-
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/female-traffic-lights-in-melbourne-receive-mixed-response-20170307-gusjp7.html
thoughts on this?
i think it's a wonderful idea to advance the feminist cause ::)
also another hot topic: http://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/tv/2017/03/07/abc-international-womens-day-presenters/
edit: added another topic for discussion
-
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/female-traffic-lights-in-melbourne-receive-mixed-response-20170307-gusjp7.html
thoughts on this?
i think it's a wonderful idea to advance the feminist cause ::)
also another hot topic: http://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/tv/2017/03/07/abc-international-womens-day-presenters/
edit: added another topic for discussion
Why the eye roll?
-
Oh my god. Seriously? I'm a girl and I think this is ridiculous.
Firstly, when I read this, I realised that I had never thought of the traffic light person as male - just a person.
Secondly, these feminists could be doing something else which actually benefits society, like, I don't know, helping women and children overseas who are ACTUALLY disadvantaged.
This feminism thing has gone so out of control, I don't even consider myself a feminist anymore, because nowadays it's about women over men, not women = men. Once I went to a uni open day (Monash I think it was) and the guy telling us about an engineering club was like, "yeah, girls who have applied have literally written on their applications, 'I'm a girl so you have to choose me.'" This is appalling. How is that different to saying "I'm a man and so I should be chosen for the job"? Seriously this has completely flipped!
This whole feminist thing irks me. Arrrghhh! There's actually proof the wage gap is a myth, and that women in our society are now more advantaged than men - for example, women have a 2:1 likelihood compared to men in being accepted into STEM jobs. The focus should be on equality, not women superiority! International Women's Day is tomorrow, which heaps of people know about and my school is celebrating, but barely anyone knows about International Men's Day, on 19 November. Why don't we celebrate that too? After all, men and women should be equal right?
Haha sorry for the rant but this really annoys me!! >:(
also another hot topic: http://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/tv/2017/03/07/abc-international-womens-day-presenters/
This too is ridiculous. I get that it's IWD but if we don't do the same for IMD (International Men's Day) then isn't that putting women over men? Also this is completely unnecessary, perhaps they should be assisting women in domestic violence situations or something rather than presenting news with only women because that won't directly help anyone.
-
^We probably don't celebrate International Men's Day in quite the same way due to literally thousands of years of male dominance.
-
^We probably don't celebrate International Men's Day in quite the same way due to literally thousands of years of male dominance.
But if feminism really is about equality, we should, shouldn't we?
Plus, in today's age:
There's actually proof the wage gap is a myth, and that women in our society are now more advantaged than men - for example, women have a 2:1 likelihood compared to men in being accepted into STEM jobs. The focus should be on equality, not women superiority!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#1868356c2596
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html
-
Why the eye roll?
like geminii said, they could be spending tax payers money on things which actually matter. Perhaps on raising awareness for domestic violence or the mentally ill, to name a few.
^We probably don't celebrate International Men's Day in quite the same way due to literally thousands of years of male dominance.
so a 1000 years of male dominance must equal a 1000 years of female dominance?
-
so a 1000 years of male dominance must equal a 1000 years of female dominance?
That's hardly what has been suggested.
-
like geminii said, they could be spending tax payers money on things which actually matter. Perhaps on raising awareness for domestic violence or the mentally ill, to name a few.
Exactly.
so a 1000 years of male dominance must equal a 1000 years of female dominance?
That's hardly what has been suggested.
^We probably don't celebrate International Men's Day in quite the same way due to literally thousands of years of male dominance.
Joseph41 said that due to thousands of years of male dominance, we don't celebrate IMD. But the thing is, just because they have been dominant for a long time, that does not justify the increasing dominance of women over men in our society. Women are becoming more priveleged than men and it's important to remember the men are in the equation too. So if feminism really is about equality, we should be giving the same treatment to both men and women, and therefore celebrate both IWD and IMD.
-
I'm keen to bounce off people for this one... give me your thoughts if you like :)
As geminii pointed out, the little person isn't a man, just a person. Perhaps true, but that's certainly not the way I've always seen it (and I love to challenge gender assumptions!). When I was younger I was told "wait for the little man to turn green." I crossed the road with my nephew a little while ago and I told him to wait for the little man to turn green, I'd made a gender assumption. I think a good thing to come out of this is to reconsider the way that we make assumptions about gender and the way we subconsciously privilege different genders for different ideas. Dad told me a story about a "male nurse" he talked with at the hospital, and being a man really had nothing to do with the story. At the end I asked why he pointed that out, and he said, "I just thought it was quite miraculous." No harm done, dad met a male nurse for the first time. Onya dad.
Beside the point, looking at the little figure on the traffic lights. If this figure is androgynous, why is it that a lot of people (because I'm certainly not the only one who was told to wait for the little man to turn green) see this figure as a man? What makes me bothered (so slightly - really not wasting much energy on it), is that in order to show this figure is a woman, she has to wear a dress? I wear pants, the little figure (in it's assumedly male form) could be me. I think the bigger issue that this leads to is the idea of the way we represent gender by appearance. For a long time I've had an issue with dress codes in schools that don't allow pant options for girls. This whole thing has got me thinking about the way we represent gender, and the way we make assumptions subconsciously.
It's been my goal this year to broaden my feminism to insist on including cis and non-cis women and men to the equation, and focusing more on intersectionality. Representation and subconscious gender bias play a huge role in this.
Also, "I'm a woman and I think this is stupid" holds absolutely no more weight than "I'm a man and I think this is stupid." Another thing I'm focusing on...not prefacing my gender before making a comment that would be equally valid if a man said it.
Just some thoughts...keen to know what y'all think :)
-
Exactly.
Joseph41 said that due to thousands of years of male dominance, we don't celebrate IMD. But the thing is, just because they have been dominant for a long time, that does not justify the increasing dominance of women over men in our society. Women are becoming more priveleged than men and it's important to remember the men are in the equation too. So if feminism really is about equality, we should be giving the same treatment to both men and women, and therefore celebrate both IWD and IMD.
Let me know how women are becoming more privileged than men? :)
-
It's basically a waste of money in my opinion. The change does not increase the quality of life of anyone apart from pleasing a few feminists but since it doesn't really negatively affect anyone, I don't see any reason that there should be any outrage.
Let me know how women are becoming more privileged than men? :)
A lot of companies have quotas for women so at least half of the accepted applicants must be female regardless of their suitability for the role. This favours women as in some jobs the majority of the applicants are male.
-
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.
It's basically a waste of money in my opinion. The change does not increase the quality of life of anyone apart from pleasing a few feminists but since it doesn't really negatively affect anyone, I don't see any reason that there should be any outrage.
A lot of companies have quotas for women so at least half of the accepted applicants must be female regardless of their suitability for the role. This favours women as in some jobs the majority of the applicants are male.
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.
-
Let me know how women are becoming more privileged than men? :)
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)
-
Joseph41 said that due to thousands of years of male dominance, we don't celebrate IMD. But the thing is, just because they have been dominant for a long time, that does not justify the increasing dominance of women over men in our society. Women are becoming more priveleged than men and it's important to remember the men are in the equation too. So if feminism really is about equality, we should be giving the same treatment to both men and women, and therefore celebrate both IWD and IMD.
I would personally argue that IWD is celebrated more 'enthusiastically' at the moment because it has come to represent the gender inequality issues that are still present in modern society. Has progress been made? Absolutely, I don't think anyone would argue that the gender gap hasn't closed somewhat, and you can show lots of evidence of that progress. But is it closed all the way? Absolutely not, and there is lots of evidence of that too :)
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)
I will respond, to the first point specifically because I'm studying and have worked in the field :)
Having worked (and talked to people who work) in STEM workplaces, I think the sector remains imbalanced. In a company I worked at, of ~40 Engineers, only 3 were female, and all were hired in the last 5 years. No female senior staff. Similar stories from elsewhere. Yes, there are lots of opportunities out there for women to be incentivised to enter the STEM workforce (I don't speak from hiring rates, but instead scholarship opportunities), but if you have an imbalance in the workplace, that is what you do. In my opinion, you can't achieve equality in an imbalanced system without moving in the other direction. To give a really stupid analogy (possibly offensive to chefs) - If you have a sauce that's too sweet, you can't neutralise that by adding equal parts lemon and sugar - You need to add more lemon :)
Edit: Great to see some interesting debate guys - Encourage everyone to voice their bit, and remember to be respectful 8)
-
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.
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?
Having worked (and talked to people who work) in STEM workplaces, I think the sector remains imbalanced. In a company I worked at, of ~40 Engineers, only 3 were female, and all were hired in the last 5 years. No female senior staff. Similar stories from elsewhere. Yes, there are lots of opportunities out there for women to be incentivised to enter the STEM workforce (I don't speak from hiring rates, but instead scholarship opportunities), but if you have an imbalance in the workplace, that is what you do. In my opinion, you can't achieve equality in an imbalanced system without moving in the other direction. To give a really stupid analogy (possibly offensive to chefs) - If you have a sauce that's too sweet, you can't neutralise that by adding equal parts lemon and sugar - You need to add more lemon :)
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.
Off to bed now so if any more posts pop up I'll have to reply to them tomorrow. :)
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 :)
-
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 :)
-
...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 :P
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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 ;D
edit: updated link, would like to hear your thoughts on that pic elyse
-
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.
I wrote in 2015 a paper on women in medical school and STEM education leading up to it, so I have about a million academic articles relevant to this haha. I mean, I guess this is an okayish place to start, but I highly recommend reading on the leaky mathematical pipeline analogy. Like this.
EDIT: For clarity, I'm very happy to provide the details of those articles to those interested.
-
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 don't have readings unfortunately (I don't do much reading on feminism, but I sure would take it over some of the stuff on electromagnetism I've got right now, lol) but I have seen quite a few people, statistically significant in the sample size that forms my friends and acquaintances, where women have experienced an influence that tends away from STEM, the corporate world, etc. In most cases it is from the parents. So I suppose to answer the question, yeah, I have seen women (subconsciously, and sometimes even directly) discouraged from entering the STEM fields by their parents, extended family or family culture :)
As to inequality in initial STEM education - I know for a fact there is underrepresentation. Statistics show it for higher education, but I don't need that - I just need to walk into my lecture theatre to see it. In my secondary education, there were no females in the graduating HSC Physics class, nor the graduating Extension Mathematics class. I think only a single female Chemistry student out of nearly 20. In my Year 10 Mathematics class, probably a 5:1 Male Female Ratio. And I can't remember further back than that - But yeah, underrepresentation is (I believe) irrefutable.
Does this represent inequality in treatment? Well I think it is evidence of the fact. You don't have those sorts of figures if everyone is treated the same from day one. If you respond with the fact that women are less interested, then the question becomes why. If women and men are both treated completely equally from day one, why is it so lopsided? :)
-
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...
To be equally blunt, your reality may not be the same as another's. And if they identify as a gender that you don't consider to be a gender, well, that doesn't mean that the gender doesn't exist.
-
I wrote in 2015 a paper on women in medical school and STEM education leading up to it, so I have about a million academic articles relevant to this haha. I mean, I guess this is an okayish place to start, but I highly recommend reading on the leaky mathematical pipeline analogy. Like this.
This looks like a genuinely interesting read - Cheers mate 8)
-
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 :)
That's why I think it's a pointless change. It isn't going to change anything, a vast majority of people won't care.
-
To be equally blunt, your reality may not be the same as another's. And if they identify as a gender that you don't consider to be a gender, well, that doesn't mean that the gender doesn't exist.
that is not my opinion, it is a fact that 67 genders don't exist.
-
Regarding children (and girls, in particular) in STEM education, I wanted to share this video which I found interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5crr9tGlac
You don't have to watch it all, I'm focusing more on the ad here.
