Female traffic lights

[elysepopplewell]

Because, as I have stated before (and nobody seems to be replying to this point, I wonder why?):
- Women have a 2:1 likelihood OVER men of being accepted into STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths) jobs (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract)
- Men are more likely to get a longer sentence/jail time for the same crime as a woman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html)
- When a man hits a woman, it's abuse. When a woman hits a man, it's self defence. (https://www.theodysseyonline.com/women-hitting-men)
- Whenever there is an emergency, it's always "women and children first". I understand the children, as they are younger and have barely lived life, but why put women before men? Are they not equal? Should they not be able to escape from a dangerous situation at the same rate as each other? Do the values of their lives not equal each other? Should they not be treated as equals? More women than men survived on the Titanic (THIRD class women were 41% MORE likely to survive than FIRST class men), simply because women's lives are thought to be somehow more valuable than men's. (http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm)

Of all the emergencies I've been in, which admittedly haven't been many, "women and children" were privileged on zero occasions. Although when a bus I was on crashed, the pregnant lady was given a lot of attention by medics which I really think is quite fair. As soon as I read your claim, I thought "wow, that sounds like a 100 years ago" and then you referenced the Titanic. Being a huge fan of the Titanic, I have often wondered about why it was in a society where women were still fighting to vote, they were given privilege to getting off the Titanic? I put it down to the chivalrous idea that the men would go down with the ship. But, woman couldn't vote in a lot of democracies at that time, so I hardly think it's the case that 100 years ago, women were thought to be more important than men.

I also completely disagree that when a man hits a woman, it's abuse, when a woman hits a man, it's self defence? I'm not sure if this is something people in your life are perpetuating, and if they are, I encourage you to speak out against it. It's an awful notion and definitely not one that the broader feminist movement perpetuates.

But I mean, girls and women are far more likely to be victims of sexual or physical violence by someone they know, far more likely to have their genitals mutilated in a way that causes long-term physical and mental effects, sometimes occasioning death, far more likely to not report abuse crimes, and I could talk about every-day sexism forever.

My intention is not to compare who has it worse, the argument doesn't look fruitful - my intention is to highlight the gender disparity as an issue and International Women's Day as being a fair time to celebrate successes and focus on ways to continue to bridge gender gaps. I talked about my thoughts on the issue of the traffic lights

[elysepopplewell]

But that is what is happening now. Shouldn't we be celebrating IMD too, as men were the ones who:
- Edison: invented the lightbulb
- Bell: invented the phone
- Frankln: the lightning rod—a device which saved countless homes and lives from lightning induced fires, the glass armonica (a glass instrument, not to be confused with the metal harmonica), the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, a carriage odometer
- Jerome Lemelson: automated warehouses, industrial robots, cordless telephones, fax machines, videocassette recorders, camcorders and the magnetic tape drive used in Sony’s Walkman tape players. Lemelson also filed patents in the fields of medical instrumentation, cancer detection and treatment, diamond coating technologies, and consumer electronics and television.

Shouldn't these achievements be celebrated too?

These achievements are celebrated, and have been significantly so through time. These are not achievements regarding gendered issues, they are achievements in science made by men. It's different to the achievement of women getting the right to vote. It's different to the achievement of supplying menstrual products to women in affordable ways in remote areas so they can attend school. These are issues that affect women that have been overcome and should be celebrated. The invention of the light bulb benefits everyone, but it wasn't just men who were suffering at the hands of lack of electrical-lighting. It's not a gendered issue.

What if more males than females are simply interested in STEM subjects and more females than males are simply interested in nursing?

This is called gendered socialisation or gendered conditioning, if anyone is interested in reading more online.

[Quantum44]

Right, because at 50/50, they are more privileged. Although I see there are complications with quotas, I think it's difficult to deny that subconscious (or sometimes conscious) gender bias occurs in hiring in work places.

Ideally there should be ~50/50 gender distribution for all jobs since men and women can perform equally well on average but having quotas to reinforce this is just promoting mediocrity. The simple fact is that it is easier to obtain a job in certain industries as a female since a small proportion of applicants are already reserved 50% of the jobs. The solution to a lack of women in STEM fields is not to give women an advantage over men when it comes to competing for jobs, but to encourage more women to take an interest in STEM fields from an early age.

