victory. Thank God I am not married to this.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

In this country - at this time - feminism does draw winces from many many people. Deservedly so. The mantra of feminism today is essentially anti-male, blame men for everything - up to hatred of all men on the planet in an extreme interpretation of feminism.

Um, no? That's the mantra of some obviously, but general feminism has been so successful that most don't even realize they're employing feminist theory .

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

So why focus on gender generalities rather than addressing the more relevant characteristic of power/money? I'd say arguing about how white men generally have it better based on one end of the curve does more to drive people away from the discussion than it adds to it.

Because a discussion about power and money doesn't cover everything. For one, the only way to talk about gender roles is to discuss gender.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

No true scotsman.

People need to stop using this incorrectly.

NTS is only a fallacy if you intentionally and arbitrarily redefine a term to exclude or include specific bits of data after the fact. Simply clarifying you what kind of feminist (or atheist or democrat or chef) you are is not a fallacy.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

You made no argument. I'm still waiting.



Even if "dodging" were true, it does not follow that you prove yourself right this way.

A feminist using logical fallacies? I'm shocked! Shocked!




No true scotsman.

The type of feminsim I am pointing out is rampant throughout this thread: relentless painting of women as victims. Have you no self-respect? You don't gain respect by relentlessly framing yourself as a victim.

The best way to gain respect from other people is to start showing respect for yourself.

The very example you tried to appeal to does just that: women are victims because there is a kind of cancer that privileged men did not spend enough time on. You can't just say "We do breast cancer research" or whatever.




I'm observing the kind of feminism rampant in this thread. The OP in particular, but you as well - using logical fallacies pointed out above and this last one

So I bid you goodbye, and by all means have the last word and declare victory. Thank God I am not married to this.

That's right, I made no argument, I just asked a question that you can't answer about your assertion... (the one that I quoted, and that you are pretending to not be aware of).

I do agree that you using the label feminism in an assertion, and then when an obvious exception is pointed out, flopping around in denial is a 'no true scotsman'. Glad to see you finally admit it, as you run away some more, again.

But you might want to spend a little bit of the time you've wasted playing internet denial games, on learning the difference between breast cancer and heart disease. And getting someone to teach you the basics of how scientific research works wouldn't hurt either.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Um, no? That's the mantra of some obviously, but general feminism has been so successful that most don't even realize they're employing feminist theory.

Um...yes. Today, if a woman announces she's a feminist - expect man-slamming. Expect large dollops of blame to be doled out. If it doesn't happen? Be perplexed.

Today, in the United States of America: Women can go after whatever the living hell career they want, same as men. And it's been that way for decades. Let's not blend this with other issues, such as economics. I couldn't afford to go to college, for example (Hey I'm a White Male I Shoulda Got Free College To Give Me My White Man Leg Up on STuff) so I joined the Navy, stayed 5 years, got the Vietnam Veterans GI Bill and went to college on that.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

While I admit to not following every link in this thread, in past threads I can think of maybe two studies that didn't comment on lack of good data and a need for better data. Of course many studies in many fields do the same thing even when drawing conclusions. I sung back and forth before settling on my current, "I don't know, and it isn't especially important because either way there are still specific problems."

That's your prerogative. Can't make you discuss it.

Quote:

Well that's not actually the case here though. We have many studies measuring different things that may indicate X. The limitations of the studies doesn't mean they should be dismissed, but neither should they over-reach.

I disagree but there really isn't a point to debating it if you don't want to discuss stats. That's not meant as an insult, just a statement of fact.

Quote:

Which is a much different measurement than the wage gap. It's also a much more direct measure of a much more specific and actionable problem.

Same as above.

Quote:

Of course. See the military. They could be in much more active combat rolls, but there is stupid opposition to it.

Heh...only men get shot at. That's usually seen as a form of sexism against men. Works both ways I suppose.

Quote:

Also, see rape in the military and the 'what did they expect' FOX News 'lady' Liz Trotta. The not seeing women as leaders is one too.

Thanks.

Quote:

If women being kept from certain jobs is harmful, and the wage gap is harmful, then what I advocate in part helps.