Also regarding the cost of the female traffic lights, according to the ABC, it costs an average $8,400 to change six traffic lights and the program has been funded by the Committee for Melbourne and Bayswater company Camlex Electrical. Taxpayer money had not gone into the initiative. Link here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/female-traffic-light-signals-melbourne-pedestrian-crossing/8330560
-
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 ;D
edit: updated link, would like to hear your thoughts on that pic elyse
The sign is also making gender assumptions - the sexist assumption that women will be doing the child-rearing. Although, given the significant more amount of unpaid work women do, child-rearing is likely to come under that so it's not a sign that's ignorant of the reality that women are more likely to be doing school drop off/pick up, it's a sign that re-enforces the assumption that we should be challenging. I agree it's a sexist sign.
I saw the caption on the Facebook post, "Oh that's right, only females can be victims!" which I think is a really unconstructive and untrue thing to say and really discredits him in my opinion lol.
As for the 67 genders - let there be 67 genders! If someone came up to me and said there are 67 genders, as you suggested for the scenario, I wouldn't have any difficulty with the conflict between my intersectional feminism and their view of gender. I don't mind, doesn't threaten me :) But being completely transparent, I know the least about gender binaries out of all the intersectional feminist aspects, it's my weakest point. My feminism is flawed but I'm actively trying to engage with it more.
That's why I think it's a pointless change. It isn't going to change anything, a vast majority of people won't care.
It seems to me that a majority of people are bothered, but this could just be my perspective based on the circles I'm in. I empathise with because of all the changes that could be made - why this? But as I suggested way back in my original post, perhaps it gets people thinking about gender representation - which is definitely not pointless and super valuable.
-
That's why I think it's a pointless change. It isn't going to change anything, a vast majority of people won't care.
I agree that I don't think it's exactly the most important thing in the world (though Elyse does raise some really interesting points!), at least in comparison to other issues, both feminist and not. However, the thing is that a lot of people do seem to care, given the vast amount of hate this new decision has received, when really their lives will remain pretty much completely unaffected. Nothing bad is going to come from this new decision, thus I find the pretty intense (not necessarily from this thread, moreso my facebook feed...) hatred for this a little bit of an overkill.
-
I don't have readings unfortunately (I don't do much reading on feminism, but I sure would take it over some of the stuff on electromagnetism I've got right now, lol) but I have seen quite a few people, statistically significant in the sample size that forms my friends and acquaintances, where women have experienced an influence that tends away from STEM, the corporate world, etc. In most cases it is from the parents. So I suppose to answer the question, yeah, I have seen women (subconsciously, and sometimes even directly) discouraged from entering the STEM fields by their parents, extended family or family culture :)
As to inequality in initial STEM education - I know for a fact there is underrepresentation. Statistics show it for higher education, but I don't need that - I just need to walk into my lecture theatre to see it. In my secondary education, there were no females in the graduating HSC Physics class, nor the graduating Extension Mathematics class. I think only a single female Chemistry student out of nearly 20. In my Year 10 Mathematics class, probably a 5:1 Male Female Ratio. And I can't remember further back than that - But yeah, underrepresentation is (I believe) irrefutable.
Does this represent inequality in treatment? Well I think it is evidence of the fact. You don't have those sorts of figures if everyone is treated the same from day one. If you respond with the fact that women are less interested, then the question becomes why. If women and men are both treated completely equally from day one, why is it so lopsided? :)
I guess where I differ the most in opinion from others is - given equal opportunity, there will be female underrepresentation in STEM subjects due to neurological differences between the average male and female brain. I haven't done extensive research on the subject, so I could be totally wrong.
-
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.
Love your contributions and agree to all you said.
WHO SAID THE HSC ISN'T RELEVANT AFTER EXAMS HUH
-
Also regarding the cost of the female traffic lights, according to the ABC, it costs an average $8,400 to change six traffic lights and the program has been funded by the Committee for Melbourne and Bayswater company Camlex Electrical. Taxpayer money had not gone into the initiative. Link here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/female-traffic-light-signals-melbourne-pedestrian-crossing/8330560
Riiiight, thanks for sharing that Coffee!! If this is a project funded by the private dollar, then without opening the "Should women be represented as stick figures with dresses" debate, I think that shuts down most of the opposition I've been seeing, which has pretty much been, "What a waste of time and money." I absolutely think there are way more important things going on in the world right now, but why be against it if it has a positive impact? I don't think there'd be any negative impacts of doing it :)
-
As for the 67 genders - let there be 67 genders! If someone came up to me and said there are 67 genders, as you suggested for the scenario, I wouldn't have any difficulty with the conflict between my intersectional feminism and their view of gender. I don't mind, doesn't threaten me :)
Surely this is absurd. While 67 genders, or how ever many one wants it to be, might make an excellent creative writing piece imagine the chaos which would ensue when it comes to lawmaking and the future of human policy.
-
Surely this is absurd. While 67 genders, or how ever many one wants it to be, might make an excellent creative writing piece imagine the chaos which would ensue when it comes to lawmaking and the future of human policy.
How many genders do you perceive there to be, alchemy?
-
Surely this is absurd. While 67 genders, or how ever many one wants it to be, might make an excellent creative writing piece imagine the chaos which would ensue when it comes to lawmaking and the future of human policy.
You asked me how it conflicts with my feminism - it doesn't. If someone believes there's 67 genders I'd take that over someone who believes he can grab women by the pussy because he's famous. 67 genders is far less problematic for my feminism.
-
I try and post this every time someone attempts to complain that we're not treating people equally or make some comment about 'humanism'
(https://crazy4comiccon.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/equality.png)
-
that is not my opinion, it is a fact that 67 genders don't exist.
Gender isn't the same as biological sex - Two totally different constructs. Gender is a social construct.
And if I may boldly try and be a Biologist for a second (no math, ew) - Even if you did choose to define gender purely on your chromosomes, what do you call those born with three X chromosomes. Are they women? What about Klinefelter Syndrome, two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome?
This isn't an attack, it's just raising the issues that come with assigning gender purely to biological sex. It's a far more complex thing than that - Like many aspects of studying humanity, assigning something to be either "black or white" or "chemical or natural" or "heroes or terrorists," isn't really something you can do :P
(Not super well read, feel free to correct on above, lol)
-
I try and post this every time someone attempts to complain that we're not treating people equally or make some comment about 'humanism'
(https://crazy4comiccon.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/equality.png)
Gdi I've seen you post this before I think and it just hits me in the feels every time
-
Riiiight, thanks for sharing that Coffee!! If this is a project funded by the private dollar, then without opening the "Should women be represented as stick figures with dresses" debate, I think that shuts down most of the opposition I've been seeing, which has pretty much been, "What a waste of time and money." I absolutely think there are way more important things going on in the world right now, but why be against it if it has a positive impact? I don't think there'd be any negative impacts of doing it :)
I completely agree and I think this quote pretty much sums it up:
"A culture of sexism is made up of very small issues, like how the default pedestrian crossings use a male figure — and large issues such as the rate of family violence facing women."
Of course there are more pressing issues, but it's also important to pay attention to the little things. The issue with male traffic lights is that it presents an unconscious bias towards men and I think this is something worth questioning rather than simply dismissing it for it's 'insignificance'.
-
Just wondering
Why does anyone assume the traffic light represents a man? Kinda confused :P
:)
-
Of course there are more pressing issues, but it's also important to pay attention to the little things. The issue with male traffic lights is that it presents an unconscious bias towards men and I think this is something worth questioning rather than simply dismissing it for it's 'insignificance'.
Right on, Coffee! Treating domestic violence isn't as simple as stopping family members from hitting other family members. We need to break it down, all the way down to the micro-aggressions and everyday sexisms. (Not saying traffic lights contribute to DV, just an example of another issue).
To me, the best thing to come out of this is the challenging of gendered representation and bias. It's a healthy conversation to have with others, but I've also found it to be really fruitful to challenge my own assumptions inwardly.
-
Just wondering
Why does anyone assume the traffic light represents a man? Kinda confused :P
:)
No direct answer to this, but it is the crux of the debate about gendered representation. I mentioned earlier that I was always told "wait for the little man to turn green." If you look at the female and male signs on public toilets, the women are wearing a triangle shaped dress thing, and the men are often just a stick figure, like the traffic light. So I think it's not unlikely to assume there's a connection been made there.
But it does raise bigger issues - that stick figure is ambiguous about gender. Why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?
In my opinion, we should be challenging these representations and asking the exact question you are - why are we assuming this is a man?
-
Just wondering
Why does anyone assume the traffic light represents a man? Kinda confused :P
:)
No direct answer to this, but it is the crux of the debate about gendered representation. I mentioned earlier that I was always told "wait for the little man to turn green." If you look at the female and male signs on public toilets, the women are wearing a triangle shaped dress thing, and the men are often just a stick figure, like the traffic light. So I think it's not unlikely to assume there's a connection been made there.
But it does raise bigger issues - that stick figure is ambiguous about gender. Why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?
In my opinion, we should be challenging these representations and asking the exact question you are - why are we assuming this is a man?
just using the confused state as a persuasive technique
but seriously, yes we are conditioned to assume that it is male (can't really blame ourselves for this). I really don't see the problem in having female traffic lights but i feel this will just create more "issues" as some will complain about their being more male traffic lights.
-
just using the confused state as a persuasive technique
but seriously, yes we are conditioned to assume that it is male (can't really blame ourselves for this). I really don't see the problem in having female traffic lights but i feel this will just create more "issues" as some will complain about their being more male traffic lights.
Do you (or anyone reading this) know much about the campaign for this change? I try to keep up with this stuff but I didn't hear anything about it before it actually was declared today, I didn't know it was even being lobbied for. Maybe because it's in Melbourne and I'm not so I missed the lead-up.
"The aim is to move towards one-to-one male and female representation across the state of Victoria." According to the ABC article here. I agree that I hope it doesn't become about how many male to female traffic lights there are, but I'm coming from a standpoint of not really seeing it as an issue to begin with. I'm just riding out the outcome in the hopes that we can turn it into a positive of challenging ideas of gender bias.
-
Gender isn't the same as biological sex - Two totally different constructs. Gender is a social construct.
And if I may boldly try and be a Biologist for a second (no math, ew) - Even if you did choose to define gender purely on your chromosomes, what do you call those born with three X chromosomes. Are they women? What about Klinefelter Syndrome, two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome?
(Not super well read, feel free to correct on above, lol)
Thing is though, not even biological sex is purely determined by your chromosomes-that would be genetic sex. But if we were to define gender based on chromosomes, assuming that we are equating gender with genetic, not biological sex, the obvious answer would be:
XXX= female and XXY=male.
-
The most telling thing about this whole saga has been the crybaby reaction from people who think it's "too far" and so on so forth as if feminists are the unreasonable ones.
The main line I'm seeing on Facebook is "ugh it's so tiny, who cares!!"
If it's so tiny- why the fuck are you making a big deal out of 10 traffic lights? Why are people so offended and upset by the change?
It's just a bit funny is that all I hear about feminism is how unreasonably offended everyone is getting, but the only time I see a whole group of people get unreasonably offended is when feminism makes progress 😅😅
Is it a BAD thing the lights are changing? I don't see how you could argue that. Is it the BEST thing that could happen? No one is arguing that. What does that leave as an option? Probably that it's a cool thing, probs helpful, no biggy, let's go sensationalise something else.
-
It's just a bit funny is that all I hear about feminism is how unreasonably offended everyone is getting, but the only time I see a whole group of people get unreasonably offended is when feminism makes progress 😅😅
Bingo! This is where the real outrage should be directed...
Edit: apparently this is meant to be the silhouette of a suffragette? If thats true then I think thats pretty cool :)
-
Going back a bit, but I did say I would reply!
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.
Actually, this is still true today. I only gave the Titanic example because it was quite easy to see - however even today, if a plane is crashing or a ship is sinking and lifeboats are brought out or people need to evacuate, they do indeed say 'women and children first'. Pretty much 99% of the time.
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.
This is not something that happened to me personally or anything, it's society's way of thinking. It's well known that if a man hits a woman it bears more weight than a woman hitting a man. You can see that in many social experiments that have been conducted, plus the jail time that women receive compared to men for the same crime.
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, that's a big problem that we need to solve; however, how is changing traffic lights going to help?
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 :)
Yes, you talked about traffic lights - but then asked me how women are more privileged than men, so I answered.