[alchemy]

I think "1000 years of female dominance" is a statement that adds nothing to the conversation. That's not the intention of feminism. Feminism is one of the greatest liberation movements in history and International Womens Day is a celebration of such successes and a time to re-evaluate the millions of people yet to be liberated from gendered violence, discrimination, slavery, or limitations. That is literally the point of International Women's Day - there is no intention of women gaining dominance over men for 1000s of years to come.

I wasn't suggesting that, but the way he phrased it made it seem like it, which is why I raised the question.
Third wave feminism (or modern feminism) has been criticised for lacking cohesion. As Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner writes in her book The F-Word: "The first wave fought for and gained the right for women to vote. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to and equal opportunity in the workforce, as well as the end of legal sex discrimination. The third wave of feminism lacks a cohesive goal..."
I too consider myself a feminist, in the original sense of the word, but won't succumb to people who place feelings over facts, notoriously those arguing for the gender-pay gap and glorifying the pro-choice movement as a right and not a privilege.

[Joseph41]

I wasn't suggesting that, but the way he phrased it made it seem like it, which is why I raised the question.

What part of my post exactly made you think I was advocating 1000 years of female dominance?

[jamonwindeyer]

But that is what is happening now. Shouldn't we be celebrating IMD too, as men were the ones who:
- Edison: invented the lightbulb
- Bell: invented the phone
- Frankln: the lightning rod—a device which saved countless homes and lives from lightning induced fires, the glass armonica (a glass instrument, not to be confused with the metal harmonica), the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, a carriage odometer
- Jerome Lemelson: automated warehouses, industrial robots, cordless telephones, fax machines, videocassette recorders, camcorders and the magnetic tape drive used in Sony’s Walkman tape players. Lemelson also filed patents in the fields of medical instrumentation, cancer detection and treatment, diamond coating technologies, and consumer electronics and television.

Shouldn't these achievements be celebrated too?

Definitely, and I think they are - Males and females have invented lots of cool shit, aha. But that's the thing, IWD isn't really about that, at least in terms of how most people view it. I don't think you can make the comparison because IWD represents something greater than just the past accomplishments of the gender, and I don't think you can make the same assignment to IMD

Thanks for the answer jamon
The thing is, suddenly everyone is complaining that there are not enough females in STEM jobs - but then you don't hear anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, do you? What if more males than females are simply interested in STEM subjects and more females than males are simply interested in nursing?
I say, if we don't encourage more males to go into nursing, then the same should be done for girls and STEM subjects.

You're welcome! Hmm, it's an interesting point you raise. I'm honestly not sure whether there exists things to encourage men specifically to get into nursing, and part of that is probably the fact that (to my knowledge) we need more nurses. Like, full stop. Don't think we care about gender - What they should be doing is incentivising nursing full stop

The STEM field is probably targeted because historically it has been such a male dominated field, and while I don't believe there have ever been actual barriers to men entering nursing (correct me if I'm wrong), there have absolutely been barriers to women entering the STEM field

I suppose my motivation for my viewpoint is probably this. As a male, I've never been disadvantaged because of my gender, and I don't know of any males that have been disadvantaged because of their gender. But I definitely know women that have been disadvantaged because of theirs. I would never dare say that no male has ever been disadvantaged because of gender, because that's a foolhardy blanket statement. But I'd feel very safe saying that if we did a count, it would be quite lopsided, and even in that basic sense, there lies the issue in my eyes

[elysepopplewell]

I wasn't suggesting that, but the way he phrased it made it seem like it, which is why I raised the question.
Third wave feminism (or modern feminism) has been criticised for lacking cohesion. As Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner writes in her book The F-Word: "The first wave fought for and gained the right for women to vote. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to and equal opportunity in the workforce, as well as the end of legal sex discrimination. The third wave of feminism lacks a cohesive goal..."
I too consider myself a feminist, in the original sense of the word, but won't succumb to people who place feelings over facts, notoriously those arguing for the gender-pay gap and glorifying the pro-choice movement as a right and not a privilege.