It has been claimed that working dangerous jobs is a bad thing. That's why men think it's sexist. Giving women the jobs men are complaining about seems an odd reward.

I agree with your overall goal. Gender ratios should be normalized because men shouldn't be exposed to more danger than women arbitrarily. I just think there is something funny in the way you phrased the argument. It seems like regifting a fruitcake.

Why start there? What not CEO jobs?

Quote:

Why don't women go there now? Men are socialized to be 'providers' and such, which is harmful to both genders in modern life.

Wow. I'm a little teary-eyed. You admitted that so readily. I've been working truethat for days. Not sure what to say.

Quote:

I'm not assuming that and I'm confused why you think I am. Wasn't that part of some of the data you presented?

Hope you're not referring to the CONSAD study. That thing is...questionable.

Quote:

Women take more vacation, work fewer hours, work more convenient hours which would indicate they value these things more than their male counterparts. Men work jobs that lack these things but earn more, indicating that they value the pay more.

I think you are treating the symptoms, not the cause.

You say men are more willing to accept danger than women. That's a socialization problem. Instead of paying women to settle for something they are supposedly trying to avoid we should tell them they can handle danger as well as men.

I suppose the plans aren't mutually exclusive.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Feminists, let's say that gender inequality exists and it is much more severe for women. What do you want done about it and by who? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

If you are referring to the workplace then why is any action needed? There is no more institutionalized discrimination against women in the workplace nor is it believed that women belong in the home anymore.

Women face two natural barriers in the work place. First, landing a high paid job requires the sort of competitive nature more commonly found in men (women who have this nature have no trouble succeeding in a "man's world"). The bigger problem is that motherhood and a career are in competition with each other. Any woman wishing to do both (even if she has a stay-at-home husband) must necessarily make compromises.

I don't see any necessity to skew things in favour of women so that we can have more women in the work force. There are consequences to that - even economic ones. The more working women there are in society the more the society will depend on keeping the women working. This devalues motherhood and creates an artificial demand for institutionalized childcare.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Um...yes. Today, if a woman announces she's a feminist - expect man-slamming. Expect large dollops of blame to be doled out.

Edit: Misread your post.

Still not relevant.

Quote:

Today, in the United States of America: Women can go after whatever the living hell career they want, same as men. And it's been that way for decades.

Can they? Sure, most of the time. The question is do they? If not, why not? If not, should we do something about it?

Quote:

Let's not blend this with other issues, such as economics.

Kinda have too. Wealth is one measure of power.

Quote:

I couldn't afford to go to college, for example (Hey I'm a White Male I Shoulda Got Free College To Give Me My White Man Leg Up on STuff) so I joined the Navy, stayed 5 years, got the Vietnam Veterans GI Bill and went to college on that.

Good for you.

What's that have to do with the topic at hand?

[Moss]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Edit: Misread your post.

Still not relevant.



Can they? Sure, most of the time. The question is do they? If not, why not? If not, should we do something about it?



Kinda have too. Wealth is one measure of power.



Good for you.

What's that have to do with the topic at hand?

I think the irony detector wants replacement...

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by psionl0

...nor is it believed that women belong in the home anymore.

...

The more working women there are in society the more the society will depend on keeping the women working. This devalues motherhood and creates an artificial demand for institutionalized childcare.

How do you know that the current state of affairs it not "artificial"? By implication, is SEEMS like you are claiming what we have now is the "natural" state of affairs. By extension, that means women should continue to stay at home more often than men. Doesn't that devalue fatherhood?

Quote:

Women face two natural barriers in the work place. First, landing a high paid job requires the sort of competitive nature more commonly found in men (women who have this nature have no trouble succeeding in a "man's world").

How do you know "competitive nature" is more present in men? Is it part of men's biology or is it socialized?

Quote:

The bigger problem is that motherhood and a career are in competition with each other. Any woman wishing to do both (even if she has a stay-at-home husband) must necessarily make compromises.

Discussed earlier in the thread.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Moss

I think the irony detector wants replacement...

Entirely possible. Feeling a bit off.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Edit: Misread your post.

Still not relevant.



Can they? Sure, most of the time. The question is do they? If not, why not? If not, should we do something about it?