I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate IWD. In fact that's great. But IMD is an important day too. Men are important too. Just because men have been more dominant that does NOT mean that we should celebrate only women now.
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.
This is me, too. I consider myself a feminist if you look at the definition of the word in a dictionary - but not a third-wave feminist. I consider myself a second-wave or first-wave feminist.
Just wondering
Why does anyone assume the traffic light represents a man? Kinda confused :P
:)
Exactly - why is this even such a big deal? Why do we need to do this anyway? Why can't we just move on with our lives? That's what I'm saying - this isn't even a big issue so why are these feminists wasting so much time trying to fix this non-existent problem when they could be putting their efforts to actually DOING something important, like volunteering at women's shelters or something like that?
Of course there are more pressing issues, but it's also important to pay attention to the little things. The issue with male traffic lights is that it presents an unconscious bias towards men and I think this is something worth questioning rather than simply dismissing it for it's 'insignificance'.
There are always going to be these 'unconscious biases'. For example, there's an unconscious bias that boys generally like football more than women. Is that important? No. Are women stopped from playing football due to this? No. What is the problem? Nothing. Could it be perhaps that more men just like playing football and that less women like playing football, and that there is no 'unconscious bias' at all? Of course!
These unconscious biases are just the results of people being too sensitive. I played football throughout primary school. Although I was the only girl on the team, I didn't experience any sort of discrimination due to this, and played pretty well. Although I've lost the passion for it now, back then it might well just have been that more boys were more interested in football than girls, and that accounted for the male:female ratio. Why does there have to be this 'unconscious bias' thing?
But it does raise bigger issues - that stick figure is ambiguous about gender. Why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask yourself that. Why do you assume it's a man? Are you then being sexist because you are assuming it's gender, god forbid?
I never assumed it was a man - and even if I did, I'm not going to be offended by it. I'll be offended if a man hits me or a woman hits me or if a man assumes I can't do something because I'm a woman, or if a female assumes a man can't do something because he's a man. That's the sort of things we should be getting offended about, not that some traffic light shows an androgynous figure and some people assume it's a man.
You're asking why we assume it's a man. A lot of us don't. You were told to 'wait for the green man' to cross the road. I was not. Perhaps you should be asking "why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?" to the people who told you that the green person was a man, and not to us, because in reality we can hardly assume its gender. And it's all a matter of opinion anyway; if you think it's a man, that's great. If you think it's a female, that's great too. If you just think of it as a person, that's also okay. But is this even a big issue? Why do feminists need to change these traffic lights? As I said before, why don't they focus on actually HELPING women, rather than focusing on an 'unconscious bias' which isn't even there - it's made up in the minds of people who are offended all too easily.
-
Responding to a few bits and pieces :)
Going back a bit, but I did say I would reply!
Actually, this is still true today. I only gave the Titanic example because it was quite easy to see - however even today, if a plane is crashing or a ship is sinking and lifeboats are brought out or people need to evacuate, they do indeed say 'women and children first'. Pretty much 99% of the time.
There's no basis for the "women and children first" call in any international law documents that I know of (and definitely not in Australian Domestic Law) - Do you have a source for saying that 99% of the time the call is made? Most situations I have heard of have been elderly and children, the vulnerable, which makes perfect sense. And that's what the 10 minutes of research I've just put into the issue says as well.
This is not something that happened to me personally or anything, it's society's way of thinking. It's well known that if a man hits a woman it bears more weight than a woman hitting a man. You can see that in many social experiments that have been conducted, plus the jail time that women receive compared to men for the same crime.
I'd say this comes back to a different but related gender inequality issue; that men are viewed as "the tough ones." If you define feminism, it is "the advocacy of men and women being be treated equally," so by definition feminism combats this issue as well. Like, to accept feminism (if you go by the definition) is to back the gender inequality issues that affect men as well as women. To my understanding, it's called "feminism" because the inequality went the way of the men in the first place, but as progress is made, the definition has wider consequence.
There are always going to be these 'unconscious biases'. For example, there's an unconscious bias that boys generally like football more than women. Is that important? No. Are women stopped from playing football due to this? No. What is the problem? Nothing. Could it be perhaps that more men just like playing football and that less women like playing football, and that there is no 'unconscious bias' at all? Of course!
These unconscious biases are just the results of people being too sensitive. I played football throughout primary school. Although I was the only girl on the team, I didn't experience any sort of discrimination due to this, and played pretty well. Although I've lost the passion for it now, back then it might well just have been that more boys were more interested in football than girls, and that accounted for the male:female ratio. Why does there have to be this 'unconscious bias' thing?
If 100 pairs of males and females of similar stature/build/whatever both tried out for competitive football teams, particularly in front of male coaches, I guarantee that a statistically significant number of those try outs would be affected by unconscious bias, and perhaps even deliberate bias.
Like, I totally empathise with the fact that you never experienced discrimination, and that is obviously fantastic. But unconscious bias isn't something that 'third wave feminists' are making up in a hyper politically correct crusade. It is a scientifically proven aspect of human decision making. And it does happen; perhaps not to you and perhaps even not in Australia as much as other countries. But it happens.
I never assumed it was a man - and even if I did, I'm not going to be offended by it. I'll be offended if a man hits me or a woman hits me or if a man assumes I can't do something because I'm a woman, or if a female assumes a man can't do something because he's a man. That's the sort of things we should be getting offended about, not that some traffic light shows an androgynous figure and some people assume it's a man.
I highly doubt there would be many people intensely offended about traffic lights, especially in comparison to the other issues you list. They aren't on the same level. But (and this is especially true given that the project isn't funded by the taxpayer dollar, which was the one irk I might have had with this given other things happening in Aus right now), is there a reason why dealing with traffic lights means we can't care about the bigger picture stuff too? And further, if the argument is that we shouldn't be worrying about the traffic light issue so much, then what justifies people voicing their opinion against it just as loudly (if not louder) than those for it? If they shouldn't care, why do you (meaning those strongly opposed to the change, not you specifically) care?
You're asking why we assume it's a man. A lot of us don't. You were told to 'wait for the green man' to cross the road. I was not. Perhaps you should be asking "why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?" ...
I think Elyse's previous posts indicate that she is asking that - And indeed I think that is probably one of the more interesting and relevant things to come out of this matter :)
-
Jeez do people actually care about the sign on the traffic lights? It seems like a superfluous debate??? This is the first time I actually realized that the traffic light figures are actually male because after all my primary motive is to cross the road. The only time i would give a crap about traffic light symbols is if i have to now wait longer or less to cross.
-
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. There is no issue here other than feminists being too sensitive. Why deal with this so-called 'unconscious bias' when their efforts could be directed to women being murdered in other countries?
I encourage you all to view this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuo9oaKYUd8 (Apologies for the inappropriate language so pls don't watch if you are too young or don't want to hear the language)
-
This is my most favourite thread on AN. It was nice to see different opinions because i never realised the sign on the traffic light was a 'man'. I honestly thought it was just a 'person'. Anyway, this is what i think: I honestly do not get the point of changing the signs because i feel like it is a waste of money and we could do more useful things w our own money. Many people like me mightn't have been aware of a 'man' being on traffic light. We are creating our own problems by differentiating this now.
Kinda off topic but I really want to share this:
I agree that feminism is an important issue, it will always be but sometimes i feel like 'girl-on-girl' hate is a more serious issue. Everyone talks about how men should respect women and they should but I've never heard of people saying that 'girls should respect girls'. Like seriously, the amount of girl-on-girl hate young girls have to go through in school, at work and/or online is unimaginable. Isn't feminism about 'men and women having equal rights and opportunities'? Then why are girls actually stopping the advancement of equality? Why do girls feel the need to spread hate?
Anyway, Happy International Women's Day everyone. :D
-
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. There is no issue here other than feminists being too sensitive. Why deal with this so-called 'unconscious bias' when their efforts could be directed to women being murdered in other countries?
If it is clear that this is an inappropriate intervention;
What is the opportunity cost of this intervention in the context of wanting to stop women being murdered overseas?
What will the benefit of this intervention be domestically?
What could be achieved internationally for a similar investment? Would you be able to redirect the funding and resources?
Alternatively;
Is it not possible for both to occur simultaneously, since they're not mutually exclusive or significantly dependent on each other?
Would you question a grant given to research bowel cancer on the grounds that the money could be used to research something else instead?
Dismissing this as oversensitive feminists is one of the more intellectually barren offerings to make to a discussion on the issue (although your video link certainly beats it).
-
Jeez do people actually care about the sign on the traffic lights? It seems like a superfluous debate??? This is the first time I actually realized that the traffic light figures are actually male because after all my primary motive is to cross the road. The only time i would give a crap about traffic light symbols is if i have to now wait longer or less to cross.
It's not solely about the superficial issue of what gets shown at traffic lights, it's about highlighting a deeper issue and stimulating conversation to challenge beliefs such as 'there's no wage gap' or 'women aren't disadvantaged'.
-
I don't know. Maybe you should ask yourself that. Why do you assume it's a man? Are you then being sexist because you are assuming it's gender, god forbid?
I never assumed it was a man - and even if I did, I'm not going to be offended by it. I'll be offended if a man hits me or a woman hits me or if a man assumes I can't do something because I'm a woman, or if a female assumes a man can't do something because he's a man. That's the sort of things we should be getting offended about, not that some traffic light shows an androgynous figure and some people assume it's a man.
You're asking why we assume it's a man. A lot of us don't. You were told to 'wait for the green man' to cross the road. I was not. Perhaps you should be asking "why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?" to the people who told you that the green person was a man, and not to us, because in reality we can hardly assume its gender. And it's all a matter of opinion anyway; if you think it's a man, that's great. If you think it's a female, that's great too. If you just think of it as a person, that's also okay. But is this even a big issue? Why do feminists need to change these traffic lights? As I said before, why don't they focus on actually HELPING women, rather than focusing on an 'unconscious bias' which isn't even there - it's made up in the minds of people who are offended all too easily.
I think you've lost the intention of what I've written through the forums. I AM asking myself that - why did I assume this is a man? I'm looking inwardly to work out, within myself, why I saw the figure as a man. I put the invitation out there for other people to question the same thing. And you have, and you've responded that you haven't thought of it as a man. Great! Then this isn't going to be an exercise is challenging unconscious bias in your mind. Perhaps you have none, congratulations :) But I certainly do. From everything I have read broadly today and yesterday - no one was offended by the figure being male/androngymous. This isn't about being offended. Nor is it a "group of feminists" lobbying for the change - it was the Committee for Melbourne (which, presumably, has feminists among it, but is not an NGO for feminism). I think Melbourne wants to be cool, quirky, and inclusive. That's why the traffic lights were changed - not because anyone was offended by them.
I can't convince you that unconscious bias exists - I see it every single day because I'm acutely aware of it. I definitely wasn't always, it was something I skeptically studied until I saw the evidence. If someone said to me a year ago that it existed I'd say it's probably all anecdotal. It's not. I really hope you don't think that there's a group of raging feminists lurking in the corners of Melbourne waiting for the opportunity to change traffic lights purely for the purpose of ignoring bigger issues. You'll find that feminist groups are approaching big issues. It's the Committee of Melbourne that changed the lights.
But hey, some pixels were added to traffic lights. This doesn't mean that thousands of people aren't fighting big issues today and everyday that face women. Changing traffic lights isn't detracted the wonderful work of feminists everywhere that are tackling big issues, even if they are starting at micro-levels. I find it difficult to entertain "there is no issue here other than feminists being too sensitive." I'm a feminist, fierce and "third wave" and I'm certainly not sensitive to traffic lights. I watched the video, I think it doesn't hold any weight. The dilemma is not "traffic lights or eradicating female genital mutilation." We aren't being forced to choose - we can have both.
-
Kinda off topic but I really want to share this:
I agree that feminism is an important issue, it will always be but sometimes i feel like 'girl-on-girl' hate is a more serious issue. Everyone talks about how men should respect women and they should but I've never heard of people saying that 'girls should respect girls'. Like seriously, the amount of girl-on-girl hate young girls have to go through in school, at work and/or online is unimaginable. Isn't feminism about 'men and women having equal rights and opportunities'? Then why are girls actually stopping the advancement of equality? Why do girls feel the need to spread hate?