No criticism on your understanding of feminism! I wonder, why the need to divide into waves? By the timeline of history, I fit into third wave feminism. But that doesn't mean I lack a cohesive goal in my movement and ideas. I think that perhaps third wave feminism's "lack of cohesion" might be what makes it so valuable - feminism is becoming more inclusive, intersectional, accepting of the way that class, race, language, and gender binaries all contribute. I think that in first wave feminism, the achievement of suffrage characterised the movement, whereas I think now there's lots of small (and sometimes big!) successes happening as the movement becomes broader.

In my opinion, it's one of the greatest liberation movements of all time, and I'm constantly challenging my own feminism to be more inclusive, which I think is why "third wave" or, as I like to call it, feminism, seems to lack that cohesive structure. Not so much a flaw in my opinion, just a fair description of the changing nature of the movement

[alchemy]

...But, woman couldn't vote in a lot of democracies at that time, so I hardly think it's the case that 100 years ago, women were thought to be more important than men.

I also completely disagree that when a man hits a woman, it's abuse, when a woman hits a man, it's self defence? I'm not sure if this is something people in your life are perpetuating, and if they are, I encourage you to speak out against it. It's an awful notion and definitely not one that the broader feminist movement perpetuates.

But I mean, girls and women are far more likely to be victims of sexual or physical violence by someone they know, far more likely to have their genitals mutilated in a way that causes long-term physical and mental effects, sometimes occasioning death, far more likely to not report abuse crimes, and I could talk about every-day sexism forever.

I agree with you wholly here, as well as on your comments about STEM education. I think the incentives for women to join the field are well justified and necessary.

...International Women's Day as being a fair time to celebrate successes and focus on ways to continue to bridge gender gaps. I talked about my thoughts on the issue of the traffic lights

I just don't think there should be an IWD or IMD. Then again, I don't think there should be father's day, mother's day, valentine's day or any other day...but maybe that's just me being grumpy

[Joseph41]

I find it very hard to believe that a woman may be 'conditioned' to reject STEM careers in favour of others. A parent of a daughter with an interest in STEM would not dissuade her from perusing it in this day and age. I believe women have agency, and will choose to go into STEM if they are passionate about it. I think we see less women going to STEM simply because less women are interested.

I have no problem encouraging women and girls to explore STEM, the same with encouraging men and boys. I strongly disagree with giving women an advantage over men in hiring, scholarships, etc. There should be equality of opportunity, but that should not ensure equality of outcome.

Do you think male and female students are treated equally in initial (primary, secondary) STEM education?

[stawze]

This is called gendered socialisation or gendered conditioning, if anyone is interested in reading more online.

I find it very hard to believe that a woman may be 'conditioned' to reject STEM careers in favour of others. A parent of a daughter with an interest in STEM would not dissuade her from perusing it in this day and age. I believe women have agency, and will choose to go into STEM if they are passionate about it. I think we see less women going to STEM simply because less women are interested.

I have no problem encouraging women and girls to explore STEM, the same with encouraging men and boys. I strongly disagree with giving women an advantage over men in hiring, scholarships, etc. There should be equality of opportunity, but that should not ensure equality of outcome.

EDIT: Double posted, oops.

[Aaron]

Do you think male and female students are treated equally in initial (primary, secondary) STEM education?

I'd like to read the response to this as well.

[stawze]

Do you think male and female students are treated equally in initial (primary, secondary) STEM education?

That's a good question that I don't have solid answer to. However, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that may be the case, I could be just ignorant though.

[elysepopplewell]

I find it very hard to believe that a woman may be 'conditioned' to reject STEM careers in favour of others. A parent of a daughter with an interest in STEM would not dissuade her from perusing it in this day and age. I believe women have agency, and will choose to go into STEM if they are passionate about it. I think we see less women going to STEM simply because less women are interested.

I have no problem encouraging women and girls to explore STEM, the same with encouraging men and boys. I strongly disagree with giving women an advantage over men in hiring, scholarships, etc. There should be equality of opportunity, but that should not ensure equality of outcome.

EDIT: Double posted, oops.

I used to think this as well! Until I was about...16 I think, I actively rejected feminism as "annoying." I literally just had know idea about it. But, until early 2016 I had the same thoughts as you stawze on the STEM/socialising issue, until I actively started researching it, and then I did a Journalism assignment where I interviewed a really broad range of people. I started to see a lot of disparity in the way parents actually influence children's decisions like that. Then I did a Social and Political Science assignment, more interviews, and the anecdotal evidence coloured in the black and white research overwhelmingly.