Kinda have too. Wealth is one measure of power.



Good for you.

What's that have to do with the topic at hand?

King! Yo King, the best you can hope for in a society is to provide opportunity for... well, pursuit of happiness, who could say that better? It does NOT mean a guarantee of happiness - just a shot at going after happiness, howsoever an individual defines such. Women - today in the USA - have that shot. It's great! Hain't it terrific? Yer damned right it is. I'm happy as all get-out. Took wayyyyyy too long between penning the words "pursuit of happiness" and seeing success at least on the gender side of the story.

Therefore: If women have the opportunity to go for it (and they get to define the "it"), then what exactly are you "fighting" for? Seems like you're trying to invent a conflict where essentially none exists. You want to do some real good in the world, Kingster, women's-rights-wise? Go to the myriad of countries lacking such and get on a soapbox. THAT is the squeaky wheel.

You confused me, Kingster, when you underscored how wealth is a key factor - and then commented on my anecdote about lack of money for college not being germane? KING???? Did you miss my point? Economics stops both genders from higher education immediately out of high school - and I used me as an example. Do you not accept this because - ye gads - it warn't on the innerwebz?????

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Because a discussion about power and money doesn't cover everything. For one, the only way to talk about gender roles is to discuss gender.

But those are separate topics. Talking about power and money and who can do what to change things isn't gender dependent, where talking about societal gender roles are.

What is the utility in repeatedly and in every topic about feminism or even related to feminism that white men generally hold more power and money than women or minorities? Is there something different white men should be doing regarding gender inequality that doesn't apply to other groups? If focusing on them is because they tend to have power and money, then singling them out as white men is the wrong metric to be using for that purpose. Money and power is a much more accurate metric of money and power than gender is. Is a black man running a business and making hiring decisions held to a different standard? No, that's not what's being argued. Would a woman CEO be safe in ignoring the messages of gender equality? No, that's not what's being argued either. However, the effect of focusing on men, specifically white men, is to hit a whole bunch of targets who don't have money or power, most white men, and miss a lot of people who do have money or power. And to what end?

The only effect seems to be reinforcing the radical feminists who hold that only men can be sexist, which isn't a view most feminists want to reinforce, and fostering resentment and yes, hate, among those who feel singled out. It's one of the things Lessing was criticizing.

Obviously most of us want the same actions and views from all people regarding gender equality (or feminism) regardless of race, status, gender, sexual orientation or hair length.

This subject kept me up way past my bedtime. I'm hope you're satisfied with yourself.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Um...yes. Today, if a woman announces she's a feminist - expect man-slamming. Expect large dollops of blame to be doled out. If it doesn't happen? Be perplexed.

Today, in the United States of America: Women can go after whatever the living hell career they want, same as men. And it's been that way for decades. Let's not blend this with other issues, such as economics. I couldn't afford to go to college, for example (Hey I'm a White Male I Shoulda Got Free College To Give Me My White Man Leg Up on STuff) so I joined the Navy, stayed 5 years, got the Vietnam Veterans GI Bill and went to college on that.

It's not just job stuff. When was the last time you had an entire political faction campaigning on taking away your bodily autonomy? Or reducing your access to birth control?* Once this country has that settled, I can relax and start calling myself an activist humanist.

(*for the record, I really do think that all health insurance should cover condoms for both sexes. It's a cheap, easy way to prevent illness.)

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by bookitty

It's not just job stuff. When was the last time you had an entire political faction campaigning on taking away your bodily autonomy? Or reducing your access to birth control?* Once this country has that settled, I can relax and start calling myself an activist humanist.

(*for the record, I really do think that all health insurance should cover condoms for both sexes. It's a cheap, easy way to prevent illness.)

Yeahp, BK, you got that right. I think I purposely veered away from politics but the hell with it: CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS ARE BULL GOOSE LOONY! Stop being that way, you idiots, and let women run the show, body-wise. Too many scared, deliberately ignorant folks in this country and that is who the Repubs pounce upon.