Anyway, Happy International Women's Day everyone. :D
This...so spot on! I don't know about it being a "more" important issue but certainly a big issue...
I have been doing some ~reflecting~ lately on my identity, purpose, etc (that happens when you're alone on the other side of the world). When I was in High School, I certainly felt intimidated by other girls. I totally engaged in destructive conversations about other girls and even at the time of doing that - I'd feel worse off? Tearing people down has never made me feel better when I walk away and it really confuses me now that I used to engage in that kind of thing anyway. I think it's because, although outwardly I was so confident, I was quite insecure internally. And I kept hoping that by targetted the strength of other girls (sometimes just in my head and not even expressed verbally) I could take a little bit of it for myself. I didn't have the tools to know how to turn around and look at myself to grow, rather than trying to stump other people. I look at my friendship group now, my 7 best friends, and we used to bicker in High School. But when we all left, started doing our own thing, we learned to stand all on our own two feet and there was no need to be competitive, we all raised ourselves.
@zotheysay posted a similar (but far wittier) story on Instagram today about exactly this - how she used to pull women down in the hopes of raising herself. It's definitely something that needs to be addressed, and in the feminism I'm involved in, it really is. Empowering women with the tools they need to feel strong without pulling others down is so important and at the forefront of the feminism I actively engage in. For me, the tools I needed were often reading books about heroines who didn't tear others down, and from looking up to people (sometimes celebrities and sometimes just mere mortals in my life ;) ) who displayed confidence and support simultaneously - and I thought "I really want that to be me."
So yeah, you've addressed that really well. I don't have all the answers, I don't know what I could have told 15 year old me to fast-forward her confidence to 19 year old me. But what you're saying highlights a big issue, in my opinion! Even if not a feminist issue - an issue for mental health, social confidence, bullying, etc... :)
-
The stance I have resulted to with this debate is not one of either side; keeping the 'male' symbol nor replacing it with a 'female' symbol. It is very important to first establish that there is indeed an association of gender towards each of the two, which is highly present throughout society and, unfortunately, within each of our subconscious thoughts. The majority of national and furthermore international businesses use such symbols to signify male and female areas and products, namely bathrooms, which people still use in a submissive fashion. Socially, it is made standard that each of the images represent a group of people, and by placing either of them in a position which dictates authority or direction, it only worsens the divide between people. This is where the question is asked: 'if this system is so bad, then what's the alternative?' The solution which various nations around the world have already implemented over the last 30 years, is to eradicate the gender-based symbolism of the traffic light system. Within major cities of the United States, such signage is simply a hand and the word 'walk', with a timer to countdown remaining crossing time. Not only is this actually more efficient and effective than the current system, it eliminates the prior issues discussed. This is the first step to real equality, one that does not hold one group of people higher than another, one that does not force a subconscious hierarchy, one that has no means of continuing to diminish the people. It should never be acceptable for people to be displaced from society simply due to their existence, especially when the system can be so easily fixed.
-
I am sorry if this is going to de-rail the thread a little bit, (and forgive my being uninformed about the topic) but i just want to put forth my experience about why I think we should definitely be asking questions and making positive changes about these sorts of gender issues.
I am staying out of the debate on this one in general as I am not well versed enough to have a strong opinion or understand the intricacies of different arguments, but having the public asking questions about these issues & changing things like the traffic light is a step in the right direction because there are alot of really practical disadvantages around that should be fixed (for both genders) and the only way for a lot of them to come to light is by really voicing concern about them and working to fix them.
one i can really think of that shits me that people dont talk about is the lack of baby change tables in mens bathrooms.
i regularly look after my baby nephew and looked after his older sister (my neice) before she got to school age, and naturally when i need to do something out of the house and bring them with me, inevitably they will shit their pants on occasion because that is what babies do. half the time (except big shopping centres) i could not for the life of me find a baby change table/parents room, and eventually would have to go into a girls toilet to use the baby change table LOL and when I do get forced into that situation, i get people saying shit to me like "he should have his mother looking after him not his dad (im not even his dad)" "wheres his mother? do you just want me to change his diaper instead?" etc. which upsets me on both the fact that a) they think the woman should just stay home and look after the baby instead of go to work and b) that a man is incapable of looking after children.
I also have a close friend with a baby daughter and he has had people in public make some very sinister insinuations towards him about his intentions with his own daughter. this is just one particular issue that I have faced and I am sure there are loads more that I don't know about for women, because I haven't experienced them or even really thought about this topic. I really cant begin to think of how many shit situations like this sort of thing that girls face in the world as well especially in places like the workplace. so i think that a trend towards really equalising things in public in a really practical and visible way will get people asking the right questions and eventually work toward solving some of the problems that everyone faces in life, and hopefully it might also make some people be a bit more considerate of their actions and words in public. happy international womens day everyone !!
EDIT: grammar
-
I encourage you all to view this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuo9oaKYUd8
For what purpose, exactly?
-
whereas, I have given facts; how women are more likely to get into STEM jobs, the wage gap is almost non-existent and does not take into account hours worked, efficiency of the person, job preference, job type, etc. People's rebuttals to this throughout the whole thread have been
Hey, can you please expand on this? I thought there was a huge wage gap. . . .
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/australias-top-50-highest-paying-jobs-20161204-gt3uzx.html
-
Maybe there are less women in your [in general] job, but overall, more women are in STEM jobs, and that's a fact.
Not a fact.
"Women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2016).
Women make up half of the total U.S. college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (62%) and biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences (48%) and relatively low shares in engineering (15%) and computer and mathematical sciences (25%).
For example:
35.2% of chemists are women;
11.1% of physicists and astronomers are women;
33.8% of environmental engineers are women;
22.7% of chemical engineers are women;
17.5% of civil, architectural, and sanitary engineers are women;
17.1% of industrial engineers are women;
10.7% of electrical or computer hardware engineers are women; and
7.9% of mechanical engineers are women."
Source: National Girls Collaborative Project https://ngcproject.org/statistics
Granted this is US data, but it is highly unlikely that Australia is any different. Plus as this in particular is a global issue, stats from the larger and more active US community are probably more indicative of trends than the smaller Australia.
-
Hey, can you please expand on this? I thought there was a huge wage gap. . . .
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/australias-top-50-highest-paying-jobs-20161204-gt3uzx.html
Hi vcestressed,
When I say that there is a barely or non existent wage gap, what I mean is that although there are sites like this which show that men are paid more than women, this does not account for the follow variables:
- How long women and men work
- How efficiently women and men work
- The types of jobs women and men are in
- The types of jobs women prefer to do and men prefer to do.
When you account for these variables (I'm sure there are more but I can't think of any off the top of my head), the wage gap is extremely minimal or barely even there.
Not a fact.
"Women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2016).
Women make up half of the total U.S. college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (62%) and biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences (48%) and relatively low shares in engineering (15%) and computer and mathematical sciences (25%).
For example:
35.2% of chemists are women;
11.1% of physicists and astronomers are women;
33.8% of environmental engineers are women;
22.7% of chemical engineers are women;
17.5% of civil, architectural, and sanitary engineers are women;
17.1% of industrial engineers are women;
10.7% of electrical or computer hardware engineers are women; and
7.9% of mechanical engineers are women."
Source: National Girls Collaborative Project https://ngcproject.org/statistics
Granted this is US data, but it is highly unlikely that Australia is any different. Plus as this in particular is a global issue, stats from the larger and more active US community are probably more indicative of trends than the smaller Australia.
Apologies, sudodds, what I meant to say is that women are more likely to be accepted into STEM jobs.
"For decades, sexism in higher education has been blamed for blocking women from landing academic positions in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.
But a new study by Cornell psychologists suggests that era has ended, finding in experiments with professors from 371 colleges and universities across the United States that science and engineering faculty preferred women two-to-one over identically qualified male candidates for assistant professor positions."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions
"Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics."
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
"Women are clearly capable of doing well in STEM fields traditionally dominated by men, and they should not be hindered, bullied, or shamed for pursuing careers in such fields. But we also should not be ashamed if our interests differ from men’s. If we find certain careers more intrinsically rewarding than men do, that does not mean we have been brainwashed by society or herded into menial fields of labor. Instead, we should demand that greater intrinsic and monetary compensation be awarded to the work we like and want to do."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/
We can encourage women to go into STEM jobs, but we cannot force them to do so. Men and women are different and on the whole have different interests. Just because we don't have exactly 50/50 of men and women in computer science, for example, that does not mean women are being oppressed - it simply means more women are choosing to pursue other careers that interest them.
-
I have Australian data:
...
More women are in STEM jobs, and that's a fact.
Well, no, it isn't - this link is an article referencing "a finding of a new report by the Office of the Chief Scientist, which shows 16% of the 2.3 million Stem-qualified Australians are female, with engineering showing the largest gender gap." That's last year.
Only needed to read the summary of this report to see that additionally, 32% of male STEM graduates are in the top income bracket, compared to only 12% of female STEM graduates.
So unfortunately, there is a disparity in employment rate. And there is a pay gap. And that's a fact.
As much as my opinions will be based on how I feel, I'm a logical person. I don't argue things based on fact without knowing they are true :)
Apologies, sudodds, what I meant to say is that women are more likely to be accepted into STEM jobs.
Edit: Right then, so if we have accepted that there are less women in STEM positions, isn't the correct way to balance that by then offering them more opportunities and I don't know, hiring women? Again, you aren't going to equalise the sector by maintaining the status quo, because clearly the status quo has bred inequality. The statistics show it! :)
-
Hi vcestressed,
When I say that there is a barely or non existent wage gap, what I mean is that although there are sites like this which show that men are paid more than women, this does not account for the follow variables:
- How long women and men work
- How efficiently women and men work
- The types of jobs women and men are in
- The types of jobs women prefer to do and men prefer to do.
When you account for these variables (I'm sure there are more but I can't think of any off the top of my head), the wage gap is extremely minimal or barely even there.
Hey, Firstly feel free to correct me if i say something that doesn't make sense, you think is incorrect etc but,
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/australias-top-50-highest-paying-jobs-20161204-gt3uzx.html
They state that Female neurosurgeons take home just 56 percent of their male counterparts’ salary, despite being the second-highest-paid professional women. Male neurosurgeons (top paying male profession) earned on average $577,674 while women neurosurgeons (second top paying female profession) earned on average $323,682. Difference? Yes. Huge? Yeah. Is it because all females work less hard or efficiently than males? I don’t think so. Is it because women aren't as qualified? No. Even if male neurosurgeons did work more, i don't this most female neurosurgeons worked 44% less than men.
Then have a look at the top paying female profession: judge (law) at $355,844. This very same profession comes in 13th on the male list. You’d think that male judges would be paid less than female judges right? Or at LEAST the same, but that’s still not the case. A male judge is paid on average $381,323, a number still higher than a female in the same position.
The gender pay gap is undeniable. It is unreasonable.Here are some more links you can look at:
https://www.wgea.gov.au/addressing…/what-gender-pay-gap
http://data.wgea.gov.au/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_Australia
Yes, I know wikipedia, how dare I. Have a look at the references. The page quotes university researchers in these areas (male researchers by the way) who have studied and taken into account women working part time/in different areas and still concluded that there is a wage gap even when you take into account maternity leave, working in different areas etc.
Feel free to correct me w anything i've said.
-
My feeling about this thread:
If you don't think that changing the traffic lights is particularly useful, but not terribly dreadfully harmful, then that's fine. You're not obliged to be an active supporter of any social cause. But you have no involvement in it and no reason to get angry; they're not using your time or money, and they're free to use theirs however they wish.
You individually probably spend lots of your time and money in things that make a *negative* impact on yourself or the world around you; rather than judging the effectiveness of others' spending, examine how you could improve your usage of resources for the general good.
Slippery slope arguments ("this one change will lead to the downfall of society let's panic!!!!!") are used to destroy many excellent causes.