But, social conditioning goes far beyond the influence of parents. I really want to link to something good online about this, but I can't find things that aren't on my Uni drive. Maybe someone else will be able to share a good reading, if anyone has one.

[sudodds]

But that is what is happening now. Shouldn't we be celebrating IMD too, as men were the ones who:
- Edison: invented the lightbulb
- Bell: invented the phone
- Frankln: the lightning rod—a device which saved countless homes and lives from lightning induced fires, the glass armonica (a glass instrument, not to be confused with the metal harmonica), the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, a carriage odometer
- Jerome Lemelson: automated warehouses, industrial robots, cordless telephones, fax machines, videocassette recorders, camcorders and the magnetic tape drive used in Sony’s Walkman tape players. Lemelson also filed patents in the fields of medical instrumentation, cancer detection and treatment, diamond coating technologies, and consumer electronics and television.

Shouldn't these achievements be celebrated too?

I think it's a little bit far fetched to say that these achievements haven't been celebrated, moreso that their achievements just haven't been attributed to the entire male gender.

This is probably a pretty obscure link (trust me to link everything back to history hahaha), and perhaps unrelated haha but I thought it might be interesting In history extension, I explored the concept of social history and the "bottom up" approach, which includes feminist/women's history. The thing is that pretty much until the birth of this movement, history was - according to historiographer David Vincent - "deeply male." This wasn't necessarily a conscious decision by historians, I don't think Gibbon or Von Ranke was sitting on their chairs thinking "you know what - to hell with women, non-white people and the poor - I'm only ever going to discuss rich, white, men." It was just the way in which people thought back then - men, or more specifically rich, white men were the default. The achievements of these "great men of history," weren't considered to be male achievements - just achievements in general, while all other groups achievements were ignored or were even falsely attributed to men (I wonder how many more times I could have fit the word "achievements" in that sentence lol). It took this renewed focus and really the sheer determination of certain historians to shine a light on these forgotten achievements, and that tended to come with a focus upon their background and why their achievements were forgotten in the first place. It may be slightly frustrating that the achievements of many women can't be recognised outside of the context of her gender, but in many cases it was either that or they don't get recognised at all  As Jamon and Elyse said, IWD focuses more on achievements that specifically relate to the quest for gender equality, however even if they do focus on some of the forgotten female pioneers/inventors/scientists/activists etc. this is one of the reasons why They're giving a voice on the historically and historiographically voiceless (Black History Month is another example of this). Did this add anything to the debate? Idk. Did I just get uber excited about finding some obscure real life example to apply what I learnt in history extension? Tbh probably.

In regards specifically to the traffic light debate, from what I'm reading, it isn't going to exactly be some crazy, huge, expensive change. The way that they are going to introduce these new traffic lights are going to be during regular maintenance and replacement times, so nothing really is going to change except maybe a few pixels will be added to create a triangle dress (the dress thing is maybe the only thing that irks me - clothing doesn't have a gender). I may be wrong about this point, but here are my two cents

[alchemy]

No criticism on your understanding of feminism! I wonder, why the need to divide into waves? By the timeline of history, I fit into third wave feminism. But that doesn't mean I lack a cohesive goal in my movement and ideas. I think that perhaps third wave feminism's "lack of cohesion" might be what makes it so valuable - feminism is becoming more inclusive, intersectional, accepting of the way that class, race, language, and gender binaries all contribute. I think that in first wave feminism, the achievement of suffrage characterised the movement, whereas I think now there's lots of small (and sometimes big!) successes happening as the movement becomes broader.

In my opinion, it's one of the greatest liberation movements of all time, and I'm constantly challenging my own feminism to be more inclusive, which I think is why "third wave" or, as I like to call it, feminism, seems to lack that cohesive structure. Not so much a flaw in my opinion, just a fair description of the changing nature of the movement

The problem with being "more inclusive, intersectional, accepting of the way that class, race, language, and gender binaries all contribute" is what do you tell someone when they plead you to believe that 67 genders do actually exist?
That may sound blunt, but I really think we've got to be stricter on reality and be less politically correct (which is what I wanted to discuss in the first place)
Speaking of which this just popped up on my newsfeed: http://imgur.com/a/16wE0 

edit: updated link, would like to hear your thoughts on that pic elyse