Health insurance. Hoo boy. One day a human being will be born and nowhere on this planet will be health insurance. We'll have grown up as a species. On that day, if you get sick - you get fixed, not broke. That'll be a fine day, and then Condoms For Everyone!

[cyborg]

Sidebar: with the use of statistics is one really supposed to conclude "utopia" if various statistical measures on aspects of male and female lives are numerically identical?

For example the fact that it is possible to have men and woman being paid the same amount for the same jobs and yet the average wages be different does not seem to have been acknowledged as a mathematical reality by those presenting the statistic in the first place.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Sidebar: with the use of statistics is one really supposed to conclude "utopia" if various statistical measures on aspects of male and female lives are numerically identical?

Of course not.

Quote:

For example the fact that it is possible to have men and woman being paid the same amount for the same jobs and yet the average wages be different does not seem to have been acknowledged as a mathematical reality by those presenting the statistic in the first place.

Sure it has. Occupational segregation is one of the variables that has been controlled for but the wage gap remains.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

But those are separate topics. Talking about power and money and who can do what to change things isn't gender dependent, where talking about societal gender roles are.

They are all related. Societal gender roles determine who has the power. People with power help determine what societal gender roles are.

Quote:

What is the utility in repeatedly and in every topic about feminism or even related to feminism that white men generally hold more power and money than women or minorities?

It isn't the focus of every topic. Plenty of feminism focuses on male stereotyping and how women stigmatize each other. When it IS the focus, it helps people realize how much farther is left to go. The goal is gender equality. You won't know if you have gender equality unless you compare the genders.

Quote:

Is there something different white men should be doing regarding gender inequality that doesn't apply to other groups?

If focusing on them is because they tend to have power and money, then singling them out as white men is the wrong metric to be using for that purpose. Money and power is a much more accurate metric of money and power than gender is. Is a black man running a business and making hiring decisions held to a different standard? No, that's not what's being argued. Would a woman CEO be safe in ignoring the messages of gender equality? No, that's not what's being argued either. However, the effect of focusing on men, specifically white men, is to hit a whole bunch of targets who don't have money or power, most white men, and miss a lot of people who do have money or power. And to what end?

The only effect seems to be reinforcing the radical feminists who hold that only men can be sexist, which isn't a view most feminists want to reinforce, and fostering resentment and yes, hate, among those who feel singled out. It's one of the things Lessing was criticizing.

Obviously most of us want the same actions and views from all people regarding gender equality (or feminism) regardless of race, status, gender, sexual orientation or hair length.

Let me explain.

In any nominally free society, there is power stratification. We expect to find some people are powerful and wealthy and others are poor and weak. That is the price we pay for living in a country that donesn't have state thought police. To test whether or not the society is egalitarian, we take arbitrary factors like race or gender and see where they fall on that strata. If everything were equal, we'd see women distributed in the same way as men. But the results say men on average have more wealth, governmental representation and business power. This is a bad thing and we need to do something about it.

You suggest we appeal to and people with the power to fix it regardless of gender. Unfortunately, when people go into board rooms or Congress they enter rooms containing mostly men. They then have no choice but to tell them they have more power. The responses range from "Didn't we fix that years ago?" to "It can't be fixed." to "It's best this way." In the worst scenarios, they use rhetorical judo and play the REAL victim. They scream "Stop picking on men! SEXIST!" Men with lesser power, like you and me, look over at the argument and immediately think it is an attack on your entire gender because we think they are coming to take power we don't have.

The day I can stop "picking on men" is the day I won't need to.

Quote:

This subject kept me up way past my bedtime. I'm hope you're satisfied with yourself.

I am. It makes me happy to see a man suffer.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

King! Yo King, the best you can hope for in a society is to provide opportunity for... well, pursuit of happiness, who could say that better? It does NOT mean a guarantee of happiness - just a shot at going after happiness, howsoever an individual defines such. Women - today in the USA - have that shot. It's great! Hain't it terrific? Yer damned right it is. I'm happy as all get-out. Took wayyyyyy too long between penning the words "pursuit of happiness" and seeing success at least on the gender side of the story.

You made it clear that you don't want to discuss whether or not the inequality exists because you don't want to discuss statistics. Fine. But if you choose to be dismissive you give up the right to act like the argument has been settled in your favor.