I'm aware I'm really bad at following my own advice lol
EDIT: fuck me and my grammar or lack thereof -_-
-
We can encourage women to go into STEM jobs, but we cannot force them to do so. Men and women are different and on the whole have different interests. Just because we don't have exactly 50/50 of men and women in computer science, for example, that does not mean women are being oppressed - it simply means more women are choosing to pursue other careers that interest them.
Oh I 100% agree (EDIT: on the subject of personal choice) - I would never for the life of me choose a STEM option. I honestly can't imagine anything worse (sorry Jamon). However to act as if this is a purely choice based issue I think is too black and white (I also think that the reverse argument is too black and white mind you). There are systemic, environmental factors that influence the paths individuals want to take - I wasn't born wanting to join the film industry. Jamon wasn't born wanting to be an electrical engineer - and I don't think it is a coincidence that traditionally a gender based redirection of labour has occurred. Along with this, gender roles play a significant factor. Studies have suggested that when it comes to selling ourselves to prospective employers, women tend to sell themselves short, whereas men sell themselves high. Men are more likely to feel comfortable telling a few white lies or exaggerating on a CV, whereas women tend to downplay their achievements in fear of coming across as too conceited. This is at least in some capacity a result of gender conditioning, and may be a significant reason as to why many women choose to take on jobs that are traditionally not as "hard" (I hate saying that), because they don't feel that they are as qualified (I know that these are generalisations, but thats what all studies show. If you want more personal stuff you're gonna have to rely on anecdotes ;))
But lets accept your argument for a second okay. Lets say that women are being disproportionately encouraged (not forced - that isn't a thing that is happening) to join STEM fields. Gender based occupational discrimination is still undeniably occurring. For example within the film industry (as that is the goal I have done quite a bit of research on this stuff). There IS a disproportionate amount of successful male directors, and this is not because women traditionally don't want to take on that role. If you look at more "indie" and short films, the gap shrinks significantly. The thing is that in the film industry, male directors are often given the opportunity (and the budgets) to direct MASSIVE films, after maybe one or two successful shorts/"indies," whereas a female director, with many (sometimes even better/more) films and awards is less likely to be given this opportunity, and get stuck in the indie cycle. This is gender based occupational discrimination. It's not a myth.
I don't think when feminists say they want equality in the workforce they mean an exactly 50/50 split between men and women. At the end of the day, it is stupid to ignore factors such as personal choice. They more so want to give everyone an even playing field in being able to access these fields. It is highly likely that many women would find it difficult to join these STEM fields without the introduction of these programs, scholarships and quotas - I mean that is why they are put there in the first place. The fact that many uni's and workplaces are taking such measures to ensure higher rates of female acceptance says to me that at the very least it was a problem for quite some time. The picture Russ posted earlier sums this up perfectly.
-
With all the talk of feminism and political correctness "gone mad", I honestly believe that if you believe in the rights that you have -- you are in part a feminist, and it's not such a bad thing to accept as what most (I believe) people make it out to be.
Political correctness is a way to encourage and challenge us to be more thoughtful, and the ideal of it is so that we can build a more equal and accepting society. And feminist theories contribute to this just as much. Feminism is more than what you see at face-value, it's the history beneath it, it's the idealism behind it. And I think there is something to be admired about that, even when there are so many associations now-a-days with feminists as being these anti-authoritarian hypocrites. I think that if you seriously justify your stance with these stereotypes in mind, I'd say it's probably high time you challenge that too.
-
Jamon wasn't born wanting to be an electrical engineer
I didn't know it when I was born, but on my 10th birthday...
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/youre-an-electrical-3n21yt.jpg)
-
I didn't know it when I was born, but on my 10th birthday...
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/youre-an-electrical-3n21yt.jpg)
did I 100% fully anticipate that you would make a meme out of that sentence and that is why I included it? We will never know 8)
-
did I 100% fully anticipate that you would make a meme out of that sentence and that is why I included it? We will never know 8)
Ahahaha! My meme game is predictable, it's why Brenden and Jake handle most of the Facebook meme efforts ;)
-
Having read all the comments here.. I can see where everyone is coming from and everything has already been said... so I propose a solution.
Why not just make a sign with a male and a female? (as they say,, why not both)
-
Having read all the comments here.. I can see where everyone is coming from and everything has already been said... so I propose a solution.
Why not just make a sign with a male and a female? (as they say,, why not both)
I haven't read most of the comments, so please pardon me for a that.
TBH it shouldn't even matter in the end... those lights are there for only one sole purpose... for a person to cross the road safely, not to show that a certain gender is superior, or anything else pertaining to gender equality. Most of the population wouldn't care if they see a male or a female or anything else on those lights, as long as they feel safe crossing the road.
As for the pay gap (or whatever it is called), you must recall that those are the average wages, and several factors do affect a person's wage (from experience to all the way to other qualities of the person). I do agree that males may have been considered superior in the past, which is why there might be more experienced males in professional fields, but you also have to consider that females are relatively new to those fields (on average). There are several females out there getting the highest pay cheque... why? because of their experience. On average there might be more experienced males in a field compared to females, which is why such a pay gap exists today. You should also notice that as more females are becoming experienced in a certain field, their average wage is also increasing, and catching up. I don't know why people would even compare that wages of a female and a male, because I think a person's gender would have no effect on their wage (in any highly qualified jobs). TBH these days, it doesn't exactly matter what gender you are in any professional field, it your qualities and your experience that matters.
-
I haven't read most of the comments, so please pardon me for a that.
TBH it shouldn't even matter in the end... those lights are there for only one sole purpose... for a person to cross the road safely, not to show that a certain gender is superior, or anything else pertaining to gender equality. Most of the population wouldn't care if they see a male or a female or anything else on those lights, as long as they feel safe crossing the road.
I can't help but notice how you downplay the significance of it. Call me sensitive, but of course it matters. To many people it does mean something. Sure, it's not a fiesta; sure it may seem menial to some. But just because it doesn't involve you doesn't mean it shouldn't matter. It's a symbol for moving forward. It may be brief but it's significance has value, just as much as the function of a street light has a purpose.
I don't know why people would even compare that wages of a female and a male, because I think a person's gender would have no effect on their wage (in any highly qualified jobs). TBH these days, it doesn't exactly matter what gender you are in any professional field, it your qualities and your experience that matters.
The gender pay-gap is only used to highlight that there exists a prejudice, which I think you've summed up only to some extent by your interpretation of the statistics. However, there are also many other more qualitative evidence which supports that women are discriminated against in workplaces, at home etc -- and that these experiences are caused from cultures of what used to be male-dominated. I get where you're going with the meritocratic argument, but there are many more factors contributing to why it's important to think about these things, the female experience etc., so I don't think that it is accurate to say that it "doesn't exactly matter what gender you are" in the real world, when it is shown time and time again that it does affect deeply on how people view you: for a change in perspective, see transgendered people for example and what they have to deal with. While their experiences are arguably drastically different, we could hypothesise that who you identify as, what your sex is, has dramatic effects on your life, and that includes also how your employer chooses to pay you. This sense that you should be who you were born enforces unhealthy stereotypes as well as arguably sexist notions of who you are just because you were born female or male. These same beliefs are ones which helped build what we call and know to be a 'patriarchal society'. You've probably heard what has been said by so many feminists and yet dismissed as a whole because they were "self-justifying" and weren't even "lived by those who preach it" -- the lines "feminists are fighting for equality not just women rights".
Feminism started as a rebellion against what was standard -- what they wore, who they should be, how they should act -- it was a rebellion not because they thought society owed them something, but they were fighting for what we now consider to be a basic human right: the right to self-expression in what was -- when the first suffrage movement came about -- a time of huge bourgeois restraint. I think feminism does branch out to voicing in a broad sense, the minorities' experiences in terms of what it bred during the 20th Century: the civil rights movement, LGBTI+ communities, and to some extent multi-culturalism. In 20th Century literature for example, you get authors voicing from different backgrounds emerging, queers, immigrants and many more women writers who were deeply involved with the suffrage movement: all of which had one goal which was to express something completely different to what has been established in the canon: what was the past, what was heavily focussed on male-dominated experiences. So in the sense that I've laid out, while their ( the feminists') priorities seem to lie in the direction of women and their rights, it's also about re-examining other more minute details that impact how any one individual may be affected, whether it be the colour of their skin, what they wear, what religion they worship, and their gender (which is the big issue of why I'm writing this). The reason behind it was to change and revolutionise what could have been better for those left in the dark, not to antagonise authorities smugly, but to challenge them and create a better place from when they first found it.
I hope that gives you some insight.
-
I can't help but notice how you downplay the significance of it. Call me sensitive, but of course it matters. To many people it does mean something. Sure, it's not a fiesta; sure it may seem menial to some. But just because it doesn't involve you doesn't mean it shouldn't matter. It's a symbol for moving forward. It may be brief but it's significance has value, just as much as the function of a street light has a purpose.
Key word: most
I also do agree with you saying that it may be significant to some, but I was referring to the population collectively. Not every female is a feminist, and not every male is an oppressor. There are people who believe they are superior in their relationship, and then there are people who believe they are equal in their relationship.
The gender pay-gap is only used to highlight that there exists a prejudice, which I think you've summed up only to some extent by your interpretation of the statistics. However, there are also many other more qualitative evidence which supports that women are discriminated against in workplaces, at home etc -- and that these experiences are caused from cultures of what used to be male-dominated. I get where you're going with the meritocratic argument, but there are many more factors contributing to why it's important to think about these things, the female experience etc., so I don't think that it is accurate to say that it "doesn't exactly matter what gender you are" in the real world, when it is shown time and time again that it does affect how people view you: for a change in perspective, see transgendered people for example and what they have to deal with. While their experiences are arguably drastically different, we could hypothesise that who you identify as, what your sex is, has dramatic effects on your life, and that includes also how your employer chooses to pay you. Just something to think about.
Again, I do agree with you but only to a certain extent. When I asserted "it doesn't matter what gender you are", I was referring to those highly-paid jobs. In such areas, both men and women are a lot more educated, and know how to respect each other. I am also not saying that every man respects every other woman or vice versa, but that a better sense of equality is established in such areas.
You also can't just say women are the only ones victim to such discrimination, there are other men who are living in such ways as well.
I am not that good at debating, so please do correct me if I am wrong :P (I am also not targeting anyone, I am just sharing my opinion, and my opinion may be different to a lot of people here).
-
Is the only reason that people want female traffic lights because they're offended or feel women are being victimised or discriminated against somehow? Yes. See how their reasoning is all based on feelings and emotions?
This was not a feminist NGO that lobbied for the change - no one felt like a victim. Trust that these sensitive women who can't see facts because their emotions are in the way, aren't actually lobbying for the traffic lights. They're lobbying for anti-FGM, marriage equality, equal opportunities, etc (hint: based on facts). Do they oppose the lights? Likely not. But I've heard lots of my feminist companions say that they'd rather the money be spent else where, although they are keen on the conversation about gender bias. It is the Committee of Melbourne attempting to make a quirky little change to the city that doubles as a prompt to challenge gender bias. I'm in many feminist circles who are really vocal about a lot of things - and no one has once cried to be a victim of a traffic light. I think you are assuming there is a group of people who wanted this changed for personal reasons, when really, the main lobby group wanted the change for the non-emotional, non-personal, non-feeling-based, purpose of making a quirky small change to add to the inclusive "vibe" of Melbourne.
-
Key word: most
Again, I do agree with you but only to a certain extent. When I asserted "it doesn't matter what gender you are", I was referring to those highly-paid jobs. In such areas, both men and women are a lot more educated, and know how to respect each other. I am also not saying that every man respects every other woman or vice versa, but that a better sense of equality is established in such areas.
You also can't just say women are the only ones victim to such discrimination, there are other men who are living in such ways as well.
I am not that good at debating, so please do correct me if I am wrong :P (I am also not targeting anyone, I am just sharing my opinion, and my opinion may be different to a lot of people here).
No, you're not offending anyone (at least not me)! It's good to talk about these things, because politics is rarely discussed. It's good that you're contributing to a topic that is often misrepresented. I'm not a good debater, in fact I shy away when given the opportunity because I'm just not naturally good at it. But this is a space where we can comfortably exchange some of our beliefs, and it just so happens that I feel quite strongly about topics such as this! :)
I'm being a bit idealistic with the way I said that: the way that you said "most people" seemed to me like you were suggesting that since no one cares about it, why bother? - kind of argument. So I thought at the time that I should comment on that. I understand now that what you meant to say was that some people find it meaningful and some people don't, which I agree as with many things really haha.
I didn't say that only women are victims to these discriminations. As I've highlighted with transgendered people, it's something that affects a spectrum of people, so that includes men also - as men can be minorities as well. But that shouldn't mean we should ignore the problem with discrimination against women, and the minority-like status they hold in society. You can read above from what I've added to my post, on what feminism in my opinion, really stands for.
Also, just because men and women are more educated in the higher-end job positions, doesn't necessarily equate to there being a stronger sense of equality. In fact, i would argue that the demands of such a high-position job would encourage sexist behaviours against female coworkers. For example at ANU, they reported that med-students/junior doctors across Australia experience an overwhelming amount of bullying, harassment and humiliation in their time at hospitals. This is also especially true for many academia institutions. (I have like four aunties who were in the field of academia who left research because of the amount of bullying they had experienced from their male colleagues). Just because someone by society's standards are intelligent doesn't necessarily equate them to empathetic beings.
To personally engage in this I have a story, which might interest you:
I knew a woman who was highly established in her career and very career-driven (her CV was impressive af; helped fund medical programs, was a distinguished and prized member of the board of UoM, VCA and NGV, was on multiple boards of cancer research institutions including peter mac). When asked about her retirement, she said something along the lines that working was the hardest and that she was relieved by the change in pace of her life in retirement. She commented on the excessive amount of bullying she had to experience and at times fell into depression because she felt inadequate and isolated -- many of the people she met didn't want her friendship because she was too high-strung for a woman, too "manly". She commented that it was hard mostly because of the amount of pressure she had put on herself as being a woman in the business-commerce sector, to the point where it was exhaustive.
Though this experience in particular was one that spanned many decades and different 'times', she also said that the changes in today's society have been for the better, but it is something that needs to still be addressed. History is never quite over, even when you think it's been decades past its expiration. You see it in Trump's America: there's an article of it here for you if you want to read about it, which takes on a more historical-based analysis of victim politics, and how beliefs that were once dominant, do have their resonance and can bubble back up the surface when we're not careful. So it's still a duty from the past that we be aware of feminism and support it for what it stands for. Not what we think it's become ie. man-hating and victim-playing institutions to be bluntly put. There has been a lot of progress for the better, no doubt. But it doesn't mean we should stop there, because there is still cause for the belief to be heard and discussed about. I am quite critical about the way in which some feminists go about propagating feminism, but in hindsight, it doesn't detract the intrinsic value behind such an idea, because the idea if closely examined has merits that concern more than one individual's experience.
https://granta.com/victim-politics/
-
Just thought I'd weigh in on the conversation bc I can't sleep so here goes!!
In my opinion, the only thing that is slightly upsetting about the traffic lights is that I'm worried that it might trivialise some other feminism movements, because it's appearing as unimportant and stupid to a lot of people (e.g. that video that was posted a few posts back). I've just seen a lot of claims since the news was released that this was "just another case of feminists acting victimised" or people arguing the pointlessness of modern day feminism, and that's upsetting because there ARE serious issues that need to be taken seriously. But personally, it doesn't truly affect me, and it definitely isn't harming anyone, so why not?
Also in regards to underrepresentation in some courses and jobs, I think it's definitely related to the subliminal messages we're sent as kids, specifically pertaining to gender roles, which ultimately influence us to take certain pathways in life. Growing up, though I may not have been told exactly, "Girl's shouldn't like science", there's a certain social pressure for girls to like certain things, and for boys to like different things (i.e. makeup as opposed to cars). That's obviously very stereotypical, but I feel like it's these social pressures (what we see other girls doing, what magazines/media/movies tell us we should be doing, sometimes what other women in our lives tell us to do) are what ultimately encourage more females to lean towards jobs like nursing, and males to lean towards more STEM jobs. THAT is why representation is important (which is why the traffic lights could honestly be considered a step in the right direction) and THAT is why the celebration of people like Marie Curie and the accomplishments of other progressive and empowering women on IWD is beneficial. I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate the achievements of men like Edison, but they should be celebrated equally and, honestly, I learnt about Edison and Einstein when I was in primary school, but I had to look up who Rosa Parks was a few years ago, which isn't fair because they're just as important as each other)
Not to mention that feminism movements actually aim to benefit men as well - absolute gender equality would mean the abolishment of gender stereotypes and gender roles, which means there probably WOULD be more males encouraged to go into nursing, and males expressing sensitivity wouldn't be bullied for doing so, and domestic abuse against males wouldn't be such a taboo thing to talk about! (@Emma Watson's HeForShe campaign!!!)
Anyway, I absolutely agree that the traffic light situation is definitely stimulating a lot of necessary conversations, so it's a positive in that regard! :) :)
-
Just thought I'd weigh in on the conversation bc I can't sleep so here goes!!
In my opinion, the only thing that is slightly upsetting about the traffic lights is that I'm worried that it might trivialise some other feminism movements, because it's appearing as unimportant and stupid to a lot of people (e.g. that video that was posted a few posts back). I've just seen a lot of claims since the news was released that this was "just another case of feminists acting victimised" or people arguing the pointlessness of modern day feminism, and that's upsetting because there ARE serious issues that need to be taken seriously. But personally, it doesn't truly affect me, and it definitely isn't harming anyone, so why not?
Thanks for sharing Steph! Welcome to the non-HSC of the forums :) I agree, it is my main concern here that people are attributing this to the work of feminists in a way that trivialises the enormity of other issues they fight for. It's not like feminists had a choice "do we get traffic lights or do we eradicate FGM? Mmm, let's go for the traffic lights because we're victims." It's not that at all...
I think we are on the same wave length!
-
Just thought I'd weigh in on the conversation bc I can't sleep so here goes!!
In my opinion, the only thing that is slightly upsetting about the traffic lights is that I'm worried that it might trivialise some other feminism movements, because it's appearing as unimportant and stupid to a lot of people (e.g. that video that was posted a few posts back). I've just seen a lot of claims since the news was released that this was "just another case of feminists acting victimised" or people arguing the pointlessness of modern day feminism, and that's upsetting because there ARE serious issues that need to be taken seriously. But personally, it doesn't truly affect me, and it definitely isn't harming anyone, so why not?
Interesting you should point that out. I'm saddened by the effect it has had too on my fb feed and wonder whether it really was a good idea to do it in the first place. But I believe like you that it was something positive, and if it were to elicit negative reactions from people, it's bound to occur anyway. Which means we have a problem that will not stop unless we can ALL communicate in a more agreeable way.
I'm a guy, and I know a bunch of guys who like meninist memes and believe that the cause of feminism is nonsense and they refuse to acknowledge that there is anything logical about identifying as a feminist. And to me, there's nothing more saddening seeing how polarised we are becoming when it comes to trying to attempt to even communicate (not even persuade) to a person of a different opinion other than our own. I have many friends who cannot stand religious people because of their stance against gay marriage, immediately dismissing them as infringing on the rights of many (which makes me sad also; the dismissal that is); I have many friends who I've said above, like these very damaging posts and not even realise what subtler message it carries. It's happening in America, and it's happening here, where no one can empathise with the other, because of the strong emotional attachment people make with these issues. I agree they are very sensitive because it deals with people's experiences, but it's coming to the point where ideas like feminism are perpetuated in magazines whose only readership seem to be those whose beliefs already align with the editor or the ethos of the magazine. What we need is communication, a bridge where we can perhaps have the potential to understand these important issues, and make a deliberately rational and empathetic decision to always be open and discuss it as frequently as possible.
I don't think issues or ideas should label you; but rather, they are utilities, tools for us to use to help us become more empathetic as a society.
-
Again, I do agree with you but only to a certain extent. When I asserted "it doesn't matter what gender you are", I was referring to those highly-paid jobs. In such areas, both men and women are a lot more educated, and know how to respect each other. I am also not saying that every man respects every other woman or vice versa, but that a better sense of equality is established in such areas.
As for the pay gap (or whatever it is called), you must recall that those are the average wages, and several factors do affect a person's wage (from experience to all the way to other qualities of the person). I do agree that males may have been considered superior in the past, which is why there might be more experienced males in professional fields, but you also have to consider that females are relatively new to those fields (on average). There are several females out there getting the highest pay cheque... why? because of their experience. On average there might be more experienced males in a field compared to females, which is why such a pay gap exists today. You should also notice that as more females are becoming experienced in a certain field, their average wage is also increasing, and catching up. I don't know why people would even compare that wages of a female and a male, because I think a person's gender would have no effect on their wage (in any highly qualified jobs). TBH these days, it doesn't exactly matter what gender you are in any professional field, it your qualities and your experience that matters.
Hey, I'm really interested in this part. You are saying that the wage gap doesn't really matter in highly-paid jobs, right? Where are the statistics?
(I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, just interested in knowing how you concluded this.) :)
-
I'm just gonna weigh in here and possibly gonna digress later on.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes. Whilst I'm all for equality, I think it's important to recognize that there are some radical 'feminists'. In saying that, I feel like this situation is one of them. While I've always thought of the sign as a person, I've never actually cared too much to distinguish male or female. There are countless signs that may picture a man or a woman specifically, but in any case, they are merely just representing people, and no one takes actual notice of it when they are crossing. Its just something that is there. I feel that the proposal of such an idea is a bit extreme, as it is not meant to symbolise anything in particular, yet people are taking it to mean something. If we were to change these things, there would be many different and unnecessary changes that need to be made. While equality is essential, I feel that focusing on too trivial aspects of a larger picture is useless.
In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.
I'm just presenting an idea here. While I'm all for the idea of equality, I am against the radical views proposed by some. Hope I didn't repeat someone else's argument because I haven't like read much :s
-
I suspect the only point of the actual act of changing these traffic lights was to create discussion, rather than in and of itself to fight inequality. And it's worked.
-
I'm just gonna weigh in here and possibly gonna digress later on.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes. Whilst I'm all for equality, I think it's important to recognize that there are some radical 'feminists'. In saying that, I feel like this situation is one of them. While I've always thought of the sign as a person, I've never actually cared too much to distinguish male or female. There are countless signs that may picture a man or a woman specifically, but in any case, they are merely just representing people, and no one takes actual notice of it when they are crossing. Its just something that is there. I feel that the proposal of such an idea is a bit extreme, as it is not meant to symbolise anything in particular, yet people are taking it to mean something. If we were to change these things, there would be many different and unnecessary changes that need to be made. While equality is essential, I feel that focusing on too trivial aspects of a larger picture is useless.
In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.
I'm just presenting an idea here. While I'm all for the idea of equality, I am against the radical views proposed by some. Hope I didn't repeat someone else's argument because I haven't like read much :s
Just to preface this: don't be afraid of voicing out an opinion! I wasn't even completely sure of my opinion before I started typing it out. It helps with consolidating I guess and weighing which makes sense and which doesn't. But yeah -- it's great that you could be involved in this discussion! Truly, and I mean it with as much sincerity I could possibly muster :)
I'm a bit conservative when I define feminism; I define it along the lines of how it was formed and what it meant during the time when it arose. And because of this, I don't believe -- in the truest sense of my belief -- that the more radical feminists do any justice to my belief of it as the next person who claims that it's illogical to be "feminist if you believe in equal rights". Just as you hear about islamists saying they don't believe in what ISIS does, it's quite complex, as the idea has converged and created almost opposing sides of what feminism entails.
I understand that ideas as time goes by changes; some get picked up and some become 'old-fashioned'. And I think that's really up to the individual whether they want to value it or renounce it. We had slavery, and it's probably a good estimate that a majority (hopefully) don't agree with slavery in Australia today, for example.