Sorry to say this, but you are being naive. Most of the legal and overt societal barriers have been smashed. That doesn't mean the story is over. As an analogy, an atheist has ever "opportunity" to be president but one would almost certainly not get elected. Why do you suppose that is?
Open atheists have been provided the opportunity to be president for a long time now but they probably won't succeed in my lifetime.

Edit: I've seen people use the lack of atheist presidents as proof of predjudice against atheists. Why is it the lack of a female president is indicative of nothing even though women make up a much larger segment of the population? Why do I never hear arguments like "Atheists just don't want to be president?" or "Atheists just don't have the 'competative nature' that Christians have?"

Quote:

Therefore: If women have the opportunity to go for it (and they get to define the "it"), then what exactly are you "fighting" for? Seems like you're trying to invent a conflict where essentially none exists. You want to do some real good in the world, Kingster, women's-rights-wise? Go to the myriad of countries lacking such and get on a soapbox. THAT is the squeaky wheel.

There has to be a name for this logical fallacy. "There are bigger problems elsewhere so..."

Quote:

You confused me, Kingster, when you underscored how wealth is a key factor - and then commented on my anecdote about lack of money for college not being germane? KING???? Did you miss my point? Economics stops both genders from higher education immediately out of high school - and I used me as an example. Do you not accept this because - ye gads - it warn't on the innerwebz?????

Class problems are absolutely important. I am not ignoring them. I am just focusing on a different issue at the moment.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Of course not.

Then why bring up irrelevant statistical information you don't think would indicate whether or not society is actually in a good state or not? How am I supposed to be interpreting your numbers exactly?

Quote:

Why is it the lack of a female president is indicative of nothing even though women make up a much larger segment of the population?

Is this a relevant statistic then? What number of female US presidents would indicate a healthy US society?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Because a discussion about power and money doesn't cover everything. For one, the only way to talk about gender roles is to discuss gender.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

So why focus on gender generalities rather than addressing the more relevant characteristic of power/money? I'd say arguing about how white men generally have it better based on one end of the curve does more to drive people away from the discussion than it adds to it.

See King Merv you are ignoring what a lot of us are saying. Many of the things that you consider unimportant are actually in our opinion the crux of the "problem"

I pointed out one earlier and you totally ignored it because you want to focus on generalities about socialization and how white men have privilege.


Think in more practical terms. Simple things like a woman needing to have children before the age of 40 if she wants to have healthy children, a woman breastfeeding being the reason that she's the one who is the one who stays home

A big one I've mentioned that you keep ignoring does have to do with the basic foundations of capitalism in the US. That is that schools let out at 3 and parents are often stuck as to how to get their child home from school.

This is a major problem in the US and you don't want to consider it. Why? I don't know, maybe because it's not as fun as bashing white guys, but let's think about schools. If jobs would allow parents to leave in time to pick up their kids then it would make things a whole lot easier for parents.

Consider, why do so many women go into teaching. Because the hours will match those of their childs.

You say you want to discuss it but when suggestions are made you ignore them and say they don't matter.

This is what I meant about being agenda driven, if you really want to have a discussion then have one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Why so much hatred for feminism?"

Clearly the thread has revealed that said hatred exists. I'm curious though, King Merv, when you said,

Quote:

During my web travels, I came across a lot of anti-feminist hatred. I don't use the word "hatred" lightly. Search "feminism" on youtube and watch a few videos at random and you'll see that most vids are anti-feminist screeds. The few videos that are pro-feminist receive tons of negative votes and are flooded with trolls. Most of the anger seems to be directed at radical misandry rather than more moderate feminism which, as far as I can tell, is the majority viewpoint. Most people hear "feminist" and think of wackjobs like Valerie Solanas. Why?

were your encounters akin to the general backlash as we have in the thread, or was there was something more current going on?

I have heard the hypothesis (from 30 year old vague memories of sociology classes in college) that there is some evidence as unemployment goes up, there are social pressures for women to leave the workforce and as unemployment goes down, elements of women's lib tend to emerge. I'm wondering if we are seeing any of that now.