But when I hear people say that feminism is just hypocrisy, to me, it denies a sense of history, the struggle that was expended so that we could enjoy the freedoms we have today. I guess if it were up to me, I'd say it is important, because it draws a focus on where we are today in comparison to the past when women as well as minorities were oppressed. It starts a conversation, a deep point to think about: and I think that is a most important feature of what I consider an idea worth investing in. If I were to say that I consider myself egalitarian but certainly not a feminist, to me, it seems contradictory, it seems self-justifying and it doesn't encompass as much a variety of ways of thinking into issues of inequality, as when I say I'm a feminist.
They're all very small nuances. But, as with all ideas, it's really up to you to decide what you believe in, and how you believe it, not a radical 'feminist' out in the street calling you a lunatic. Everyone has a different set of beliefs and ideas of how one belief fits into it. So of course you wouldn't have one idea with only one perspective of it.
Hope this clears something for you.
-
I'm just gonna weigh in here and possibly gonna digress later on.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes. Whilst I'm all for equality, I think it's important to recognize that there are some radical 'feminists'. In saying that, I feel like this situation is one of them. While I've always thought of the sign as a person, I've never actually cared too much to distinguish male or female. There are countless signs that may picture a man or a woman specifically, but in any case, they are merely just representing people, and no one takes actual notice of it when they are crossing. Its just something that is there. I feel that the proposal of such an idea is a bit extreme, as it is not meant to symbolise anything in particular, yet people are taking it to mean something. If we were to change these things, there would be many different and unnecessary changes that need to be made. While equality is essential, I feel that focusing on too trivial aspects of a larger picture is useless.
In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.
I'm just presenting an idea here. While I'm all for the idea of equality, I am against the radical views proposed by some. Hope I didn't repeat someone else's argument because I haven't like read much :s
Aus open 2017 prize money was equal for mens and women.(pretty sure this is the case for all grand slams and maybe all ATP events). Yes, this is the case despite men playing best of 5 and women best of 3. Not even taking into account which gender generates more revenue.
-
In talking about the wage gap (Syndicates topic), I think it also depends on the job-- i.e. they should be paid fairly on their performance. A few years ago, there was that proposal for equal pay for male and female sports stars. If we consider this in tennis, females play 3 set matches, males play 5 sets in the Australian Open. And males receive a larger sum of money than females. In stark contrast, in the modelling industry, female models earn way more than males. The point I'm trying to make here is that, money should be proportional on performance, and in business, the amount of revenue you generate is indicative of performance. If a female encourages more viewership than males, then they should be paid more. If a male does, they should be paid more. If both are equal, they should be paid equally. But, it does not seem fair to say that someone should achieve the same just because we are all equals.
I think we need to question, though, why male sports stars generally generate more revenue - because you're right, they do. But our female soccer team does relatively better than our male sports team, in that they rank higher than their male counterparts right now (the Matildas are currently ranked 6th in the FIFA World Rankings, the Socceroos are ranked 55th), and they made it to the Rio Olympics, however they don't appear to generate nearly as much media attention or commercial coverage. Is it a question of what people want to see? Do people prefer to watch males play sports? I don't necessarily think so, I would absolutely watch women's sports more if I was given access to it, but it's definitely not advertised or made available as much as male sporting events are (then again, maybe I'm watching the wrong TV).
(here's the comparison of earnings of the socceroos and the matildas though :))
That said, they've recently been advertising Women's AFL, and I'm pretty sure the ratings and attendance-rates have been pretty good since they started that late last year?
-
That said, they've recently been advertising Women's AFL, and I'm pretty sure the ratings and attendance-rates have been pretty good since they started that late last year?
It exceeded all expectations from what I've heard ;D I think it is great evidence of the fact that, if given the same amount of promotion and marketing as the male equivalent, then there is no reason the viewership will be significantly different. It's just about star power. Ronda Rousey did fantastic things for UFC as a sport, she and McGregor were arguably some of the biggest stars of the sport ever (in terms of who became household names). Serena Williams is a huge draw for Tennis. It's just about investing the money in marketing/promoting the sports to the same level I think :)
-
Hey, I'm really interested in this part. You are saying that the wage gap doesn't really matter in highly-paid jobs, right? Where are the statistics?
(I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, just interested in knowing how you concluded this.) :)
It was more sort of what I believed (couldn't find any evidence to this). I am not saying that I am definitely correct in any way. It's just that I think that one's wage is related to one's performance/ talent, not what they look like (in highly-paid jobs). Which why I think that such thinking is slowly narrowing down such a wage gap that exists today. Again, I have no statistics, but I do think our history is an evidence to this, as females were paid so less compared to males, in let's say 1800's compared to 2017.
Also to any of those who thinks I am against such female traffic lights, I just want to say I am not. I am happy for the fact that people are slowly understanding the importance of gender equality in 21st century, as it definitely goes against my own personal morals to treat anyone (from a different gender, race etc...) with injustice. I am not an activist or something, but I do support it though.
-
I suspect the only point of the actual act of changing these traffic lights was to create discussion, rather than in and of itself to fight inequality. And it's worked.
Definitely. 100% agree.
Aus open 2017 prize money was equal for mens and women.(pretty sure this is the case for all grand slams and maybe all ATP events). Yes, this is the case despite men playing best of 5 and women best of 3. Not even taking into account which gender generates more revenue.
Yeah no idea about this year's but I recall that this was a contentious problem a few years back.
I think we need to question, though, why male sports stars generally generate more revenue - because you're right, they do. But our female soccer team does relatively better than our male sports team, in that they rank higher than their male counterparts right now (the Matildas are currently ranked 6th in the FIFA World Rankings, the Socceroos are ranked 55th), and they made it to the Rio Olympics, however they don't appear to generate nearly as much media attention or commercial coverage. Is it a question of what people want to see? Do people prefer to watch males play sports? I don't necessarily think so, I would absolutely watch women's sports more if I was given access to it, but it's definitely not advertised or made available as much as male sporting events are (then again, maybe I'm watching the wrong TV).
(here's the comparison of earnings of the socceroos and the matildas though :))
That said, they've recently been advertising Women's AFL, and I'm pretty sure the ratings and attendance-rates have been pretty good since they started that late last year?
Yeah I get what you mean, but I feel like there are some things that we can't fix, and I'm pretty sure this would boil down to interest in sport from an early age. Males in male-dominated sports are introduced early and so they play for years -- they have more interest, they improve and they have a higher standard. That's what makes the competition so high. For example: In cricket there are multiple levels, from club, to district, state and national, with huge competition for each. While in females, there isn't as much competition and this seems to be basically because fewer females have an interest from a younger age. It's the competition that makes them better. The more competition, the better the skills, the more people want to view it. For females there would be netball or maybe tennis where the competition is so fierce that it gets people to watch it.
At the moment, in a way, there are men's sports and women's sports. But with changes to encourage the younger generations to also participate in sport from a younger age, this could see better competition for the women in "men's" sports (or vice versa) and this is what will ultimately lead to change. For example: the wBBL and wAFL will likely encourage girls to play cricket and footy respectively, and this will eventually lead to better competition, more revenue, and a smaller wage gap.
Apologies for starting this conversation about sport and totally straying from the topic, but I think it's necessary to address the idea of equality.
-
Yeah I get what you mean, but I feel like there are some things that we can't fix, and I'm pretty sure this would boil down to interest in sport from an early age. Males in male-dominated sports are introduced early and so they play for years -- they have more interest, they improve and they have a higher standard. That's what makes the competition so high. For example: In cricket there are multiple levels, from club, to district, state and national, with huge competition for each. While in females, there isn't as much competition and this seems to be basically because fewer females have an interest from a younger age. It's the competition that makes them better. The more competition, the better the skills, the more people want to view it. For females there would be netball or maybe tennis where the competition is so fierce that it gets people to watch it.
At the moment, in a way, there are men's sports and women's sports. But with changes to encourage the younger generations to also participate in sport from a younger age, this could see better competition for the women in "men's" sports (or vice versa) and this is what will ultimately lead to change. For example: the wBBL and wAFL will likely encourage girls to play cricket and footy respectively, and this will eventually lead to better competition, more revenue, and a smaller wage gap.
I completely agree - representation is important in encouraging young people to participate in sports, for both males and females. Girls are less likely to get into sports like rugby and cricket because they don't see many women in the sport (let's not even get started on the idea that girls will get muscly and therefore less "aesthetically pleasing" if they participate in sports like rugby), but I don't think that's for a lack of competition or women in the sport, I think it's for a lack of coverage of the sport, because stations don't believe people want to see it (because maybe people don't) so it's really a bit of a catch-22. No representation -> less interest in the women's league -> less coverage of women's league -> no representation.
But we do actually have a really good women's cricket team, who again, are doing relatively better than their male counterparts at the moment (I think the Southern Stars were actually ranked 1st in the world in 2015 or 2016), and the same goes for our women's rugby sevens team, who just won in the Rio Olympics. It's not necessarily a less skilled game (I honestly think that you can't compare the two - it's a different style of game), but there is definitely less representation, which as you said, generates less interest in the sport.
I agree though, I think it's something that needs to be addressed from the bottom, by encouraging female involvement in male-dominated sports (and vice versa), and as Jamon said I think that's all about equal marketing/promotion.
-
I'm just going to give my opinion on this matter. I feel like changing the traffic lights won't really do anything to change the matter. Also, on the topic of feminism, although I can see where feminists are coming from, I think that some feminists are aproaching equality from the wrong way. The goal of feminism is equality for both genders, but by focusing on females, feminism is ignoring the problems of men, which do exist. For example, men serve a higher jail time for the same crime and there are few men in the childcare industry. Of course women also have problems such as a lack of women in the sciences and the higher domestic violence rate of women (believe it or not men also get subject to domestic violence, but to a lesser extent). However, I feel like currently feminism is ignoring the problems of men and focusing just on women's rights.
Regarding the gender gap problem, I think this is caused by the nature of gender roles in society. If I were an employer and in a theoretical example I had a male and a female competing for the same job with the exact same qualifications, I would choose the male. But, this doesn't mean that I'm sexist. I would do this because females are much more likely to take maternity leave and are likely to work less hours, because women generally care for the children. This would be an inconvenience to companies as they lose some of their workforce. Also, because of this, women are more likely to have worked for less time and have less experience than their male counterparts because they spend more time looking after children. So whilst the men further their careers and get pay rises, women are stuck looking after their children and halting their career for their family. I know that this is unfair, but in a capitalistic society where money is important, this is what I'd do to earn more money. So, basically since women are more likely to look after children, because of the societal stereotypes placed on women, they end up getting a lower wage on average. This is unfair and should be changed, but it's just what happens when society is based around money.
Overall, I think that gender equality is a good cause, but I think that feminism is really ignoring the problems of men and focussing on trivial issues such as traffic lights. I think in order to achieve gender equality we need to remove all gender roles in society, which might be impossible. Honestly, although I think gender equality is a good cause, I think that all this money and effort spent on feminism in 1st world countries would be better spent on causes such as improving the living conditions in developing countries, which are places where women usually are abused and are in dire need of assistance.
-
Regarding the gender gap problem, I think this is caused by the nature of gender roles in society. If I were an employer and in a theoretical example I had a male and a female competing for the same job with the exact same qualifications, I would choose the male. But, this doesn't mean that I'm sexist. I would do this because females are much more likely to take maternity leave and are likely to work less hours, because women generally care for the children. This would be an inconvenience to companies as they lose some of their workforce. Also, because of this, women are more likely to have worked for less time and have less experience than their male counterparts because they spend more time looking after children. So whilst the men further their careers and get pay rises, women are stuck looking after their children and halting their career for their family. I know that this is unfair, but in a capitalistic society where money is important, this is what I'd do to earn more money. So, basically since women are more likely to look after children, because of the societal stereotypes placed on women, they end up getting a lower wage on average. This is unfair and should be changed, but it's just what happens when society is based around money.
You could say that this in itself is sexist (even though you don't mean to be) because you're inferring so much based off a person's gender. It could be that they don't plan to have children (though good luck asking this question in an interview without opening yourself up to discrimination claims). It could be that their partners take care of the children. There are also arguments that providing flexible work arrangements to women counteracts much of these 'inconveniences' - there are many capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours. And so on and so forth.
-
You could say that this in itself is sexist (even though you don't mean to be) because you're inferring so much based off a person's gender. It could be that they don't plan to have children (though good luck asking this question in an interview without opening yourself up to discrimination claims). It could be that their partners take care of the children. There are also arguments that providing flexible work arrangements to women counteracts much of these 'inconveniences' - there are many capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours. And so on and so forth.
I was going to say that this is really unfair on women that don't look after their children, but I decided to leave it out. But like you said employers can't ask these questions, so employers have to assume that female employees will take maternity leave or have to look after their children, since statistics say that females are much more likely than males to do this. Also, in my scenario, I was assuming that the woman and man were just as productive, so there would be an equal playing ground. I'd say that most employers would hire "capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours". I think that although flexible arrangements may make women more likely to be employed, it would also mean that they would receive lower wages, as they'd be working less. Also, from my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) women on maternity leave generally don't work at all during this time because they have to devote their time to looking after their children, so this would definitely be an inconvenience, which would limit their experience and ultimately their pay and job opportunities. Additionally, my post was just about what I think I would do as an employer to get the maximum profit, not what I think is morally correct.
-
It was more sort of what I believed (couldn't find any evidence to this). I am not saying that I am definitely correct in any way. It's just that I think that one's wage is related to one's performance/ talent, not what they look like (in highly-paid jobs). Which why I think that such thinking is slowly narrowing down such a wage gap that exists today. Again, I have no statistics, but I do think our history is an evidence to this, as females were paid so less compared to males, in let's say 1800's compared to 2017.
This article here supports your argument to an extent:
However, women earned on average around $4.1m a year in chief executive roles, while men earned around $2.5m. This could be explained however, by the number of women CEOs in the banking and finance industries, which historically outperforms other industries in terms of salary.
But the same article suggests that "a new survey of Australia's top 200 companies by Qlik shows that 95 percent of CEOs are men", and that men on average "reach the position about 10 years faster than women".
So I guess you could argue that assuming all other things are equal, there's little difference in pay for, for example, female and male CEOs. But at the end of the day, it's very clear that there is not equality.
Some other statistics:
- Full-time average weekly earnings are 16.2% less for women than men (Source)
- Full-time average hourly earnings are 13.9% less for women than men (Source)
- The gender pay gap in ASX 200 organisations is 28.7% (Source)
- Average graduate salaries for women are 9.4% less than for men (Source)
- Women hold 14.2% of chair positions (Source)
- Women hold 15.4% of CEO positions (Source)
- Less than one third of Federal MPs are women (Source)
- Over a third of organisations have no senior female leaders at all (Source)
And yet:
A meta-analysis of 95 leadership studies found no significant overall difference in performance ratings between male and female leaders. In fact as business leaders, women fared slightly better, particularly in more recent studies. The research papers where men were rated as superior were also found to be based on self-ratings of performance.
There was a study in which Australians were asked to describe a typical Australian corporate CEO. The results?
(http://i.imgur.com/uXIrrGv.png)
If nothing else, statistics back me up (these from the Australian Government) in suggesting that more females than males work part-time. And an extremely large part of this is the social expectation of mothers caring for their children. For years, women have ultimately had to decide between career and family, particularly in fields such as politics and medicine. Even in the last few days, one of my favourite MPs (Kate Ellis) resigned for such reasons. And there are a million sources I could give you on this if you're interested. This one is pretty telling:
... in 2006, women employed full time spent 6 hours and 39 minutes per day taking care of children, compared with men employed full time who spent 3 hours and 43 minutes. The time men spent taking care of children remained unchanged since 1997, whereas for women it increased by 49 minutes.
I guess you could argue that the pay gap is minimal at the very top end, but I also think that's not a very telling argument to make in the first place.
Some more statistics on women in leadership positions from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013).
Glass ceiling still restraining women who make up only 17 per cent of CEOs
Fewer women run top Australian companies than men named John - or Peter, or David
-
I was going to say that this is really unfair on women that don't look after their children, but I decided to leave it out. But like you said employers can't ask these questions, so employers have to assume that female employees will take maternity leave or have to look after their children, since statistics say that females are much more likely than males to do this. Also, in my scenario, I was assuming that the woman and man were just as productive, so there would be an equal playing ground. I'd say that most employers would hire "capable women that can be as productive as men even when working shorter hours". I think that although flexible arrangements may make women more likely to be employed, it would also mean that they would receive lower wages, as they'd be working less. Also, from my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) women on maternity leave generally don't work at all during this time because they have to devote their time to looking after their children, so this would definitely be an inconvenience, which would limit their experience and ultimately their pay and job opportunities. Additionally, my post was just about what I think I would do as an employer to get the maximum profit, not what I think is morally correct.
Interesting. Because at my brother's workplace, they're actually implementing a thing which negates what you say about maternal leave being a problem behind how an employer should choose to select their employees. It's called a "paternal leave", which allows men who have family to take time off to tend to their family life. I really hope this would be a thing behind all workplaces, because it's already making its way through with the bigger companies. The philosophy behind is to provide employees with a level of flexibility for men, just as how women have maternal leave. So yeah, very interesting that you should point that out.
That said, if this becomes something as common as how we have maternal leave -- that sort of way of thinking will have less than 'legitimate' ground than what it appears in the way you put it.
-
There has been a lot of research done examining the contribution of social factors, such as motherhood, to the pay gap and when you (attempt to) account for them, there's still a difference. Smart people have wondered about this before - literally the first result for "wage gap adjusted social factors" on google scholar says
The persistence of an unexplained gender wage gap suggests, though it does not prove, that labor market discrimination continues to contribute to the gender wage gap, just as the decrease in the unexplained gap we found in our analysis of the trends over time in the gender gap suggests, though it does not prove, that decreases in discrimination help to explain the decrease in the gap. We cited some recent research based on experimental evidence that strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted as contributing to the persistent gender wage gap.
However, I feel like currently feminism is ignoring the problems of men and focusing just on women's rights.
I think that the main reason why feminist causes focus on the areas in which women's rights are lacking is that there are simply more systematic discriminatory practices that disadvantage women!
One of them is attitudes, which is why the traffic lights act as a stimulus to provoke discussion. It's also interesting to reflect on why it's necessary to redirect a discussion about feminism to the problems men face.
-
Interesting. Because at my sister's workplace, they're actually implementing a thing which negates what you say about maternal leave being a problem behind how an employer should choose to select their employees. It's called a "paternal leave", which allows men who have family to take time off to tend to their family life. I really hope this would be a thing behind all workplaces, because it's already making its way through with the bigger companies. The philosophy behind is to provide employees with a level of flexibility for men, just as how women have maternal leave. So yeah, very interesting that you should point that out.
That said, if this becomes something as common as how we have maternal leave -- that sort of way of thinking will have less than 'legitimate' ground than what it appears in the way you put it.
Yea, basically if men end up looking after children as much as women, there would be no reason for the gender gap to exist, because it would mean that on average both genders would have the same amount of experience and working hours.
There has been a lot of research done examining the contribution of social factors, such as motherhood, to the pay gap and when you (attempt to) account for them, there's still a difference. Smart people have wondered about this before - literally the first result for "wage gap adjusted social factors" on google scholar says
I think that the main reason why feminist causes focus on the areas in which women's rights are lacking is that there are simply more systematic discriminatory practices that disadvantage women!
One of them is attitudes, which is why the traffic lights act as a stimulus to provoke discussion. It's also interesting to reflect on why it's necessary to redirect a discussion about feminism to the problems men face.
It's interesting that your link suggests that an unexplained gender gap still exists, even when taking into account the factors I mentioned. Honestly, I find it illogical that an employer would discriminate between males and females, as it doesn't really benefit them financially. Maybe employers are overcompensating for the inconveniences I pointed out in my prior post. But I honestly don't think that employers are actively trying to discriminate against women, as it wouldn't benefit them. Also, the reason why I started talking about the problems men face is because I feel like feminism and society in general are ignoring the problems of men. I feel like the problems women face are slightly more important than those men face, but men also have urgent problems such as having an increased punishment for committing the same crimes as women, which is arguably as important as the wage gap problem. I feel like feminism just zooms in on the problems of women and makes it so that the men are ignored. I feel like it's necessary to mention the problems of men because they aren't publicised as much and the feminist movement right now just portrays women as victims and the idea of men as victims is rare. For example, until last year I was completely unaware that men are also subject to domestic violence.
-
Yea, basically if men end up looking after children as much as women, there would be no reason for the gender gap to exist, because it would mean that on average both genders would have the same amount of experience and working hours.
It's interesting that your link suggests that an unexplained gender gap still exists, even when taking into account the factors I mentioned. Honestly, I find it illogical that an employer would discriminate between males and females, as it doesn't really benefit them financially. Maybe employers are overcompensating for the inconveniences I pointed out in my prior post. But I honestly don't think that employers are actively trying to discriminate against women, as it wouldn't benefit them. Also, the reason why I started talking about the problems men face is because I feel like feminism and society in general are ignoring the problems of men. I feel like the problems women face are slightly more important than those men face, but men also have urgent problems such as having an increased punishment for committing the same crimes as women, which is arguably as important as the wage gap problem. I feel like feminism just zooms in on the problems of women and makes it so that the men are ignored. I feel like it's necessary to mention the problems of men because they aren't publicised as much and the feminist movement right now just portrays women as victims and the idea of men as victims is rare. For example, until last year I was completely unaware that men are also subject to domestic violence.
So much of the cycle of men hiring men isn't a conscious decision to leave women out. Unconscious bias exists in promotional and hiring practices. Although, I have no doubt there are many situations where men actively decide to not hire women purely because they are a woman - and often it has nothing to do with the business but just the personal prejudice of the person hiring/promoting/demoting.
Regarding the gender gap problem, I think this is caused by the nature of gender roles in society. If I were an employer and in a theoretical example I had a male and a female competing for the same job with the exact same qualifications, I would choose the male. But, this doesn't mean that I'm sexist. I would do this because females are much more likely to take maternity leave and are likely to work less hours, because women generally care for the children. This would be an inconvenience to companies as they lose some of their workforce.
In this hypothetical situation you mightn't be sexist but you are discriminatory on the basis of gender. This isn't just a harmless "what's better for the business" it's a really toxic cycle for women to be caught in right from the early stages of their career - getting a leg up into an industry is impossible when your employer is looking at your potential fertility over everything else. Personally, this is a really frustrating idea for me that I could work incredibly hard to present a professional self and it'll be disregarded because I have a womb - that's why discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal.
Also, because of this, women are more likely to have worked for less time and have less experience than their male counterparts because they spend more time looking after children. So whilst the men further their careers and get pay rises, women are stuck looking after their children and halting their career for their family. I know that this is unfair, but in a capitalistic society where money is important, this is what I'd do to earn more money. So, basically since women are more likely to look after children, because of the societal stereotypes placed on women, they end up getting a lower wage on average. This is unfair and should be changed, but it's just what happens when society is based around money.
I agree...I follow Susan Carland around online a lot and see that she's done extensive research (possibly her phd on it?) about women doing unpaid work a lot more than men. Even in house holds where women and men do equal paid work hours, the woman is likely to do the most house work/garden work/child caring in the overwhelming majority of situations. This is to be challenged. I know my sister resents feminism because she hates the idea that she feels pressured to work in her job and care for her children while her husband only works and doesn't feel the same pressure to do the child-caring. I tell her all the time that the aim of feminism isn't at all to exhaust her, but feminism is actively challenging who does the child caring - the idea of challenging the roles is actually trying to help her. And with time, you can't doubt that we are progressing! 50 years ago you'd hardly see men doing to public-dad thing, changing nappies, making the lunches, etc. But that's all changing with time and it's seen far more positive for men to be able to engage in fathering in a way that's beyond providing financially for the family, which is great for men, women, and children alike!